I think the term Limited Combustible is purposely vague. Personally, I would
think this is not limited since it covers the entire flat space and there is
continuity. If a fire did get into that space, it could run over the entire
structure with no good way for the fire department to fight it.
What a local authority or insurance company would say is something else. You
probably should consult with them.
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc)
860-553-3553 (tel:860-553-3553) (fax)
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559) (cell)
>
> On Mar 10, 2017 at 5:47 PM, <David Bitton
> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, it is a flat roof, built in 1973. I have no doubt that it will burn,
> and I am classifying it as a combustible roof. (I know about the fire at
> the GM plant in Livonia.) My question is more along the line of: Can a
> noncombustible structure built on top of a typical built-up roof deck with
> combustible insulation meet NFPA 13's definition of "Limited-combustible
> construction"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Art
> Tiroly
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 5:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Built-up roof deck as a limited-combustible construction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is it a flat roof?
>
>
>
> Is it covered with gravel or stone?
>
>
>
> If it is built of felt paper and asphalt/tar it will burn.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Art Tiroly
>
>
>
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
>
>
>
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
>
>
>
> 216-621-8899
>
>
>
> 216-570-7030 cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David
> Bitton
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:57 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Built-up roof deck as a limited-combustible construction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have a 35 ft high building being built adjacent to a 22 ft high building
> which has a built-up, insulated metal deck roof. The structural engineer has
> devised a sloped "snow shed" between the addition and the lower building in
> order to distribute the increased snow load at this juncture. This will
> create an inaccessible concealed space on the roof which will be of
> noncombustible construction, with the exception of its base, which will be
> the built-up metal deck roof of the existing building. Would you consider
> this as meeting the definition of "limited combustible construction", meaning
> that the space would not require sprinkler protection?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Bitton, ing./Eng.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quest Loss Control Services Inc.
>
>
>
> 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200
>
>
>
> Montréal, Québec
>
>
>
> H4P 1T8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> T: (514) 341-4545 C: (514) 996-7483
>
>
>
> www.questlosscontrol.com
> (../../../../Documents/Sara's%20Important%20Stuff/HR/www.questlosscontrol.com)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
