I think it's totally up to the responding fire department. If there are
certain conditions at a particular site that make operational response more
challenging for one reason or another, then it may be of strategic value to
have the inlet at a particular location, or possibly more than one
I believe NFPA 24 would say 40’ for PIV or backflow
Check there perhaps.
Sent from my mobile device
Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.
Mark Phillips
Branch Manager
Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections
Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections
832-101 Purser Drive
Talk with the fire plans reviewer.
> On 02/11/2021 7:41 PM Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
> wrote:
>
>
> I'm doing a project for Cal State, and I'm trying find the code that would
> dictate when an FDC needs to be remotely located away from the building. I
> seem to remember a
I'm doing a project for Cal State, and I'm trying find the code that would
dictate when an FDC needs to be remotely located away from the building. I
seem to remember a requirement about needing to be 50' away from the
building, but I can't find this anywhere. Can someone point me in the right
Not necessarily a contradiction it's just the sloppy wording of the
standard causing confusion and delay - the engineer seems to be making the
case that 23.4.4.2.4 deals with different hazard classifications but since
the two systems are the same hazard then default to calculating the full
area
If the FAQ is true, then what is the point of 23.4.4.2.4? One says it has
to be 1500 no matter what and the other says you just apply the extra GPM
at the furthest branchline? Don't they contradict each other?
Best regards,
*Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
[image: Burtell Fire_Small]
Phone | Fax |
We need a 'Like' button on the forum. Since we don't have one, Craig is right
on the money here.
Cliff Whitfield, SET
President
Fire Design, Inc.
600 W. Bypass Hwy. 19E
Suite 202
Burnsville, NC 28714
Ph: 828-284-4772
-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of
My thoughts exactly, Mr Prahl.
>
> On Feb 11, 2021 at 3:46 PM, (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)> wrote:
>
>
>
> If I have 4-heads of OH2 in a 500 sf space I have to calc it and size
> everything as if I had a 1500 sf design
If I have 4-heads of OH2 in a 500 sf space I have to calc it and size
everything as if I had a 1500 sf design area. Where’s the value? What greater
level of Life Safety is provided? You should only have to calculate the actual
area up to the prescribed area and not add some fictitious value,
Joe,
Seems to me that this section specifically allows for your situation, then
The next section directs you to the flow issue.
23.4.4.2.4 Where the available floor area for a specific area/
density design criteria, including any extension of area as required
by 11.1.2 and Section 12.3, is less
I can understand both perspectives and I would do it your way if I were in
your shoes, however the engineer does have a valid point per the FAQ in the
handbook in section 11.2.3.4.1(1) in the 2013 edition which states:
FAQ What is the assigned operating area for subsystems that are smaller
than
Tracey Bellamy, I believe, was the one to propose it. It had to deal with a
loading dock and then having to grab ESFR sprinklers in the warehouse to get
the 1950 sq ft if I recall correctly. I read the report a couple years ago. I
see where he was coming from. The intent was good. But, I
Well, I didn't get far. His response below, any suggestions?
Section 23.4.4.2.4 indicates for a “specific area/density design criteria”
Not a specific type of sprinkler system. The entire mechanical penthouse,
both wet and dry systems, is one area/density design of ordinary hazard.
So keep adding
This is something that really needs to be looked at I future editions of NFPA
13. I know we've had this discussion many times.
I would love to hear how this came about. It offers no benefit to an owner and
only increases cost.
Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection |
Thanks, guys, that is what I was thinking as well.
Best regards,
*Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
[image: Burtell Fire_Small]
Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*
116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101
Email: j...@burtellfire.com
Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com
Joe,
The AHJ's interpretation sounds incorrect. What is supposed to take place is
as follows:
23.4.4.2.5 Where the total design discharge from these operating sprinklers
is less than
the minimum required discharge determined by multiplying the required design
density
times the required
Joe,
While the AHJ is referring to 11.1.2, see NFPA 13 (2016)23.4.4.2.4. The annex
provides for the steps to increase the flow.
Jack W. Carlson, SET
-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of Joe Burtell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:47 PM
To:
I have a situation where an engineer is telling me I have to calculate a
wet and dry system together because neither space meets the 1500 s.f
minimum. I have a penthouse mechanical room OH 1 (WET) of 1014 s.f. and an
adjacent room OH1 (DRY) of 469 s.f. I have calculated each room separate of
each
18 matches
Mail list logo
