Problem is that the term is not defined per 13 and so do you use Webster, IBC or ADA? Although a non-building person would probably default to a Websteristic definition and just ask, "Can you get into and use the space for something?" but a building guy will more likely fall into accessible/non-accessible concealed space (which isn't even in 13 in those words), or accessible through an access panel, or, per Craig's comment/joke, do you use ADA and build a ramp to above the ATC. Considering some of the costly insanity associated with ADA interpretation there may be more truth to what Craig said than he was thinking when he said it. Take Texas with horn/strobes in closets in case a deaf person is in the closet. What if it's a blind and deaf person? Or in my own case. My classrooms are in the semi basement (side of hill, full-flight of stairs to floor above for one egress and half-flight up on the downslope side. There's also a non-compliant ramp that's too steep for ADA. I also have two sinks with soap and towel dispensers. One day maintenance shows up and announces that per ADA they have to lower all the dispensers to some ADA height standard for wheelchair accessibility. Now the sinks stay the same but the towels and soap dispensers are essentially on the floor. Although I could potentially have a wheelchair bound student I never have (or maybe I have but he died on the ramp on his first day when he lost control of his chair), but I have had numerous re-trains that have hurt their backs and have trouble or even pain bending over. These devices WERE non-accessible to them. Were comes into the equation since I have tools and I'm not afraid to use them.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Frans Stoop <[email protected]> wrote: > Craig, > > Don't be to greedy with the gold stars to that poor engineer or one day you > might have to hand over one of your own. > The engineer did not take any license, he only quoted the most recent > edition of NFPA 13. > The word "accessible" might not be in the 2007 edition, but it does show up > in the 2010 edition: > > "8.15.3.2.1 In noncombustible stair shafts having noncombustible > stairs with noncombustible or limited-combustible finishes, sprinklers shall > be installed at the top of the shaft and under the first accessible landing > above the bottom of the shaft." > > In fact the word "accessible" is the only difference in the wording of this > paragraph between the two editions. > > Met vriendelijke groet / Yours sincerely, > > Frans Stoop > TOS architecture & fire protection > Netherlands <[email protected]> > Tel. +31-24-324 0112 > > > At 06:39 11-3-2011 -0700, you wrote: >> >> Under the lowest landing due to the possibility of that space being used >> for storage. If the space is totally enclosed then there is no access for >> storage and no head is required if the stair is non-combustible. The spec >> is correct. <sigh> The Engineer has taken some license on his quote of the >> 13 section. The word "accessible" is not in the script. So no gold star >> for him. >> >> NFPA 13, 2007 - 8.15.3.2.1 "In noncombustible stair shafts having >> noncombustible stairs with noncombustible or limited combustible finishes, >> sprinklers shall be installed at the top of the shaft and under the first >> landing above the bottom of the shaft." >> >> Craig L. Prahl, CET >> Fire Protection >> CH2MHILL >> Lockwood Greene >> 1500 International Drive >> Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 >> Direct - 864.599.4102 >> Fax - 864.599.8439 >> CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >> [email protected] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cory Power >> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 7:19 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Sprinkler under first accessible landing >> >> I have an an engineer asking to provide a sprinkler under the first >> landing of a non-combustible stairwell. The spec for the job states that >> "Sprinkler shall be installed at top of shaft. Space below first landing >> is considered concealed, non-accessible, non-combustible, and hence does >> not require sprinkler protection." >> >> he engineer who is reviewing my plans sent me an email stating the >> following: >> >> *8.15.3.2 Noncombustible Construction.* >> >> *8.15.3.2.1 *In noncombustible stair shafts having noncombustible stairs >> with noncombustible or limited-combustible finishes, sprinklers shall be >> installed at the top of the shaft and under the first >> accessible*landing*above the bottom of the shaft. >> >> We always took this to mean the sprinklers are required under the first >> landing? And by accessible we took this to mean access could be provided >> by a access panel.." >> >> Is this the way I should be interpreting the code? Do I still have to >> sprinkler under the landing and make sure there's an access hatch? or >> should I be able to omit it like the spec indicates? >> >> I have been following this forum for a while now. This is the first >> question I have posted. >> >> - Cory > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ 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)
