Gents, Sorry to resurrect this topic from the dead, but this way we can all follow along to the last string of thoughts.
We were finally able to go and check out the crawlspace after the GC corrected some environmental issues. Here's a link to the pictures that I took from the opening of the space: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/05a3wzes9q5c2ew/AABqIVO--N9uw5H6v_onbIX5a?dl=0 The depth from floor to bottom of truss is 3-10, and the areas are larger than 1000 SQFT, so EC CC heads would be difficult to use. There are a couple of spaces where the insulation isn't fully filling the cavity, mainly around areas where there were penetrations into the space before the drywall was removed (the areas with the sheetmetal flashing). The majority of the space is pretty well filled, though. I think I feel pretty comfortable calling this combustible unobstructed with no exposed members. As Roland and Ed were discussing, the depth of the exposed bottom chord and the hattrack is less than 4 inches. Any thoughts on this one way or the other? I would value the group's input before I go to the fire marshal. She has never encountered this type of situation either, so she's relying on me to pick the most appropriate spacing requirements. And yes, those are exit signs in a crawl space. Thanks, Ben Benjamin Young On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Ben Young <[email protected]> wrote: > Guys, > > I'm on vacation right now, otherwise I would get a picture and post it for > everyone. > Its been a while since I've seen this area for this project, and the last > time I really went down there, they still had the drywall up. > > I want to say that really only the bottom chord of the TJI is exposed, > with the insulation using the top of the bottom chord as a resting place. > This is then followed up with hat track running perpendicular to the TJIs. > > > Benjamin Young > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> also funny is this could be a case where max deflector for unobstructed >> exceeds that for obstructed: >> >> >> >> if extends 4.5" below insulation-- obstructed = 10.5" max below >> insulation due to 6" max below plane of obstructing member, vs 12" for >> unobstructed. >> >> >> >> you gotta love this stuff >> >> >> >> :) brad >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces >> @lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Roland Huggins >> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:14 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Ceiling of trusses and insulation - Character set not >> allowed >> >> >> >> ABSOLUTELY. >> >> >> >> What is funny is that Unobstructed with structural members less than 3 ft >> has a spacing limitation of 130SF. That makes perfect sense for trusses >> with a cumulative negative impact on discharge but why should it be 130 sf >> for a ceiling with 2x4 stringers? The reason is that after taking 3 cycles >> to FINALLY define an actual depth for unobstructed / obstructed, the issue >> of spacing has not been revisited - YET. On my list for next cycle (that >> being 2022 since we are in the middle of the 2019 cycle). >> >> >> >> >> >> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering >> >> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >> >> Dallas, TX >> >> http://www.firesprinkler.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 23, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Ed Kramer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Roland, >> >> >> >> If the structural members extended down below the insulation, but no >> further than 4”, would you still consider it unobstructed? More than 4” – >> obstructed? >> >> >> >> Ed Kramer >> >> Bamford Fire Sprinkler >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
