Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Mike, that would be a non-functional fire protection device that has the
appearance of functioning as described in 901.4.5 and would be required to
be removed as proscribed therein. This DPV though it would no longer
operate as a DPV would still function as a fire protection device, allowing
water to flow through it to open sprinkler heads. In fact it would perform
better than originally designed as the dry pipe trip and delivery time lag
would be eliminated and the design area would be at 30% larger than a wet
system would need and based on a lower C-Factor. Plus failure due to
problems only encountered in dry systems would be eliminated.


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)


On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:00 PM Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> While it seems trivial to us who deal with it for a living, imagine the
> building caught fire and there were fire/smoke/water damages. I bet an
> insurance company lawyer could convince others that if the existing dry
> pipe valve was modified, there is no way of telling what else “didn’t meet
> code” with the system. Why take a chance. What about removing power to a
> fire pump but leaving it in place and connected to the water supply. Where
> would you draw the line.
>
>
>
> Mike Hill
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Ron
> Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:54 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Ron Greenman 
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Mark, I think that you're referencing 901.4.5 (in the 2012 edition of the
> IFC) but that is addressing systems that appear to be life safety or fire
> protection systems but don't function as such. A common example is a camera
> disguised as a sprinkler head. In John's case it would still function as a
> fire protection device.
>
>
>
> Don, As to listing, it would definitely no longer meet its listing, but
> since it was turned into just a fancy piece of pipe would it matter?
>
>
>
> John, As to the FM, would ne be satisfied if were strip down of obvious
> DPV like the air line and the water motor line, have the holes plugged, and
> have it marked as no longer being any kind of valve?
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Greenman
>
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700
>
>
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
> director (1942-)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re
> not allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as
> what it appears to be.
>
>
>
> Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are
> trying to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is
> a “prohibited” procedure.
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
>
> Silco Fire and Security
>
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
>
> F-614-449-2007
>
> C-614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mark.Phelps
> via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Mark.Phelps 
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve
> with a spool?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Paulsen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
> *To:* Sprinklerforum 
> *Subject:* Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Good Day Everyone!
>
>
>
> A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of
> a dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe.
> We have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid
> confusion for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the
> forum knew of a specific code reference that would prohibit removing the
> clapper and leaving the DPV in place?
>
>
>
> Thanks in Advance,
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
>
> Silco Fire and Security
>
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
>
> F-614-449-2007
>
> C-614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
> 

RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum]

While it seems trivial to us who deal with it for a living, imagine the 
building caught fire and there were fire/smoke/water damages. I bet an 
insurance company lawyer could convince others that if the existing dry pipe 
valve was modified, there is no way of telling what else “didn’t meet code” 
with the system. Why take a chance. What about removing power to a fire pump 
but leaving it in place and connected to the water supply. Where would you draw 
the line.

Mike Hill

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:54 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Mark, I think that you're referencing 901.4.5 (in the 2012 edition of the IFC) 
but that is addressing systems that appear to be life safety or fire protection 
systems but don't function as such. A common example is a camera disguised as a 
sprinkler head. In John's case it would still function as a fire protection 
device.

Don, As to listing, it would definitely no longer meet its listing, but since 
it was turned into just a fancy piece of pipe would it matter?

John, As to the FM, would ne be satisfied if were strip down of obvious DPV 
like the air line and the water motor line, have the holes plugged, and have it 
marked as no longer being any kind of valve?


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)


On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re not 
allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as what it 
appears to be.

Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are trying 
to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is a 
“prohibited” procedure.

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with 
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:


From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=Qi814SskoS25kTQqZ9f7KTPoINGV9-DI2T9Mn7AeIHU=1jfyWhJmiYjADoWN3yFQwnXw-W3Uj_mVkEEZrYWqXcE=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum]

Thanks guys!

You’ve answered my question, there is no specific code reference prohibiting 
it. It will fall back to the local AHJ and local ordinances if it is allowed or 
not.

Thanks,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:54 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Mark, I think that you're referencing 901.4.5 (in the 2012 edition of the IFC) 
but that is addressing systems that appear to be life safety or fire protection 
systems but don't function as such. A common example is a camera disguised as a 
sprinkler head. In John's case it would still function as a fire protection 
device.

