|
|
Post by Keith Rhodes on Oct 31, 2014 12:10:59 GMT
Interpret this to mean the take off for sprinkler supply can be made internally off a single incoming supply -thus avoiding the requirement in 5.8.3.2 b).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan Rhodes on Nov 6, 2014 11:46:07 GMT
I don't see how any supply would not conform with 5.8.3.2 b) as the tee on a shared supply HAS to be adjacent to the incoming supply (it's connected to it!).
I can only imagine the intention of this rule is to ensure that the sprinkler branch is immediately adjacent to the POSITION of the incoming main (i.e. as close to the penetration through the wall/floor/ceiling through which the incoming supply passes) as practicable, and therefore if the tee-off for the sprinkler supply is some distance away, OR there is a domestic tee-off upstream of the sprinkler tee, then 5.8.3.2 b) is not satisfied, and therefore a) or c) have to be satisfied by the additional flow requirements for domestic occupancies.
This is very open to interpretation, and needs clarification from the authors as it could be open to 'abuse' assuming the intention is as above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan Rhodes on Nov 6, 2014 11:46:36 GMT
I don't see how any supply would not conform with 5.8.3.2 b) as the tee on a shared supply HAS to be adjacent to the incoming supply (it's connected to it!).
I can only imagine the intention of this rule is to ensure that the sprinkler branch is immediately adjacent to the POSITION of the incoming main (i.e. as close to the penetration through the wall/floor/ceiling through which the incoming supply passes) as practicable, and therefore if the tee-off for the sprinkler supply is some distance away, OR there is a domestic tee-off upstream of the sprinkler tee, then 5.8.3.2 b) is not satisfied, and therefore a) or c) have to be satisfied by the additional flow requirements for domestic occupancies.
This is very open to interpretation, and needs clarification from the authors as it could be open to 'abuse' assuming the intention is as above.
|
|
