Sprinkler heads in elevator shafts

[jar546]

Type IIB contruction, (new) sprinklered building. Conflict between RDP and Sprinkler designer putting it in my lap. I vaguely remember this coming up here.

2009 IBC

 

[Coug Dad]

Sprinklers required if combustible construction (including some cables for machine room less systems) is exposed within the hoistway per NFPA 13.

 

[cda]

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-fire-codes/11339-interesting-question-posted-electrician.html

 

[jar546]

I told them that if the RDP wants it, then he gets it. I am never going to over-rule an RDP for something that he/she specs which may be above the codes. I directed them to hash it out between them after reading NFPA 13 Section 8.15.5.2 and .5, otherwise I am designing which I do not do, cannot do.

 

[cda]

So you are getting a sprinkler head, is the rdp also doing shunt trip?

 

[Oldfieldguy]

Which edition of NFPA 13? Because in the 2013 edition of NFPA 13, sprinklers are no longer required in noncombustible shafts provided the belts are not encased on polyethylene.

 

[jar546]

2007 is the official edition.

 

[rnapier]

Not required in 2007 either see 8.15.5

 

[IJHumberson]

I agree with your stance on this JAR - Codes are for a MINIMUM level of protection - if the RDP wants to specify something above and beyond that, then there's nothing prohibiting it. I've had people try to get me to say that it can't be done because the code doesn't require it - I try to politely remind them that the code only specifies a minimum level of protection and if a designer provides more than what the code specifies, I can't prohibit that unless it creates some other code violation.