Ken thats how I see it. But the remainder of your space is "sales" which is mercantile, ORD GP II - .2 density
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:24 PM, ParsleyConsulting < [email protected]> wrote: > Tom, > > I have a building which has a 260 sqft area which requires 0.5 gpm/sqft > over 2,500 sqft due to storage commodity and height. The unrated walls > separating the storage area from the sales area extend a foot above the > 11'-0" ceiling in the sales area, while the storage area is open to the > 16'-0" roof deck. Total suite area is only 1,300 ft2. > > Do I have to extend the 0.5 density to the entire rest of the space > above the ceiling which is adjacent and open to the storage room? Or do > I simply extend it 150'-0" past the room, based on Section and Table > A.12.3 ('10 edition of -13)? > > My interpretation of those sections, along with 12.3(1) is that I'd have > to provide 0.5 gpm/sqft over the storage area, plus 15'-0", while the > remainder of the space would only require 0.10 gpm density for light > hazard. The high temp sprinklers would have to extend beyond the > storage area by 30', but only the first 15' require the higher density. > > Does that line up with your thinking? > -- > > PARSLEY CONSULTING > > Ken Wagoner, SET > > 760.745.6181 voice > > 760.745.0537 fax > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail > > www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website > > > > > > tom poisal wrote: > > 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]> > <to%[email protected]<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]<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)
