I'm sorry, just noticed a typo after sending the last email. First sentence should've said "change order for cane protection". Big thumbs, little phone keyboard.
James On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:17 PM James Litvak <[email protected]> wrote: > The conversation started when the architect sent a photo to us of a turned > up hose valve and said that on a previous project they got hit with a > change rider for can protection after an inspection failed for not meeting > accessibility requirements. The architect said that on this project their > accessibility consultant made sure to point out 307.2 and 307.3, since > we're in NC and A117.1 is an adopted code here. > > As it is, I contacted the local code enforcement and spoke to two people. > First person said they had never heard of those requirements, but from > reading them came up with the thought that since the hose valve is parallel > to the wall, then it might not be considered protruding or overhanging, > where both code sections are concerned. I was referred to a plans examiner > who was aware of the sections. It turns out that the NC Department of > Insurance released their periodic accessibility newsletter addressing > standpipe valves and accessibility clearance. Interestingly, it focused > more on the location of standpipes with regard to door maneuvering > clearances in section 403.2.3.2, and included two photos of a hose valve > not meeting that sections requirement, but making no mention of it > violating 307.3. There were also two photos of a hose valve sticking out of > a wall of a breezeway that is noted as violating 307.2. So it seems that > both the NC DOI and the local building officials don't interpret a > standpipe hose valve out of the required accessible clearance path in a > stairwell to be in violation of 307.3. > > I've emailed the architect back, mentioning my conversations with the code > officials, with a copy of the newsletter, and also a mention of my post and > the responses here (admittedly, Steve, also highlighting your position on > the 14 TC and how this is the first you've heard of this). They've sent it > back to their accessibility consultant for review. For now, it seems the > preferred design is to turn the valve up because that would put it in > compliance with 307.3. However, I don't like the idea of a > misinterpretation of the code leading to a possible precedent, so I'm going > to seek out a more in depth answer from code enforcement. > > > James > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:02 AM Steve Leyton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Concur and I’m still puzzled as to how the conversation with the EOR >> ended up in the context of ANSI A1171.1. We have always coordinated the >> location of standpipe risers (and the attached hose valves), floor control >> assemblies and collection drain risers with the available space on the >> landing. There’s a minimum required path of travel clearance and (at >> least in the markets we serve) NOTHING can be in that space. So you draw >> a dashed line for the radius of that path and keep your stuff out of it. >> >> >> SL >> >> >> >> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *John >> Drucker >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:48 AM >> >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 >> >> >> >> Guys, >> >> >> >> It’s pretty simple code section, the opening text of 307 sets the scope; >> “Many items along the path of travel can be protruding object for persons >> with visual impairments, or persons who may be momentarily distracted. >> There are additional concerns during emergency events where smoke may >> obscure objects and people are hurrying to escape” There’s also concerns >> with visually impaired persons being able to detect protrucing objects with >> a long cane. >> >> >> >> The idea is to NOT have anything sticking out, generally more than 4”, >> that a person could walk into. I’ve seen this plenty of times where >> risers come up a stair in the middle of the landing with the valve sticking >> straight out. That puts it in the travel path and subjects pedestrians to >> striking the object, injury, risk of falling etc. Keep in mind also that >> a stairways primary function is means of egress and not a mechanical shaft >> so technically anything that impairs that primary mission could be cited. >> >> >> >> We need to reach back to the core mission and not get caught up in the >> manusha. Get the stuff out of the travel path, ours are in the corners >> with the valves parallel and tight enough to the wall to allow the valve to >> be hand opened and slightly canted outward to allow coupling up of the >> hose. >> >> >> >> Bottom line this is something that requires a collaborative approach >> between the architect and the fire protection engineer at the design stage >> not at the installation phase, i.e. 10# of stuff in 5# bag. >> >> >> >> >> >> John Drucker, CET >> >> Assistant Construction Official >> >> Fire Protection Subcode Official >> >> Electrical Subcode Official >> >> Building Inspector >> >> Borough of Red Bank, NJ >> >> 90 Monmouth Street >> >> Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 >> >> Cel/Text: 732-904-6823 >> >> Email: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Sprinklerforum [ >> mailto:[email protected] >> <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Travis >> Allen- Allen Engineering >> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 5:37 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 >> >> >> >> Much Ado About Nothing, indeed :-). The safe answer is always to check >> with the AHJ, for sure. >> >> >> >> However, whether it’s a post or pylon has little to do with following the >> bouncing ball of the code, even if it leaves us shaking our heads. The >> provision doesn’t only apply to posts or pylons. A117.1.2009 has the same >> requirement in 307.2 for any protrusion in a circulation path: “307.2 >> Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches (685 mm) >> and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the floor shall protrude 4 >> inches (100 mm) maximum horizontally into the circulation path. EXCEPTION: >> Handrails shall be permitted to protrude 4 1/2 inches (115 mm) maximum.” >> Same language as the IBC. >> >> This sure smells like a circulation path as defined by the code: >> “CIRCULATION PATH. An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to >> another for pedestrians.” And I can’t find any exceptions for exit >> enclosures or fire systems. And I hate to say it, but NFPA 14 is not the >> governing code, and it is silent on protruding objects in circulation paths >> anyway. Hopefully the AHJ will weigh the factors and design efforts to keep >> the sprinkler system from becoming an occupant hazard, where an >> accessibility consultant might not. >> >> >> >> I’ll get back to my college football playoff pool now, since it was >> upended this weekend. >> >> >> >> - Travis >> >> >> >> *From:* Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected] >> <[email protected]>] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:07 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 >> >> >> >> James: >> >> I know this comes off sounding a little big-headed but … I’m