There are no NFPA 13 construction requirements. Yes, there are certain non-sprinkler pipe features that must get added when you choose a particular sprinkler solution. It's up to us to design the sprinklers for the building design not the other way around.
In this case fill with insulation is certainly a viable option. It also sounds like there is a ULC vs UL issue. I would hope an AHJ would consider accepting UL, FM, ETL, vDs, BS, EU....or Moe, Larry and Curly Listing services even with as implied that is Code prohibited in Canada. At least read the two testing standards of UL and ULC and decide if the difference is material. And note 'there is no feasible" that is a judgment call on what is or is not feasible. Implies there is a way but someone doesn't like it. Remember when putting heads under a floating ceiling some considered non-feasible, some probably still do. We all know some think running pipe to EVERY sprinkler head is non-feasible because we keep finding glued heads. Well what about alternate methods? If I give the AHJ the CC1 test report doesn't that work? How about covering the side of the truss as if it's a TGI and limit volumes to 160 cu.ft. So there are 4 potential solutions without pondering very hard: Insulation Alternate method - CC1 Sucking it up and doing the non-feasible way Alternate method - make'em TGI like Can't blame the architect when there are 4 potential solutions. And even if there were none I still don't think you can blame the architect. Nothing personal Ron, the above appears harsher than it is meant. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Combustible Concealed Space It's another case of Architects designing buildings that don't comply with NFPA #13s' construction requirements. When will they learn that NFPA 13 is building code as well as a sprinkler system installation standard? Ron Fletcher Aero Phoenix -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Combustible Concealed Space I have a combustible concealed space above the main floor of a two storey building that is required to be sprinklered. This space is 16" deep and consists of open web trusses spaced 16" on-centre. The webs are made of 2x4's, causing considerable obstructions. This space qualifies for the use of heads listed for this use. My questions/dilemmas are as following: (1) There is no feasible possibility to avoid obstructions. Any comments? (2) As far as I know, the CC heads are only made by TYCO and they are not ULC listed. I'm in a Canadian jurisdiction. So can I say there is no listed head (as the building code validates only ULC listings) and use standard heads? (3) If I use CC heads, can I use exposed blazemaster piping (subject to the restrictions of course)? The problem is exposed blazemaster piping is allowed only in its UL listing and not in ULC. So just going around in circles. Thanks for any comments. Tony _______________________________________________ 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
