Guys, I'm not saying there doesn't need to be a standard for this (but that's political) but in lieu of a direct reference to a specific gauge metal then "physical protection shall be provided" is what we have and that's open to interpretation. I don't recall George ever stating this but my suspicion is that the 18 gauge plates are in place, that he installed them so as to provide "physical protection" and would have been equally happy to provide 16 gauge plates had he known that that was what was wanted. I'd even go so far as to say that he'll happily use 16 gauge plates as a matter of course from now on and that the real issue is that without specific guidance he chose a method he, as a professional, deemed appropriate to the guidelines given: again, "physical protection shall be provided." I believe the issue to be that money (labor and materials) has already been spent and now more money will need to be spent due to faulty language and a difference of opinion. The AHJ has done his best and found a like situation and is hanging his argument there, but in both cases its a matter of opinion based on information outside the specific guideline. What if one drilled a 2" hole through the plate and dropped in that 1 1/2" metal sleeve that was suggested in an earlier post (a piece of Dyna-Flow would probably work) but the IPC reference talks only about 16 gauge plates? Is schedule 7 steel equal to 16 gauge flat steel. I don't know but I'll bet they'd both stop a sheetrock screw and I'd bet an 18 gauge plate would also. I think what's needed in this case, besides the definitive piece of code we don't have, is a bit of common sense and compromise on the part of the AHJ: "18 gauge on this project is OK but from now on I'd like to see 16 gauge and I'll try to get this codified locally. And George, since you seem to have some influence at the state and national level, don't you think it might be a good idea to propose that a standard be specified either directly in Chapter 9 of the IBC or, and better yet, NFPA 13R (and D also while we're at it)?"
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM, John Drucker <[email protected]> wrote: > Thom, > > You have the right idea. It's extremely important that codes and standards > be comprehensive. I'm sure we've all heard the saying "well we can't address > everything". I disagree with this statement, we most certainly can. To do > otherwise means that decisions will be made outside the consensus and or > public comment process. Apparently the nail plate issue as an oversight, > however we too require them despite the code not prescribing it. It's not > good enough to simply say "physical protection shall be provided", it needs > to be spelled out. Perhaps that is why we have so much trouble on the fire > side. > > In summary leaving things grey and or not at all merely leads to unexpected > results. > > Hope that helps > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official > New Jersey > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: nail plates > > I would reply as follows: > Since NFPA 13R requires the submission of protection on nonmetallic pipe, > and since 13R does not specify how when or where this is to be provided, > that the AHJ has to authority to require any level of protection he wants. > Be thankful its only per the IPC/IMC. > > Maybe all nonmetallic pipe should be installed in a metallic sleeve? > > I fell this is an area both NFPA 13/13R/13D need to address in conjunction > with the ICC and Lubrizol. > > Thom McMahon, SET > Firetech, Inc. > 2560 Copper Ridge Dr > P.O. Box 882136 > Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 > Tel: 970-879-7952 > Fax: 970-879-7926 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 11:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: nail plates > > Thom, > > All well and good but if you recall George's original post it wasn't with > protecting or not protecting the piping but that the AHJ had conjured a > specific method (16 gauge plates I believe) from an outside code not > referenced from IBC chapter 9, the chapter which specifically references > NFPA 13R (in this case) as the appropriate document and which doesn't > reference the documents the AHJ is hanging his hat on. > George's argument is that since NFPA 13R does not require a specific metal > gauge for protection at all (your references aside which still say nothing > regarding specific gauges of metal) that citing specific requirements from > non-referenced documents is inappropriate. Whether or not 13R is lacking in > this regard is irrelevant and shifts us over to that what ought or ought not > to be political stuff. > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Thom McMahon <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Relying solely on 13R may give you righteous reason for outrage at the >> official, but you may want to look carefully at 6.1.4.4 protection of >> risers, if it is risers he is asking you to protect. And also look at >> 6.2.7(17) submission requirements for "Protection of nonmetallic pipe". >> >> An just as a final aside, IBC/IMC/IPC/IEC all require additional >> protection of all system components when there is less than an 11/2" >> of wood from the face of the stud to the hole, pipe, wire or service. >> >> Thom McMahon, SET >> Firetech, Inc. >> 2560 Copper Ridge Dr >> P.O. Box 882136 >> Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 >> Tel: 970-879-7952 >> Fax: 970-879-7926 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: >> [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email >> to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > at home.... > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
