The book says to protect patios and decks and from what I've come across the problem arises from BBQs catching something on fire, that heat running up the wall, and then getting into the floor structure that is cantilevered out and becomes the deck above. The top floor becomes the weirdness since there may or may not be an overhang and what is being protected? The unsprinklered attic? I'm not so sure about Tony's radiant heat transmission. Is the likely fire load enough to set off the sprinkler much less ignite the wall? And if the exterior wall is on fire it is supposed to be a 1 hour wall in a building with only a life safety sprinkler system with a 30 minute duration. If this is an issue why did the fire guys not get it into 13R rather than having to go to ICC? I can be very wrong, but I think this has to do with a fear, founded or not (relative to life safety), about floor collapse.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM, A.P.Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also in a jurisdiction where an addendum to the building code requires > sprinklers in balconies and patios of 13R buildings if the buildings are of > combustible construction. They are required with or without overhangs. I > think the approach should be to provide sprinklers outside for exposure > protection where radiation is the critical mode of heat transmission. So > overhangs need not be provided. My only concern is heads need to be > protected from hail, which is also a problem in this area. > > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd > Williams > Sent: October 8, 2012 5:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: 13R balcony protection > > The Connecticut Fire Safety Code (at least the part that is based on the > IFC) includes a requirement that exterior balconies and patios be > sprinkelred in 13R occupancies. However, this is being interpreted that > they > have to be protected regardless if there is any structure above or not. > Consequently, we have to install sidewall sprinklers under 9" door moldings > because they open on to a patio or deck (just got a plan rejected for > this). > This make no sense to me because they would most likely never activate, but > this is being enforced as the law. Anybody else run into this? > > Todd G. Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860.535.2080 > www.fpdc.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121008/848e88ce/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
