In a jurisdiction near Bruce there was one going on while the builders' association rep and the a keep the government out of my affairs guy was on the a local shit stirrer station screaming about costs and socialism. And somehow the socialist government morphed into the fascist fire marshal who would come to "your" apartment and personally confiscate your BBQ.
Ron Greenman ...On the phone On Oct 15, 2012, at 12:49 PM, "Bruce Verhei"<[email protected]> wrote: > The jurisdiction I worked for has had a whole series of these fires. Fire > burns up till attic is reached, and attic is burned off. On occupied floors > windows break out and fire bursts into living areas. Heads operate on each > floor. We've only had three floor structures, not four, with this scenario > (at least sprinklered). 10-22 heads total operate. Fire is controlled in the > living areas. This includes systems installed back with the old PB heat fused > systems, as well as listed CPVC. > > Structures stripped down to the framing, new roof trusses, some ceilings > joists removed and replaced, or sistered in, building dried in, structural > members dehydrated for awhile, then units rebuilt, has been typical. Oh, > first electrical and sprinklers isolated so adjacent stacks can be occupied. > > Bv > > > Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T > > -----Original message----- > From: Tom Duross <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, Oct 15, 2012 22:28:04 GMT+00:00 > Subject: RE: 13R balcony protection > > 10-12 years back, apt complex called the Rosecliff 1/2 mile south down > Willard Street from NFPA. BBQ on 2nd level (called a Balcony in the news), > up the exterior and into the unsprinklered attic (13R). Nobody died > thankfully. > I've had Owners argue that the plan says 'deck', so why do I need to > sprinkler? > Wishing I was in HI... > TD > > > Chris, in Eastern CT, we had 2 fires (in the same city) where unprotected > porches added significantly to the extent of fire damage. That was one of > the deciding factors here. > > > At 08:53 AM 10/15/2012, you wrote: >> Curious on the addition of balconies. It has been that way (without > balconies) in 13R for 20 years...what caused the change now? >> >> >> The 2009 edition of the IBC added the balcony must have a roof or deck >> above regarding required sprinkler protection. Nothing regarding >> whether the overhang on the top floor is a driver. Additionally, the >> 2013 edition of NFOA 13R finally acknowledge the supremacy of the code over > standards in driving such matters and added the below text. >> >> >> 6.6.5* Except as provided for in 6.6.5.1, sprinklers shall not be required > in any porches, balconies, corridors, carports, porte cocheres, and stairs > that are open and attached. >> >> 6.6.5.1 Where a roof or deck is provided above, sprinklers shall be > installed to protect attached exterior balconies, attached exterior decks, > and ground floor patios serving dwelling units in buildings of Construction > Type V. >> >> 6.6.5.1.1 Where sidewall sprinklers are installed beneath decks or > balconies constructed with open wood joists, sprinklers shall be permitted > to be installed with deflectors not less than 1 in. (25 mm) or more than 6 > in. (152 mm) below the structural members, provided that the deflector is > not more than 14 in. (356 mm) below the underside surface of the deck. > systems, or other reliable means capable of maintaining a minimum > temperature between 40°F and 120°F (4°C and 48.9°C). >> >> Roland >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 2012, at 4:50 AM, Todd Williams wrote: >> >>> 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? >>> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121015/46a273e2/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
