Question of the Day - #87 Not Strict Enough?

General discussion area relating to building and construction codes. To post a topic for discussion you must register. Everyone is welcome to register. Registration is necessary to fight off spam. Under no circumstance is any part of this forum to be used for advertising or spam purposes. Welcome to our Minnesota community forum!

Question of the Day - #87 Not Strict Enough?

Postby RDavidson » Sun Nov 30, 2014 1:45 pm

2012 P2904.1.1, exception 4, which may or may not be legally adopted in Minnesota, exempts sprinklers from the following: “Garages; carports; exterior porches; unheated entry areas, such as mud rooms, that are adjacent to an exterior door; and similar uses.”

NFPA 13D section 8.6.4 exempts sprinklers from the following: “8.6.4 Sprinklers shall not be required in garages, open attached porches, carports, and similar structures.”

Then we have Minnesota Rules section 1309.0313, section R313.3 which includes the following:
1. Attached garages are required to have one dry head sprinkler located within 5 lineal feet of each door installed in the common wall separating the dwelling unit and the attached garage.
2. Attached covered patios, covered decks, covered porches, and similar structures are required to have automatic sprinklers with a minimum of one dry head for every 20 lineal feet of common wall between the dwelling unit and the covered patio, covered deck covered porch, or similar structure.

So we have conflicting text in the sprinkler requirements. Why do we have differing requirements for residential sprinklers? Will sprinkler designers find requirements in Minnesota rules for sprinklers in locations not required by the two national standards? Does this requirement in the rule meet the test for need and reasonableness?
RDavidson
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:36 pm

Return to 10K Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron