• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Sprinkler obstruction

mjesse

mjesse

Registered User
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
987
Location
Lincolnshire, IL.
Tenant is an engineer, claims this is not a problem.

Violation order given after 30 day notice to repair ignored.

NFPA code section anyone?

IMG_6803.jpg


IMG_6804.jpg


IMG_6808.jpg


mj
 
First, this appears to be a business. Those look like standard response heads. Why? 8.3.3 requres QR's in light hazard. I'm assuming a new installation based upon the looks of the place. it can remain standard if it was legally existing before.

As far as the obstructions, you'll have to measure how far the head is from the ceiling and then how far the obstruction comes down from the ceiling. the difference will be the number you'll correlate to table 8.6.5.1.2

less than 1 foot 0 inches

1ft to 1.5 foot 2.5 inches

1.5-2 ft 3.5 inches

Figure 8.6.5.1.2(a) gives a good illustration.
 
I believe (if not mistaken...read something somewhere in NFPA 13 8.5, annex or handbook) since the contour is not sharp it would be similar to a rounded duct and or architect feature (exceptions) and not require additional protection or obstruction. Sorry, having issues with the NFPA subscription bugs since they went to handbooks and can't access section criteria quickly. This opinion has not been successfuly verified and trying to fly by what brain cells I have left ;)

Now photo # 2 and the distance between heads regarding the coverage based on As = S X L is a different story :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the info Chris.

We don't own the NFPA books, but I am able to view them on the NFPA website.

Just trying to cover all bases here.

It seems NFPA 13 - 8.6.5.2.2 - provides for a suspended obstruction 6" or less from the head to be a minimum of 3" below the deflector.

I am anticipating tenant will propose lowering the light fixture 2"-3", and arguing that he complies.

8.6.5.3 - Obstructions that prevent discharge from reaching hazard. may also apply here. It just doesn't seem logical though.

FM Burns point is duly noted, I understand a round duct would allow for a proper discharge. Does anthing exist in NFPA that indicates a "cone of permitted obstruction" (my term) going from say, 1" wide 3" below the deflector, to 4' wide 4-5' below deflector??

I'm sure it's obvious by now my lack of knowledge of the subject. I'm just a washed up carpenter ;) Thanks for the help.

Just trying to gather as much ammo as possible before going to court with this guy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mjesse,

Based on what has been shown, I would not be concerned with the proximity of the head in Photo 1 or 3 and any continious obstruction based on earlier reply. Now my only concern as mentioned would be the close proximity of the two heads in Photo 2 being what appears to be 5.5 ft. That may be the issue or just possibly an optical illusion?
 
Looks like Chris pulled out what use to be the beam rule

And yes it should apply
 
FM William Burns said:
I would not be concerned with the proximity of the head in Photo 1 or 3 and any continious obstruction based on earlier reply.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

The visible head in picture #1 is not a concern of mine either. There are 2 more heads hidden above the light fixture.

The items you are seeing in picture #2 are a light support (white, closest to camera) and an obstructed head (3-4 feet beyond the support)

This obstructed head, and the other like it are roughly centered over an 8-10" wide light rail. The light rail is 5" below the ceiling

IMG_6806.jpg


Is your reasoning based on the presumption that if the head discharges, water will still spray past the light fixture toward the walls?

Thanks,
 
cda said:
Looks like Chris pulled out what use to be the beam ruleAnd yes it should apply
Click to expand...
So, NFPA 13 - 8.6.5.2.1.7

Sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed on the centerline of a truss or bar joist or directly above a beam, provided that the truss chord or beam dimension (or light fixture?) is not more than 8" (light is +/- 10") and the sprinkler deflector is located at least 6" above the structural member (or light in my case) where the sprinkler is positioned at a distance three times greater than the maximum dimension of the web members away from the web members.

This reads as though the light would need to be at least 6" below but not less than 3 times the width of the light away from the head (30")

In which case this IS an obstruction, contrary to what FM Bill is saying?

