Sprinklers Protect Floor Area at Density .10gpm/ftsq light havard .2 gpm/ftsq Ord Gp 2
if 36" or less floor area is OK 2022 handbook (see blue printing) 10.2.6.1.1.3 B Chuck Bamford On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 1:31 PM Ed Kramer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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* > > > > *Pre-Construction Manager* > > *Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.* > > *21605 N. Central Ave.* > > *Phoenix, AZ 85024* > > *Direct: 623.580.7820* > > *Cell: 602.763.4736* > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > *From:* Anthony Johnson <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, June 2, 2025 11:34 AM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > [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]> wrote: > > Brain cramp or not, you are correct. > > > > Ed K > > > > *From:* Brian Harris <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 28, 2025 7:54 AM > *To:* [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? > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > *Brian Harris, CET* > > BVS Systems Inc. > > 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] > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] >
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
