Could you not cite it as deficient or non-compliant if the sprinklers exceed the maximum allowable distance below the deck above?
If you had a ceiling 4 ft below the deck with pdt sprinklers in it, we know you can't install a sprinklers out in the open 4 ft below the deck based on obstructed or unobstructed construction rules. We also don't install sprinklers out in space with pie pans on them anymore either to "catch the heat". Also the ceiling is where the heat collects to set off the room sprinklers. If there is no ceiling or the ceiling is now incomplete, where will heat collect, above the ceiling in the unprotected area. This could delay sprinkler operation. So if the installation was based on a compete ceiling being provided in order for sprinklers to operate properly, why wouldn't an incomplete ceiling be considered the same as any other impairment? Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jay Stough Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:20 PM To: Sprinkler Forum <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Missing ceiling tiles I don't see how I can cite the building code, fire code or NFPA 101 if I am doing an NFPA 25 inspection. And as far as allowing openings in the ceiling, I am sure there are no sprinklers above the ceiling or that the tiles are removed due to the reasons cited in 13. I guess the best way to denote it is as a change in the building per chapter 4 since the code or fire official probably did not accept the building with missing tiles or they were not missing last year. *Jay Stough* NICET IV LAYOUT NICET III ITM On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Larrimer, Peter A <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > I am not sure what your finding is, but I would be careful when > trying to use that for a missing escutcheon for a sprinkler. That > paragraph in NFPA > 101 allows a penetration (of a pipe likely) in a smoke barrier that > has a fire resistance rating to be sealed by an non-combustible > escutcheon plate provided the gap around the pipe isn't greater than > 1/2 inch. It would only apply if the barrier was a smoke barrier with > a fire resistance rating and it is a membrane protection (one side of > the wall) and it wouldn't actually require an escutcheon plate. That > paragraph in NFPA 101 will likely not be a very helpful reference when > trying to require a sprinkler to have an escutcheon. Hope this helps. > > Thanks > > Pete Larrimer > VA > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John > Allen, CET, CFPS > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Missing ceiling tiles > > This is the code we use to support our findings: > > NFPA 101 (2012) 8.5.6.4 Where sprinklers penetrate a single membrane of > a fire resistance rated assembly in buildings equipped throughout with > an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, noncombustible escutcheon > plates shall be permitted, provided that the space around each > sprinkler penetration does not exceed 1/2 in. (13 mm), measured > between the edge of the membrane and the sprinkler. > > Best Regards, > > John Allen, CET, CFPS > President > > > > AFS: Allen Fire & Security > Your Safety is Our Success > Direct: 770.715.7261 | Office: 770.723.7280 Ext 2 | Fax: 678.894.4180 > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email This > email contains proprietary and confidential material for the sole use > of the intended recipient and is the sole property of AFS. Any > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others without the > permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), > please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of the message. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of michael G > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Missing ceiling tiles > > As a general rule we have always noted if there is missing tile in the > room, (near the edges away from the sprinklers. I know that I have > always written it up as a deficiency if the tile was out within a 5ft > area around the sprinkler. if it's a small closet or storage room and > its missing a tile or two, then I have written it down as a deficiency > as well due to the potential for the heat loss not allowing for the > activation of the sprinkler. > > As for the missing escutcheons, (this is my opinion) I don't see why > they wouldn't be a critical deficiency due to the listings on the sprinklers. > The sprinklers are listed with the plate to be installed in the manner > for the plate that it was installed with ( recessed, flush, Concealed, 401). > > But you are definitely correct in the statement that this is a gray > area in NFPA #25. I guess if we step back and think about the > original installation of the ceilings and sprinklers, when the system > was bought off by the fire marshal, wasn't it required to have all the > tile in at the time of his walk through? So why wouldn't the building > still be required to have all the tiles in place on a NFPA 25 inspection. > > Michael Goodis > Estimator, Project Manager > IL#000635 NICET#135586 > Key Fire Protection Enterprises LLC > 3200 Mike Padgett HWY > Augusta, GA 30906 > Office- (706)790-3473 > Cell- (706) 220-8822 > Fax: (706) 738-2119 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] > On Behalf Of Jay Stough > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:33 AM > To: Sprinkler Forum > Subject: Missing ceiling tiles > > We are having a discussion as to whether missing ceiling tiles are a > deficiency in NFPA 25. It does not specifically mention it, but it is > a non-critical deficiency if it is missing escutcheons and cover > plates on semi-recessed, recessed and concealed sprinklers. Wouldn't > missing ceiling tiles create the same problem in a room with a drop > ceiling? I would think it would really screw up the air flow of heat > to the sprinklers if there are 2' X 2' or 2' X 4' holes in the ceilings. > > *Jay Stough* > NICET IV LAYOUT > NICET III ITM > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > _______________________________________________ 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