Now I'm more confused than before.

mj
 
Picture #2 to me looks like the ceiling fixture would fill up with a portion of spray if discharged? I can't believe that would be allowed, but I learning too.
 
Haha Coug, ya caught me!

Our Fire District is a separate entity that conducts all life safety inspections. They have been been the ones working with this tenant to have the violation (as they see it) corrected.

Unfortunately, they lack the authority to write tickets and assess fines. That's where I come in.

Fire District says it's a violation, requires that it be corrected. Most people make the correction after a few warnings and move on. This case has been an ongoing thorn in the side of the FD, so we (me) was asked to step in and enforce.

I depend on the FD for their plan reviews, inspections, opinions, etc. but this is the first time in my time here that we've had to issue a ticket (violation order) Since I'm not the NFPA authority, I am trying to understand this better.

mj
 
If the FD cites it as a violation and it turns out to not be a violation, will the FD reimburse the owner and his consultants for the time spent proving they were right in the first place?
 
Is your reasoning based on the presumption that if the head discharges, water will still spray past the light fixture toward the walls?
Click to expand...
Precisely, since the obstruction is only 4.5” from the bottom of the deflector and 9” from the ceiling and is smooth rounded contour, the pattern will still provide water to the adjacent wall within the limitations necessary for floor coverage under the said obstruction.

I will have to find my handbook since I’m having some real difficulties (bug) with NFPA’s subscription now and I have to scroll through the entire chapter to get what I want. NFPA and their host are working on it. This particular fixture could be looked at like a 6” round duct next to a head and that is permitted based on floor coverage….believe it’s in the handbook section for 8.5.and 8.6 (2010)…to be continued. The floor is the key and this does not indicate an obstruction to the pattern/density being able to reach the entire floor space below and to all sides of the head.

How far from the head to the fixture...anyway?

I could also be suffering from a massive brain fart :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a quick cross section sketch to help illustrate the situation..

IMG_6816.jpg


You can't see the heads from the floor, I was able to snap the pic with the camera extended well over my head. If I didn't know the heads were there, I wouldn't have been able to find them.

mj
 
as depicted by your picture, I would say that is an obstruction. My interpretation of the round duct issue (eagerly waiting the code section so I can read it) that the spray would have to hit the outside not the inside. JMHO.
 
Assuming standard spray sprinklers, NFPA has 3 general rules to deal with obstructions:

- for solid, continuous obstructions (typically called the beam rule) section 8.6.5.1. In my opinion, it doesn't apply very well to this situation.

- for non-solid, or non-continuous obstructions, such as ducts, trusses, columns, etc. where the sprinkler will get water on both sides (over/under or around both sides)

there is the 3-times rule of section 8.6.5.2. This could apply to this situation, but you don't meet the 3-times requirement.

- for suspended or floor mounted obstructions (suspended ducts or lights, low walls) there is section 8.6.5.2.2 that you referenced above. From your sketch above, you

need 3" or 4" from the deflector to the top of the obstruction, so the light would need to be lowered another inch or two.

I would be careful about taking anyone to court on this. Section 8.6.5.2.1.4 says that lights don't have to comply with the 3-times rule, but the appendix says that it is not the intent to allow architectural features to conceal, obscure, or otherwise obstruct sprinkler discharge. I wouldn't want to have to argue either side of that case. I think the best solution is to get them to lower the light to comply with section 8.6.5.2.2. Otherwise, good luck in court.
 
8.7.5.1.2 - Sidewall sprinklers shall be installed no closer than 4' from light fixtures or similar obstructions.

8.6.5.2.1.10 - Sprinklers shall be permitted to be placed without regard to the blades of ceiling fans less than 60" in diameter, provided the plan view of the fan is at least 50% open.

Seems like there is some good clear text relating to these other situations, but not specifically to the fixture in question.

I will say this, I prefer reading the ICC codes over the NFPA, much better organization.
 
Mj

The picture you drew is a easy violation in my mind

The 18 inch rule below a head no storage, so I would apply the same to this
 
need to allow for the spray pattern to develop,

do not have the book

so how close to the bottom of a pendant can you have anything?????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top