Understood...here in PA, I think we are stuck in 2007 edition for the foreseeable future.
I have been in situations where the AHJ arbitrarily informed the GCs in lieu of providing the proper rated doors, walls, etc. they could just put some extra sprinklers in. It got dumped on the sprinkler contractor because it was cheaper to add sprinklers than a big rated door. Used to be a lot more commonplace than it is now. Good to know and thanks for clarifying. Best Regards, Ken Holsopple -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Atrium I’m just saying there has been a lot of movement since the 2007 edition especially noting other codes/standards casual use of words like Water Curtain where one would NOT suffice. I suspect it was a discussion of fruit and they were thinking apples but calling it an orange without realizing that the industry and 13 had a very specific application for oranges. The issue of wetting the entire surface has always been there like a rusty metal trap waiting to give you bout of tetanus. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > On Sep 2, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Ken Holsopple <[email protected]> wrote: > > If Section 404.6 (see below) of the IBC prescribes the closely spaced > sprinklers and the architect choses that instead of the other options listed > to protect the atrium, then is it that big of a jump to apply Sections 8.15.4 > and 11.3.3 out of NFPA 13? (2007 edition.) _______________________________________________ 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
