The ICC pulled the evaluation report based on the code change, but it should be noted the onerous was always (and still is) on the building official to accept the alternative method regardless of the evaluation report. See here for a more detailed explanation of what occurred: http://www.icc-es.org/Criteria_Development/1210-pre/3_AC385.pdf
Jack Fairchild -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Window sprinklers >From what I understand Tyco was not invited to the hearings for the proposed >changes and the rug was pulled out from under them in regard to the Tyco WS >sprinkler for 1hr and 2hr equivalency. This is a big deal that has yet to hit >the fan so to speak now that atrium like spaces seem to be latest >architectural rage. I do believe vertical mullions are obstructions in the Tyco WS installation requirements. The idea to center the WS on a vertical mullion is also nixed in their installation requirement. Sprinklers at atrium glass is still a permitted exception in IBC 404.6 and the wording, "The sprinkler system shall be designed so that the entire surface of the glass is wet upon activation of the sprinkler system without obstruction" , does not leave any room for a challenge to a creative idea that gets water to bend around a mullion. You'll have two sprinklers per side at that window pair and you'll have a sprinkler baffle between them because they will be less than 6 feet apart. Good luck convincing the architect the real ramifications of what that will look like if they do not have a construction detail aptitude. Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:02 PM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: > I beg the Forum's pardon. I should know better than to post from home (snow > day in Kansas. I have a good memory, it's just short). I think vertical > mullions not being an obstruction makes sense though, otherwise the listing > would not distiguish? > > Quoting Justin Reid <justinreid00...@gmail.com>: > >> IBC 2012, 703.4 >> >> Justin Reid >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:33 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" <ccah...@burnsmcd.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Not to be picky but IBC 2013? Don't ya mean '12? What section are you >>> referring to that sprinkler rating equivalent changed? I can think of two >>> areas that had rating tied to sprinklers, atriums and substitute for 1 hour >>> construction. Did they change? >>> >>> 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 >>> bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com >>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:26 PM >>> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >>> Subject: RE: Window sprinklers >>> >>> I think only horizontal mullions are considered an obstruction to wetting >>> the glass. Also, in IBC 2013, the sprinkler equivalent for Fire Rated is no >>> longer approved. >>> >>> Quoting Rod DiBona <r...@rapidfireinc.com>: >>> >>>> Pretty sure you do. The mullion acts as a barrier. More than likely >>>> if you present the dilemma to the A/E team they change the window. >>>> >>>> Rod at Rapid >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org >>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >>>> A.P.Silva >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:07 AM >>>> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >>>> Subject: Window sprinklers >>>> >>>> I have two windows, each 2'-6" wide, separated by a vertical mullion. >>>> Do I need two window sprinklers? >>>> >>>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130221/006e1b6d/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ 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
