When comparing 8.15.1.2.10 for 13, 2007 and 13, 2010 2007 states, "....demonstrated not to propogate fire when tested ....."
2010 states, "....demonstrated not to propogate fire more than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) when tested ....." It appears the older 2007 is more stringent as it seems to not permit any spread, whereas the newer 2010 permits up to 10.5 feet. Is that the interpretation? My problem is the 2010 has not been adopted by the building code yet, and I'm not sure if I can use it if it is less stringent. Tony -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: December 21, 2010 12:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fire Retardant Coating On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:59 AM, A.P.Silva wrote: > Answer to Question 1: I would also say it is the assembly. Else, > gypsum sheets (drywall) wrapped around wood members will not be > acceptable. So your position is that drywall is not rigid? Excluding that new imported flexible stuff where the gypsum was replaced with plastic ground into powder - lol. > > Answer to Question 2: 13, 2007 handbook has the follwing commentary: > "......it is important > To verify that the testing used to determine the material's > combustibility was conducted with the material arranged in the > position in which it is to be installed. Changes in the orientation or > arrangement of the material can significantly change the flamespread > characteristics and the combustibility of the material." The > commentary seems to imply that it is the orientation. You are absolutely correct though the Handbook text does not correlate with what the standard actually says. The Handbooks are excellent documents but not always accurate. I've flagged a few (very few) items for correction. Remember when the Sprinkler Handbook said the hanger shall be perpendicular to the floor and the sprinkler shall be WITHIN 6 ft of the eave fro attics or the Pump Handbook when it said you were REQUIRED to have a jockey pump. As you already pointed out, this interpretation does not correlate with the test standard so the logical conclusion is that this makes a possible fourth correction for the Sprinkler Handbook (which isn't bad for such a big document). Guess I need to dot my i's and say as a member of NFPA 13 and one of the participants on updating the Sprinkler Handbook, this is just my opinion and is not to be considered a formal interpretation by NFPA or any of its technical committees. Roland _______________________________________________ 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)
