pipesnpumps
Mechanical
- Dec 4, 2002
- 316
Reviewing plans where sprinklers were omitted from an attic space. Metal truss with exposed OSB roof deck (topped with standing seam metal roof). They called for the exposed side of roof deck to be painted with intumescent paint. However, unless I am mistaken the following says that doesn't meet the exception, and thus this attic requires sprinklers.
NFPA 13-2010
"8.15.1.2.11* Concealed spaces in which the exposed materials are constructed entirely of fire retardant–treated wood as defined by NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant–Treated Wood and Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials, shall not require sprinkler protection."
"A.8.15.1.2.11 The allowance to omit sprinklers for fire retardant–treated wood requires a pressure-treated application. It does not apply to coated applications."
Anyone disagree with that interpretation? if so, then why. I won't debate the merits of it, just want a reasonable 2nd opinion on interpretation as there is money and legal implications.
Real world knowledge doesn't fall out of the sky on a parachute, but rather is gained in small increments during moments of panic or curiosity.
NFPA 13-2010
"8.15.1.2.11* Concealed spaces in which the exposed materials are constructed entirely of fire retardant–treated wood as defined by NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant–Treated Wood and Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials, shall not require sprinkler protection."
"A.8.15.1.2.11 The allowance to omit sprinklers for fire retardant–treated wood requires a pressure-treated application. It does not apply to coated applications."
Anyone disagree with that interpretation? if so, then why. I won't debate the merits of it, just want a reasonable 2nd opinion on interpretation as there is money and legal implications.
Real world knowledge doesn't fall out of the sky on a parachute, but rather is gained in small increments during moments of panic or curiosity.