One is an occupied floor area. The other is an obstruction between the ceiling sprinkler and the floor area.
Also worth noting that the identified section has been changed. It was appropriate when ESFR sprinklers added the additional sprinkler(s) below obstructions. Since that is no longer true case, it’s sprinklers in general. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Mar 20, 2014, at 7:23 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Gentlemen, > > NFPA 13 par. 23.4.4.6.3 states: > The requirements of 23.4.4.6.1.1 to include every > sprinkler in the design area shall not apply where spray sprin- > klers or CMSA sprinklers are provided above and below ob- > structions such as wide ducts or tables. > > Question: > Does the same apply to sprinklers underneath mezzanines? > > And how about sprinklers under a floor with a large opening to the > (sprinklered) floor above? > > And how when the large opening is filled with obstructions (pipe rack) with > additional sprinklers underneath the obstructions? > > Looking forward to your insight.... > > > Best regards, > > Frans Stoop > TOS architecture & fire protection > Netherlands <[email protected]> > Tel. +31-24-324 0112 _______________________________________________ > 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