the chair >> of the committee and I’ve never heard of such balderdash. This isn’t a >> “post” or a “pylon” – those are structures. This is a pipe and part of a >> “building system” and also a part of the fire/life safety apparatus. The >> applicable dimensions are the ones that define clear egress path on the >> landings (as per the building code) and the elevation above fin floor as >> prescribed in NFPA 14 and/or per the responding fire agency. Whether >> the ports point out, down at a 45° angle or straight down at the floor is >> also up to the responding fire agency. I think your idea of getting an >> superseding opinion from the local AHJ (BO or FO) is sound. >> >> >> SL >> >> >> >> *From:* Sprinklerforum [ >> mailto:[email protected] >> <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *James >> Litvak >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:09 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 >> >> >> >> The standpipe is in a stairwell. Some of the stairs it'll be in the >> corner, others beside the door. All of them will be outside the required >> path of egress clearance. The definition of circulation path in A117.1 is >> "An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to another for >> pedestrians". It's pretty vague. Unfortunately there's no differentiation >> between, say, a hallway or a stairwell. I think I'll contact the building >> department and see what they think. Hopefully they'll write something for >> me saying that section doesn't apply. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:40 PM Mike B Morey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Unfortunately other than the fact that the drawings in the 3## section >> make it pretty obvious this isn't what they're talking about, there's no >> definitions. I figured if its a stairwell it's an easier shoot down for >> someone who wants to write their own interpretations since the conspicuous >> absence of stairs in pretty much this entire standard should make it pretty >> open and shut. You could argue its not those things and that the previous >> section says leading edge, which the leading edge of the handle if you put >> it parallel to the floor probably isn't more than 4" out. Basically this >> code section is to keep someone tapping a cane against the edge of the >> walking path from slamming into some random protruding object, if they hit >> the hand wheel it may not be super pleasant but its not the kind of >> protrusion, IMHO, this section addresses. Just one of those fun common >> sense vs power trip things probably. Standard disclaimer, these are my >> opinions only and have not been approved or reviewed by my employer. >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> *Mike Morey* >> *CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677* >> *Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group >> * Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company* >> 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825 >> *direct *260.487.7824* / cell *260.417.0625* / fax *260.487.7991 >> * email *[email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Date: 11/14/2017 03:25 PM >> Subject: Re: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 >> Sent by: "Sprinklerforum" < >> [email protected]> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> Does the standard define the standpipe as a post or pylon? >> >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:10 PM Mike B Morey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Where is the standpipe located? Are we talking a typical stairwell >> install or elsewhere? Section 307 starts off by stating that it governs >> circulation paths, and stairs aren't part of that definition in section >> 1005 based on a quick look. The standard is available several places >> online if you google it, not sure if they're "legal" copies but for the >> sake of answering the question I'd take a look at that angle. If its in a >> hall or something I'd imagine it could be put in a box in the wall or >> something. >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> * Mike Morey* >> * CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677* >> * Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group >> * Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company* >> 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825 >> * direct *260.487.7824* / cell *260.417.0625* / fax *260.487.7991 >> * email *[email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: James Litvak <[email protected]> >> To: "[email protected]" < >> [email protected]> >> Date: 11/14/2017 02:59 PM >> Subject: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 >> Sent by: "Sprinklerforum" < >> [email protected]> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> I'm working on building permit plans for a job, and the architect passed >> on an email from their accessibility consultant that the fire department >> hose valves can't protrude beyond the standpipe riser more than 4", per >> ANSI A117.1 figure 307.3. The text of that section is: >> >> 307.3 Post-Mounted Objects. Objects on posts or pylons shall be permitted >> to overhang 4 inches (100 mm) maximum where more than 27 inches (685 mm) >> and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the floor. Objects on multiple >> posts or pylons where the clear distance between the posts or pylons is >> greater than 12 inches (305 mm) shall have the lowest edge of such object >> either 27 inches (685 mm) maximum or 80 inches (2030 mm) minimum above the >> floor. >> >> What they're saying is that we will need to turn an elbow up from the >> outlet of the standpipe and install the valve vertical. I've already told >> them this won't work anyway, since the valve itself has a 5" hand wheel, >> and due to takeouts, the least amount of projection physically possible is >> about 8". According to the consultant, the way to mitigate this is to >> install cane protection, which the architect appears to want to avoid. Is >> anyone aware of this code section, and does it apply the way I'm being told >> it does? In nearly 13 years as a designer, I've never been told such a >> requirement exists. >> >> >> James >> Charlotte, NC_______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=wiCt1iqr5u69Txm-iBELel0Xzd3F5uGuCJUQXBz1wqg&s=xRsf5UToNzmQSkkENHTI-JrcpESCaLYKnTi-kcXYGmg&e= >> >> This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain >> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No >> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If >> you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all >> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the >> sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, >> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended >> recipient. >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=5qwVwJLjSTa1NIX64A78M2wWVYYDHlGdPLp5aekf9Eg&s=hCvxa01YwdjeSk4O21JWnAfEVWaoF93WIMHJkrFr_lM&e=> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile[attachment "attcgpkb.jpg" deleted by Mike B >> Morey/Shambaugh/EMCORGROUP] >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=5qwVwJLjSTa1NIX64A78M2wWVYYDHlGdPLp5aekf9Eg&s=hCvxa01YwdjeSk4O21JWnAfEVWaoF93WIMHJkrFr_lM&e= >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
