Methinks he is picking nits. On what basis is he requiring intermediate temperature heads? Does he have evidence that the maximum ceiling temperature exceeds 100 degF? How does he know it is 150 degF and not 225 degF? (Table 6.2.5.1) It sounds to me like he is making something up just because he can. I think you are on solid ground applying 8.3.2.3.
At 01:00 PM 9/28/2012, you wrote: >I have a Friday question for the forum, and maybe Roland is able to respond >with some "intent" perspective. In a 27' high industrial spec building, we >installed sprinkler heads rated at 286 degree. This was permitted, installed, >inspected and approved. The owner now has a tenant lease which will build out >the entire building as a retail furniture showroom, no ceiling and no storage. >The local fire inspector is siting NFPA 2002 Edition section 8.3.2.2, "Where >maximum ceiling temperatures exceed 100 degrees F, sprinklers with temperature >ratings in accordance with the maximum ceiling temperatures of Table 6.2.5.1 >shall be used." , as a requirement to remove all the sprinklers in the >building and replace them with 212 degree F sprinklers. My contention is that >the next section, 8.3.2.3 "High temperature sprinklers shall be permitted to >be used throughout ordinary and extra hazard occupancies and as allowed in >this standard and other NFPA codes and standards.", allows the e x > isting 286 degree sprinklers to remain and be in compliance with NFPA 13. > What say the professionals, Roland, Steve, George, Ron, Rod, Anyone .....? >Mark at Aero > > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
