Question of the Day - #119 Sprinkler substitute!

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 - #119 Sprinkler substitute!

Postby RDavidson » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:55 pm

Now it appears that most every surface in a dwelling will have a gypsum board finish. If the dwelling is not sprinklered, most floors will need protection. If the dwelling is sprinklered most PEX manufacturer’s don’t permit sprinkler piping to be exposed. Another question that is raised impacts homes with required sprinklers. The IBC has an exception that allows a sprinkler system to be substituted when one-hour fire-resistive construction is required. So if a NFPA 13 system equals one-hour fire-resistive construction, then it stands to reason that one-hour fire-resistive construction equals or exceeds an NFPA 13d system. And if most all of the surfaces are covered with gypsum board sheathing anyway, would a home with all construction protected be equal to an unprotected home with a sprinkler system? It would seem that an equivalency is achieved. But you might argue that even with the sprinkler system virtually all surfaces must be protected so the protection is required as part of the sprinkler system. What do you think?
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