I suspect the equivalency would be valid but I have not actually opened the CFC for its exact wording, I’ll leave further comment on it to those applying it. Nonetheless, lets transition to the IBC and 13R. Unless the local adoption deletes the portions of chap 9 that exceeds 13R requirements (like the balcony BEFORE 13R added it), then you need to be aware of such items and apply it (when it is adopted).
Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Parsley Consulting <parsleyconsult...@cox.net> > wrote: > > I'm a little confused by that too, Mark, since the CFC (California has to > have their own, you see), clearly makes reference to NFPA 13D being an > acceptable equivalent to the guidelines presented in the CFC. It would seem > the design could follow 13D, and still be in conformance with the CRC (or > IRC). Is the building code taking the position that it will address the > design of sprinkler systems for single family residences, even though there > is a residential code covering the same topic? > > Worth looking into. > Ken Wagoner, SET
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
