what George said with the following comments.
We have a history of actually doing the system "design" (used in a non-
engineering reference but in compliance with NFPA 13) that we have a
hard time NOT doing it. That is the EOR's job. Now as a valuable team
member with applicable knowledge, one should bring it to the attention
of the EOR (well AOR since we are talking about an architect) then
ACCEPT their decision. Now naturally you do it in writing so when the
AHJ rejects it, you are covered.
Having said that, a general code discussion is always entertaining.
There seems to be multiple problems with the planned approach. The
biggie has already been stated (regarding protection throughout in
order to get a trade-off). On that same issue, there are also
significant restrictions on applying trade-offs fro sprinklers when
one applies the reduction on fire rating.
Partial protection is a code issue is NOT defined by NFPA 13
On May 27, 2011, at 3:01 AM, George Church wrote:
Are you asking:
what is proper protection under the IBC as a minimum?
What is required under #13?
What is the scope of work that you are to include in your bid?
From the sound of your question, you're the BCO and wondering
whether to accept this protection strategy; however, I'll bet you
should focus on what they've asked for you to provide.
DON'T take on the role of the EOR, the Architect has defined the
work as he sees it in his professional opinion. You're not entitled
to one.
George L. Church, Jr., 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)
