Ron,
That is indeed one of the difficulties encountered when dealing with
AHJ's who lack the training
and experience to interpret the adopted edition of the IBC correctly.
The section you reference
regarding the word "throughout" probably comes across my desk twice a
month from clients on
both sides of the table. It's become so common that I found a number
for an ICC rep who could
explain the concept, and simply stopped worrying about helping clarify
the issue.
Here in California the code committee has adopted the 2009 edition of
the I-codes, and modified
them to address issues (real or imagined) that impact systems in this
state. I don't have any serious
heartburn with that, although I have disagreements with some of the
revisions. My grip here is that
the state code group has done a frighteningly awful job of getting the
word out to AHJ's and the
people on the other side of the table as well.
California has mandated several changes to NFPA-13, and such changes are
documented in a very
late chapter of the CBC and the CFC. Among those changes are:
1 - no remote area reduction for quick response sprinklers in ordinary
hazard occupancies
2 - reduced remote area for quick response sprinklers in light hazard
occupancies must be flowing at least
seven sprinklers
3 - the pipe under a building or building foundation shall not contain
mechanical joints. Whether this restriction
applies to flanged joints or solvent weld joints has to date not been
clarified.
Unless you had nothing better to do than troll through the code looking
for such items, you'd never find it. The only
reason I'm aware of this at all is that I submitted plans to an AHJ who
sat on the committee which made these
changes, and he directed my attention to the back of the book. There
was also a suggestion of my either being an
imbecile or a cyclops in the midst of a blinking spasm, but that's
another story. Both conditions might be true, but
he was so angry I didn't wish to debate further.
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
On 5/24/2012 6:51 AM, Ron Greenman wrote:
My pet peeve (amongst all my other pet peeves). If IBC is the adopted
building code in your state then it is no longer entitled IBC except
in casual conversation but is rather something else with a number
(probably Revised Code of Your State number XYZ), and if the state or
local jurisdiction hasn't expunged Section [F] (2009 edition)
903.3.1.1 NFPA Sprinkler systems. "Where the provisions of this code
require that a building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with
an automatic sprinklers system in accordance with this section,
sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13
except as provided in Section 903.3.1.1.1," or has explicitly had an
amendment stating what you were told then the law is the adopted
version of the former model IBC including everything it references. I
had the same problem with an AHJ that said 13 was only a standard and
because IBC only mentioned noncombustible materials in Chapter 7 and
not limited combustibles that IBC did not recognize the latter,
despite the paragraph quoted above that makes NFPA 13 a part of the
adopted law.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:32 AM,<[email protected]> wrote:
Where in the IBC? Ask him to provide that reference.
There are some restrictions on insulation in concealed spaces but they are
specific to the type of insulation, vapor barrier, flame spread, construction
Type and Occupancy.
I don't accept a response like that without a Code reference.
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 Seidl Jamie D.
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:30 AM
To: Sprinkler Forum ([email protected])
Subject: IBC Question
I had an interesting comment from an architect yesterday on a project I am
working on.
Wood frame building with 12" open web trusses. Due to the floor/ceiling assembly rating, we won't
have the minimum 12" to use concealed space sprinklers due to the batt insulation between the
floors. Accounting for the insulation, we have approximately 9" of clear space. When the
manufactures were contacted, they confirmed that this would be outside the listing of the concealed
space sprinkler. We suggested to the contractor that he fill the truss space with insulation per NFPA
13. The RFI came back answered "The exception in NFPA for filling the concealed space with
insulations ins technically not permitted by IBC and is not practically effective."
While I haven't begun to make the point that the sprinkler protection/spray pattern
wouldn't be "practically effective" in this situation and violate the listings,
is any one aware of the IBC not allowing the elimination of sprinkler protection in a
combustible concealed space where the space is filled with insulation?
Thanks,
Jamie Seidl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120524/362544e1/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
