Ron, I can't find that figure. Is that in the commentary? I do not have the commentary. Just the code. And do not see it in the appendix.
Sounds like a good word change proposal in the next cycle. Question is, what will change...the code section? Or the commentary. Justin Reid Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:49 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Justin, look at 503.1.1(1). What part of the interior of the building in the > diagram is within 150 ft. of the access road? > > Ron F > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin Reid > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Fire Marshal requirement? > > "How can any building of that is 50,000 sqft. have all interior > portions within 150 ft. of where they can park a fire truck?" > > And to answer this question. > This would be handled by utilizing the exceptions to 503.1.1, where > the fire code official allows it to be further when those conditions > are met. Your fire code official basically combined the two exceptions > and required an "alternate means of fire protection" (exception 2). > > Justin Reid > > On 1/30/13, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah they mitigated $20k of tax payer money for a comfortable judgement not >> counting what they spent on the consultant. How can any building of that is >> 50,000 sqft. have all interior portions within 150 ft. of where they can >> park a fire truck? It's not an interpretation issue it's a mistake. >> >> Ron Fletcher >> Aero Phoenix >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin Reid >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:34 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Fire Marshal requirement? >> >> There is no requirement for standpipes in this case. It just looks like the >> design team came to a conclusion that the standpipes would provide an >> "equivalent" level of protection. I am only guessing. >> >> Keep in mind that the exception in the IFC states that the fire code >> official can extend the 150 ft requirement when the building is sprinklered >> (exception 1) or even if basically impractical (exception 2). >> >> The FM in question probably did not feel comfortable making a judgement call >> on this and required the standpipes. That way, they at least did "something" >> to mitigate. >> >> Justin Reid >> >> >> >> On 1/30/13, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> If that is the case, then ask the ICC for an official code >>> interpretation about placing standpipes on mezzanines in a 1 story >>> building. >>> >>> Duane Johnson, PE >>> Program Manager >>> Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services >>> National Institutes of Health >>> 301-496-0487 >>> >>> "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Drucker [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:01 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Fire Marshal requirement? >>> >>> You mean to say after all the proposals, comments,hearings, adoption >>> comments the rules aren't clear ? Could that be the issue and not the >>> enforcer ? >>> John Drucker - Mobile Email >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wed Jan 30 12:54:05 2013 >>> Subject: Fire Marshal requirement? >>> >>> Jim: >>> >>> thanks for the explanation on job duties. >>> >>> that kinda explains why some AHJ's won't bend to help "interpret" a >>> grey area, but it does not justify why they wont. If we all adjust in >>> tiny bits to accomodate the larger goal of improved design, then >>> things tend to move smoother, down the line. When someone rigidly >>> follows a job title, lock-step, it is explainable, but they don't get >>> a great review from my point of view. And then there are the few that >>> make interpretations on the far side of conservative, regarding the >>> prescriptions, with no credibility, other than their ability to stall >>> construction. >>> >>> Its obvious we are all part of a team, but the incentives (in this >>> case, the FM written job description) is not helping, and obviously is >>> hurting. >>> We are not machines. We are interpreting things as they need >>> interpreting, from time to time, and that is where we need to think of >>> ourselves as part of a design team (AHJ, designer / technician, EOR, >>> owner, and even the users of the building). Yeah, I know a lot of >>> team members are greedy, egotistical full-tards, which makes it hard to >>> work cooperatively with them. >>> Maybe we should rate all the team members with >>> 360 degree reviews... Something should be done to offer better >>> incentives to work together and de-incentivise (or televise) the bad >>> actions so as to make them better actors. >>> >>> scot deal >>> Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>> scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta >>> chments/20130130/e1cf787c/attachment.html> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>> >>> >>> CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: >>> This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or >>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is >>> privileged and confidential, nor is it, unless specifically stated, >>> intended to be relied upon by any person or persons other than the >>> individual or entity named above and no warranties or representations >>> are made or intended to persons or entities not named above. If the >>> reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is >>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in >>> error, please notify us immediately by telephone, return this message to >>> the address above and delete all copies. Thank you. >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>> scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta >>> chments/20130130/a9813815/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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
