Getting the wording so the intent is clear is sometimes difficult. Kudo’s to all who work on these standards. I believe the intent is as Kyle describes it and I’ve attempted to illustrate an example in the attached. The reason this section exists is illustrated in the top “ALL GOOD” sketch – it gives the designer more flexibility in the higher-ceiling area.
Ed K From: Kyle.Montgomery <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 3:05 PM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <[email protected]> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [External]Re: Ceiling Obstructions I think the confusion is coming from where the phrase “…provided the obstruction rules are observed…” is located in the sentence. When you read it like it’s written: “…provided the obstruction rules are observed as shown in Figure 8.6.4.1.1.3(B).” Then it sounds like the “obstruction rules” that you need to follow are what is shown in the figure. But I think the intent is to refer to the normal obstruction rules (such as the beam rule). Perhaps a better way to write it would be: “Provided the obstruction rules are observed, the sprinklers shall be permitted to be spaced as though the ceiling was flat as shown in Figure 8.6.4.1.1.3 (B).” At least, that’s what I think the intent is. Space it per the figure, but only if you meet the other obstruction rules. Are there any English majors on the NFPA 13 committee? Kyle Montgomery [cid:[email protected]] Pre-Construction Manager Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co. 21605 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85024 Direct: 623.580.7820 Cell: 602.763.4736 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: Anthony Johnson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 11:34 AM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [External][Sprinklerforum] Re: Ceiling Obstructions Can you explain your reasoning for this conclusion? Why is this code there if you still have to use the obstruction rules? I'm interested in knowing if I've been interpreting this wrong. Anthony On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:35 AM Ed Kramer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Brain cramp or not, you are correct. Ed K From: Brian Harris <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 7:54 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Ceiling Obstructions Having a brain cramp this morning.. (NFPA13 / 2013) There’s got to be more to Fig 8.6.4.1.1.3(b) with regard to ceiling height changes. For example, what if the head (blue arrow) is only a foot off the ceiling height change? I assume 8.6.5.1.2 would have to come into play as well? [cid:[email protected]] Thank you, Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssystemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/> Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 _________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
8.6.4.1.1.3.pdf
Description: 8.6.4.1.1.3.pdf
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
