Russell, the latter is correct, .3 over the area plus 15' border. the balance is .2. The size of the of the operating area is determined by the higher hazard. A.11.2.3.1.1 (02 handbook)
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Russell <[email protected]>wrote: > Please bear with me for not letting this topic go but I need to confirm > something. I cannot remember the last time I dealt with adjacent hazards > that were not separated by a partion. > NFPA 13 '10 A11.1.2 leads me to believe that if a .3 density hazard > requires 2500 s.f. then the remote area for that hazard would take in that > area and as much of the .2 density hazard area as necessary to fulfill the > 2500 s.f. (understanding that the .3 would not be required for the .2 area). > That doesn't seem just to me. If the .3 area plus the 15' border doesn't > cover enough area to attain 2500 s.f. then use only all the area it does > involve plus the border because the .2 occupany isn't the same fire threat. > Does that make any sense? > > Russell > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sent via the WebMail system at brownautomatic.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:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Tom Poisal, CET _______________________________________________ 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)
