I have a large renovation project we've been wrapping up. Due to over head duct obstructions, we had some sprinklers located about 30" away from columns. the next sprinkler was on the other side of the column, 14'-0" away from the first. The fire inspector noted that we would need to add sprinklers on the other side of the column since we couldn't meet the 3 times rule, and if we did, it would still be too far from the other sprinkler that was 11'-6" away from the side of the column. I mentioned it to him and his boss that the 8.6.5.2.1.3 rule was up to a maximum of 24" away from the column, at that point the column was no longer an obstruction, and NFPA considered this adequate coverage. He initially agreed with me yesterday, but we were shot down for a C.O. today because we didn't add the sprinklers on the opposite side of the column. Normally, I would have argued the point, but the GC just want's his CO, so he's paying for the heads. Needless to say, I now look like I don't know what i'm talking about in the eyes of the owners rep and contractor.
Have I had 8.6.5.2.1.3 wrong all these years? I always thought that 24" away meant no problem, move on to the next.
Andy Rooney Sprinkler Man:
"Have you ever noticed when you're going for a C of O, the inspector will find something wrong? It never matters if you can point to it in the book, you're still wrong. It's like this pair of socks I have, I never remember to throw them out. They find their way back into my drawer, and I end up putting them on only to find my toe sticking out of a hole. Now you may ask your self, Andy, why don't you just take them back off and put on a new pair? but see, that would require me to admit that I shouldn't have put them on in the first place, and i'm just not going to do that."
No comments:
Post a Comment