I think that the comment was from an architect not an AHJ
David Bohannon Fire Sprinkler Plan Review City of Atlanta Department of Planning and Community Development Office of Buildings 55 Trinity Avenue Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30303 e-mail: [email protected] phone: 404-330-6193 fax: 404-739-4172 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Greenman" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:04:06 AM Subject: Re: IBC Question Ken, I had one call me incompetent regarding a code path interpretation I'd made. Regarding an independent AFSA Informal Interpretation (that incidentally followed exactly the same path I had) was deemed incorrect and the author categorized as not understanding the intent of 13. That author was Roland. On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM, ParsleyConsulting <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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, WFSC 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120524/73fb2dcf/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
