My name wasn't listed so I am not sure I am able to respond (actually I was out 
of office on Fri).

In the 2002 edition, 8.3.2.1 states ordinary temp sprinklers are to be used 
throughout, UNLESS 8.3.2.2, 8.3.2.3, 8.3.2.4 OR 8.3.2.5 are met. So you are 
both right, 8.3.2.2 (the use of Table 6.2.5.1) can be used or 8.3.2.3 (the use 
of intermediate or high temp sprinklers in OH and EH) can be used. What he 
cannot do, is tell you to meet 8.3.2.2. Show him the OR word in 8.3.2.1.

Duane Johnson, PE
Program Manager
Division of the Fire Marshal (Support Contractor)
Office of Research Services 
National Institutes of Health 
301-496-0487

"Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time"


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 11:14 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
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: [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]
Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 5:56 AM
To: [email protected]
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:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:47 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
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, <[email protected]> <[email protected] > 
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
> [email protected]
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

_______________________________________________
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/20120928/c513f5a8/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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/bf582009/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

Reply via email to