NEC Section 700.10(D)

[dmichalak]

Mr. Holt -

It was a pleasure attending your ?Changes to the NEC 2014? class in Omaha last week. Please reference NEC section 700.10(D), and specifically the 2014 NEC Handbook?s interpretation. I have a question in regards to NEC section 700.10(D)(1)(1) which states: ?Be installed in spaces or areas that are fully protected by an approved automatic fire suppression system.?.

Here are some NFPA references and excerpts for your general information:

? NEC 2011 Handbook, page 1165 ? ?Sprinkler systems are the most common fire suppression systems, and they are covered in NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. Buildings that are fully protected by automatic sprinkler systems meet the requirements of 700.10(D).?

? NFPA 13-2007, section 8.1.1 ? ?The requirements for spacing, location, and position of sprinklers shall be based on the following principles:
(1) Sprinklers shall be installed throughout the premises.
(2) Sprinklers shall be located so as not to exceed the maximum protection area per sprinkler.
(3) Sprinklers shall be positioned and located so as to provide satisfactory performance with respect to activation time and distribution.
(4) Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from areas specifically allowed by this standard.
(5) When sprinklers are specifically tested?
(6) Clearance between sprinklers and ceilings?
(7) Furniture, such as portable wardrobe units, cabinets,? ?

? NFPA 13-2007, section 8.15.1.1 ? ?All concealed spaces enclosed wholly or partly by exposed combustible construction shall be protected by sprinklers except in concealed spaces where sprinklers are not required to be installed by 8.15.1.2.1 through 8.15.1.2.16 and 8.15.6.?

8.12.1.2.1 ? Concealed spaces of noncombustible and limited-combustible construction with minimal combustible loading having no access shall not require sprinkler protection.

8.12.1.2.2 ? Concealed spaces of noncombustible and limited-combustible construction with minimal combustible loading with limited access and not permitting occupancy or storage of combustibles shall not require sprinkler protection.

(8.12.1.2.3 through 8.12.1.2.16 detail additional concealed spaces where sprinklers are not required?)

Interestingly, NEC section 700.10(D)(1) has not changed between the 2011 edition and 2014 edition, but the interpretation by the editors of the ?NEC Handbook? appears to have changed in the 2014 edition. Up until now, the general consensus seemed to be that if you had a building that is ?fully sprinklered? per NFPA 13, you could run emergency feeder circuits above a finished ceiling or within vertical shaftways/chases as long as these spaces contained ?minimal combustible loading? (metal ductwork, piping, cable tray, plenum-rated cables, fiberglass insulation, etc.). The Nebraska State Electrical Inspector?s latest interpretation on NEC section 700.10(D)(1) is that emergency feeder cicuits can be run above finished ceilings that do not have sprinkler protection. However, the State Electrical Inspector also said that emergency feeder circuits cannot be run vertically in shaftways/chases unless they are sprinklered (which really does not make sense because the shaftways/chases are almost always rated 1-hr. or 2-hr. construction and sprinkler heads would be extremely difficult to access and maintain).

So the underlying question to all of this is: In a fully sprinklered building per NFPA 13, is it acceptable to install emergency feeder circuits above the finished ceiling space with no additional physical protection or special fire-rating systems and still comply with NEC section 700.10(D)?

Any thoughts you may have on this subject would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this in further detail, please call me.

Thank You,
Dan Michalak, P.E.

 

[david]

wouldn't most buildings above 75 feet in the occupancy classes given be fully sprinkled prior to 2005. I would have to go back and check but I believe this change was in part do to 911 attack on the twin towers. Never the less, this was added in 2005 and I would think the wiring method would have to be protected by the fire suppression system. If not I am not sure why the additional protection would have been added in 2005

 

[GoldDigger]

But the question seems to be whether the wiring is in fact adequately protected by the sprinkler system even if there are no sprinklers in the space immediately containing the wiring.
The use of building or area rather than "space" in the NEC supports this interpretation.

Tapatalk!

 

[david]

I will have to give it more thought.

Neither of the two commentaries that I looked at address 700.9.

I have been seeing sprinklers above and below the suspended ceilings lately.

The change in 2005 would have effected new installations. If the 2005 change was met to add additional protection that was not their prior to 2005. I would think the feedersabove the suspended ceiling the fire suppression system would have to be provided above the suspended ceiling as well. If that is not true then I do not see a need for this change in 2005.