This sounds like a semi-literate engineer thinking that he was hired to do a plan review and he can't justify his fee if doesn't find something wrong. I'd justify my fee by going to the owner and saying, Mr. Owner, how clever you are to hire only excellent contractors. And even though I think you should continue to use this contractor in the future simple mistakes can be made and so third party revue is always prudent and the clever owner will continue to hire me to review future projects." All interests are served without resorting to trumping up charges to make one look better than the other. Perhaps this body should agree to be a third tier (after NFPA formal interpretations and AFSA (and the other unmentionable organization) informal interpretations, that presents consensus opinions based on the descriptions given so that maybe the weight of multiple professional opinions can be added to the argument. I recall an opinion penned by Roland in an informal interpretation that followed my reasoning exactly, that was later supported by other committee members in private conversations that was rejected by the AHJ as, and I quote, "Wrong!" How can this local, small town guy know the intent of the committee better than the committee?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Brad <[email protected]> wrote: > Put the head up in the 'ceiling jet', which is 12" deep for unobstructed > construction, and put the water on the floor (pattern unobstructed). > > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd - FPDC [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Beam obstruction rules > > I'm with you. Doesn't make sense. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:48 AM, "Cliff Whitfield" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> George & everyone, >> >> I guess I made this more complicated than it is. This guy basically >> thinks >> that even when you locate the head so that it is in compliance with >> the beam >> rule table and the beam does not block the discharge of the head, >> you still >> treat the beam as if it were a wall and you can't space the head on >> the >> other side of the beam more than 7'-6" off of the beam. Does this >> seem >> correct to you? >> >> In my opinion, once you meet the beam blocking rule, the beam does >> not exist >> in terms of head layout and spacing. Am I way off base here? >> >> Cliff >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> George Church >> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:44 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Beam obstruction rules >> >> Spot on- and why we have prescriptive codes to apply- you did- he >> nneds to >> understand you comply and that's it, absent clear and present danger, >> contractual obligations... >> >> glc >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed >> Kramer >> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 6:38 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Beam obstruction rules >> >> Let me guess: he doesn't have an issue with sprinkler spray >> obstruction, >> but has an issue with heat flow getting to the sprinkler. Assuming >> that's >> the case, he may (or may not) have a point - your beams are 15" deep >> and >> heat would more likely flow parallel to the beams rather than cross >> under >> the beam & fuse the sprinkler. To my knowledge, 13 doesn't address >> that. >> Unless someone wants to do some fire modeling, it's all opinion and >> theory. >> >> Ed Kramer >> Littleton, CO >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:sprinklerforum- >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Cliff Whitfield >>> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 4:02 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: Beam obstruction rules >>> >>> Todd, >>> >>> There are no lights or fans or ducts that would create an issue. The >>> deflector is 6" below the deck so I only have 9" to worry about. I'm >>> trying >>> to not say exactly what this guy has said so that I can get other >>> opinions >>> before I influence anyone's answer. >>> >>> If anyone else wants to throw in their two cents, that would be >>> great. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Cliff >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd >>> Williams >>> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:59 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Beam obstruction rules >>> >>> How far down is the deflector from the deck? Any lights/ceiling fans >>> that could be in the way? >>> >>> >>> At 04:39 PM 2/8/2010, you wrote: >>>> Forum, >>>> >>>> I have a question regarding beam obstruction rules for standard >>>> spray >>>> uprights. >>>> >>>> I have a light hazard project that has 15" deep beams. The first >>>> beam >>> is >>> 9' >>>> from the wall and the next beam is 17' away from beam #1. If I >>>> space >>> my >>>> first head 5' away from beam #1 so that it is not an obstruction >>>> (per >>> table >>>> 8.6.5.1.2-NFPA 13, 2007 ed), can my next head be 15' from head #1? >>> This is >>>> not supposed to be a trick question but I have a disagreement with >>>> an >>> FPE >>> on >>>> this. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your insight on this one. >>>> >>>> Cliff Whitfield, SET >>>> President >>>> Fire Design, Inc. >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> www.fire-design.com >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>> >>> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >>> >>> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >>> [email protected] >>> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >> [email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >> [email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >> [email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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 > [email protected] > http://fireball.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 Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
