Wouldn't it be nice if the reviewers and inspectors were held to the same standards of education, continuing education, and experience that they hold the designers to. And I guess this is the time for the this is my personal opinion and not the official NFPA 1031 (Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Inspector & Plan Examiner) Committee position. Bet you didn't know there even was a committee for this. That's because no one uses it.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:32 PM, <mphe...@aerofire.com> wrote: > > It would be much more fun to post his name, City of Authority, and picture on some official "Fire Marshalls Association" website, but there isn't anything like that, so going to all this effort because a small man is intoxicated with power, is about the only solution. But to dream a little, wouldn't it be nice if each state had some sort of "oversite committee", maybe made up of a mix of industry, insurance, professional and AHJ personnel, which could be polled online for such occasions? I think it would help educate the masses pretty efficiently. > > The Dreamer > Mark at Aero > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: George Church [mailto:g...@rowesprinkler.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 04:14 PM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement > > You can lead an AHJ to water but you can't make him think. Or see what you think is obvious. > Might want to print out responses from the Forum and show him what your peers say and cite (save this for when he still says No). > > George L. Church, Jr., CET > Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 > 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax > g...@rowesprinkler.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:52 PM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement > > All said and done, I think it's pretty clear that the intent is to allow the use of those sprinklers. > > SL > > ________________________________ > > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of mphe...@aerofire.com > Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 11:39 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement > > > > The 2002 version of 8.3.2.3 differs from 2010 only by the inclusion of "intermediate temp" in the text. The "store" will be display in room style settings, no "storage". The roof is at 27 feet and is a panelized wood structure with open web wood joist on 8' centers, and I agree with you on the benefit of the 286* F sprinklers providing better performance. > Mark at Aero > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:14 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org>; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement > > At home this morning and don't have the 2002 NFPA 13 laying around, but it may be that if the older standard doesn't include the conditional application granted in 8.3.2.3 (2010 ed.) then he or she is holding you to the letter of the 2002. You might want to point out that the intent of any TC can generally be found in the latest edition of a standard. > > When you say furniture retail, is this going to be a showroom only, with the sales floor done up as "rooms" for display only? Or will there be an area for storage as well, and what fire load overall do you anticipate? Seems to me that even a moderate load of furniture can still generate a pretty high release of energy and the 286 sprinklers (as Ron mentioned, I think) may well respond more symettrically. What is the height of the deck above and what's it framed with? > > SL > > ________________________________ > > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of mphe...@aerofire.com > Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 5:56 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement > > > > What we have is High temp heads installed in an ordinary hazard occupancy. I believe 8.3.2.3 does explicitly allow this. The inspector has a different opinion. My position is 8.3.2.3 doesn't leave room for opinions, and wasn't intended to! > Mark at Aero > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Verhei [mailto:bver...@comcast.net] > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:47 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement > > Mark > > My understanding of this is to ensure that ordinary temp heads are replaced with at least intermediate heads are installed to prevent head operation in absence of a fire. > > Bv > > Sent from my Motorola ATRIX(tm) 4G on AT&T > > -----Original message----- > From: Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org> > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Sent: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 22:40:08 GMT+00:00 > Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement > > as Todd already said, it is explicitly allowed by 8.3.2.3 unless the AHJ is trying to call it a light hazard occupancy. > > Roland > > On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, <mphe...@aerofire.com> <mphe...@aerofire.com> > 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 > existing 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120928/c513f5a8/attachment.html > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/bf582009/attachment.html > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: winmail.dat > Type: application/ms-tnef > Size: 7399 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/f87ea66e/attachment.bin > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/bef3f748/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
