Adequacy test question number one: auto fire sprinklers present? (Check Box Yes or Box No ;))
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Roland Huggins <[email protected]> wrote: > > The IFC requires as part of changing the use or occupancy that the sprinkler > system be evaluated for adequacy. The rub is whether the owner permits the > change and whether the municipality enforcers/inspects their area. > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > >> On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Talk about 'shadow areas' :) one of the things in 13 that used to jump out >> at me was Sprinklered Throughout because for control mode if a fire got too >> much of a head start it might overwhelm the Control aspect. I have had the >> privilege of helping PEs prepare Code Modification Requests. In no case have >> these CMRs been able to show that no sprinklers is equivalent to sprinklers, >> if fact they have been the other way around as in beef up the sprinklers and >> some other life safety aspect might be relaxed. 13 is supposed to provide a >> reasonable minimum though and it has been pointed out that we are all in >> this to make money. Sprinklering everything throughout is easier to >> understand than the contingency that if a pool area changed occupancy we >> would have to sprinkler it-- what if it was converted to an ice- skating >> rink? > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
