# Sprinkler obstruction



## mjesse

Tenant is an engineer, claims this is not a problem.

Violation order given after 30 day notice to repair ignored.

NFPA code section anyone?

















mj


----------



## mtlogcabin

> Tenant is an engineer, claims this is not a problem.


There is no problem if there is no fire.  

It is wrong I just don't have the code section at this times.


----------



## Marshal Chris

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.


----------



## FM William Burns

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


----------



## mjesse

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.


----------



## FM William Burns

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?


----------



## cda

Looks like Chris pulled out what use to be the beam rule

And yes it should apply


----------



## mjesse

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.


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






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

Thanks,


----------



## mjesse

cda said:
			
		

> Looks like Chris pulled out what use to be the beam ruleAnd yes it should apply


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


----------



## Pcinspector1

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.


----------



## mjesse

PC,

Yes the fixture is shaped like a gutter, and would collect water.

mj


----------



## Coug Dad

Just curious, how can you issue a "violation order" if you do not know what the violation is?


----------



## mjesse

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


----------



## Coug Dad

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?


----------



## FM William Burns

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


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


----------



## mjesse

Here is a quick cross section sketch to help illustrate the situation..






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


----------



## Marshal Chris

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.


----------



## Coug Dad

I believe non structural obstructions are not an issue in light hazard per 8.6.5.2.1.4 (2010)


----------



## RBK

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.


----------



## mjesse

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.


----------



## Coug Dad

non structural obstructions are not an issue in light hazard per 8.6.5.2.1.4 (2010)


----------



## cda

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


----------



## Coug Dad

cda

Not storage - obstruction per 8.6.5.2.1.4 - no issue


----------



## cda

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?????


----------



## peach

It probably won't work the way it should... it's a designer issue... it's up to them to ensure coverage.

We did inspections at a condo project where the '11' units all had a sprinkler head inside a fixture.. without citing anything else, they moved the heads (at close in.. not final).


----------



## Pcinspector1

I'd light a big fat one under the sprinkler and let's see the coverage, what you think, the system is suppose to work right!

Just don't get caught Mj.


----------



## peach

Designer issue.. it's not going to work..

Having said that, the FP designer may have anticipated the architect was going to specify fixtures flush to the ceiling.. typically, the owner/tenant/architect changes the fixtures to something else.


----------



## Frank

Tenant is right--As coug dad said per NFPA lights in light hazard are no longer considered obstructions

As to the heads being ordinary response it looks like this is an older building--clue exit sign style.


----------



## mjesse

Frank, Do you have a code section for this?



> lights in light hazard are no longer considered obstructions


8.6.5.2.1.4 - indicates the clearance calculations apply to structural members only.

I find it hard to believe one could install light fixtures or decorative features 2" below a sprinkler head, interferes with the discharge pattern, and you and Coug would be ok with it.

It seems the majority (as well as the Fire District and I) believe it's an obstruction. In order to provide a complete argument for or against, please include Code sections and interpretations.

Thanks for the great debate!

mj


----------



## cda

with a ten inch wide and only two inches down from the deflector, sounds like obstruction is going to happen

.

I still think the 18 inch rule would apply

nfpa 13 2010

8.5.5.2* Obstructions to Sprinkler Discharge Pattern Development.

8.5.5.2.1    Continuous or noncontinuous obstructions less than or equal to 18 in. (457 mm) below the sprinkler deflector that prevent the pattern from fully developing shall comply with 8.5.5.2.

8.6.5.2.1.3*   Unless the requirements of 8.6.5.2.1.4 through 8.6.5.2.1.9 are met, sprinklers shall be positioned away from obstructions a minimum distance of three times the maximum dimension of the obstruction (e.g., structural members, pipe, columns, and fixtures). The maximum clear distance required shall be 24 in. (609 mm) in accordance with Figure 8.6.5.2.1.3.

and other sections could apply


----------



## Coug Dad

cda,

You are correct in that obstruction of the discharge will occur.  However, NFPA 13 has established that non structural obstructions are not an issue in light and ordinary hazard.  Clearance to storage is a different issue.  Storage is not the same classification of obstruction as a light fixture.


----------



## TJacobs

I'm with RBK...let them lower the fixture.  That sketch helped.


----------



## TJacobs

You could look up the head in the data sheet and see if they have a spray pattern graphic.


----------



## cda

coug

8.6.5.2.1.4*   For light and ordinary hazard occupancies, structural members only shall be considered when applying the requirements of 8.6.5.2.1.3.

I don't think it says that obstructions do not matter

and 8.5.5.2.1 does not include the word storage


----------



## FM William Burns

Ok arm over 4" and call it a day.


----------



## Frank

Per the NFPA 13 A-8.6.5.2.1.4

"It is the intent of this section to exempt nonstructural elements in light and ordinary hazard occupancies from the obstruction criteria commonly called the "three times rule" However the other obstruction rules including the "Beam rule" (8.6.5.1.2) and the "wide obstruction rule" (8.6.5.3.3) still apply."

Note too the nature of the hazard in the picture--this is a hallway.  Even if something were in the hallway to provide a significant fuel load, it would be likely that the water would be able to reach a fire when the light fixtures either melted due to heat if plastic, broke due to thermal shock if glass, or due to water loading.


----------



## cda

Ok time to mention possible delay of head activation?

Due to heat being deflected???

Have third party access it !!


----------



## Frank

Because of the narrow hall configuration heat should get to the heads sooner than in an open area configuration


----------



## mjesse

Hey! The light is gone!







Everybody wins


----------



## Coug Dad

What are those fixtures in the room to the left of the corridor?


----------



## mjesse

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> What are those fixtures in the room to the left of the corridor?


Pedicure stations (foot spas)


----------



## cda

Well either they did not like the lights or someone thought there was a sprinkler obstruction problem


----------



## Pcinspector1

Mj,

It must have been my post #26 that scared em!

pc1


----------

