You’re right, that’s the branch in the assessment tree. I’m 110%,
unequivocally on the side of #2, presuming there isn’t a charging code
requirement as alluded to in the covered mall building example. Creating a
series of smaller tenant-specific systems, each with their own flow/tamper
swit
But, (and I’m deliberately being the devil’s advocate here), which is worse:
1. 10 individual valves controlling small areas, any one of which could be
closed when it shouldn’t be?
2. 1 valve controlling the entire area, but which has to be shut each time
work is done in any of the 10 sma
I don't know for sure what the actual numbers are, and it's widely accepted
that a lot of fire incidents are under-reported or not reported in detail to
the extent that nuance or extenuating circumstances are accurately reflected.
That said, NFPA has been relying on rough numbers for several y
Your example is actually a building code requirement in most cases. "Covered
mall buildings" have to have all tenant spaces valved separately etc. It's
covered in 914.2 in the 2018 edition, and some form of that language goes back
quite a ways in the code. Outside of that you'd be talking abo
This is the premise of yard system reliability per NFPA 24 where isolation of
one section cannot shut down more than six appurtenances/systems at a time.
Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell
Associate Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \ M 763-688-4045 \ F 952-229-2923
rhin...@
Is there anything inherently wrong with installing control valves within a
system to isolate certain areas? Say for instance you have a strip mall fed
from one system and you want to add control valves within that system to
isolate certain stores without interrupting service to the rest. I under