Don, As to listing, it would definitely no longer meet its listing, but since 
it was turned into just a fancy piece of pipe would it matter?

John, As to the FM, would ne be satisfied if were strip down of obvious DPV 
like the air line and the water motor line, have the holes plugged, and have it 
marked as no longer being any kind of valve?


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)


On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re not 
allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as what it 
appears to be.

Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are trying 
to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is a 
“prohibited” procedure.

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with 
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:


From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=Qi814SskoS25kTQqZ9f7KTPoINGV9-DI2T9Mn7AeIHU=1jfyWhJmiYjADoWN3yFQwnXw-W3Uj_mVkEEZrYWqXcE=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list

Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum]

IFC section  was originally to stop installation of security cameras 
masquerading as smoke detectors. It was written so they wouldn’t have to say ‘& 
sprinkler heads, & standpipe outlets, & ’  as more products appeared.

Might be a stretch to say it applies in this case.



175 psi relief valve?

Best.

Bruce Verhei 


> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:48, Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> IFC 2012 Section 901.4.5
>  
> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
> Senior Fire Protection Engineer
> O 952-656-3662 \  M 320-250-5404  \  F 952-229-2923
> rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
> *Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
> **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:33 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Mark.Phelps 
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>  
> There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re not 
> allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as what 
> it appears to be. 
>  
> Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are trying 
> to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is a 
> “prohibited” procedure.
>  
> John Paulsen – SET
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
> Silco Fire and Security
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
> Grove City, OH 43123
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
> F-614-449-2007
> C-614-348-8206
>  
>
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Mark.Phelps 
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>  
> Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve 
> with a spool?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
>  
> From: John Paulsen 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
> To: Sprinklerforum 
> Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>  
> Good Day Everyone!
>  
> A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
> dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
> have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid 
> confusion for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the 
> forum knew of a specific code reference that would prohibit removing the 
> clapper and leaving the DPV in place?
>  
> Thanks in Advance,
>  
> John Paulsen – SET
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
> Silco Fire and Security
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
> Grove City, OH 43123
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
> F-614-449-2007
> C-614-348-8206
>  
>  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=Qi814SskoS25kTQqZ9f7KTPoINGV9-DI2T9Mn7AeIHU=1jfyWhJmiYjADoWN3yFQwnXw-W3Uj_mVkEEZrYWqXcE=
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Mark, I think that you're referencing 901.4.5 (in the 2012 edition of the
IFC) but that is addressing systems that appear to be life safety or fire
protection systems but don't function as such. A common example is a camera
disguised as a sprinkler head. In John's case it would still function as a
fire protection device.

Don, As to listing, it would definitely no longer meet its listing, but
since it was turned into just a fancy piece of pipe would it matter?

John, As to the FM, would ne be satisfied if were strip down of obvious DPV
like the air line and the water motor line, have the holes plugged, and
have it marked as no longer being any kind of valve?


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)


On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re
> not allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as
> what it appears to be.
>
> Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are
> trying to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is
> a “prohibited” procedure.
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
>
> Silco Fire and Security
>
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
>
> F-614-449-2007
>
> C-614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mark.Phelps
> via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Mark.Phelps 
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve
> with a spool?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Paulsen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
> *To:* Sprinklerforum 
> *Subject:* Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Good Day Everyone!
>
>
>
> A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of
> a dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe.
> We have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid
> confusion for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the
> forum knew of a specific code reference that would prohibit removing the
> clapper and leaving the DPV in place?
>
>
>
> Thanks in Advance,
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
>
> Silco Fire and Security
>
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
>
> F-614-449-2007
>
> C-614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=Qi814SskoS25kTQqZ9f7KTPoINGV9-DI2T9Mn7AeIHU=1jfyWhJmiYjADoWN3yFQwnXw-W3Uj_mVkEEZrYWqXcE=
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

IFC 2012 Section 901.4.5

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 320-250-5404  \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:33 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re not 
allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as what it 
appears to be.

Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are trying 
to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is a 
“prohibited” procedure.

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with 
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:


From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=Qi814SskoS25kTQqZ9f7KTPoINGV9-DI2T9Mn7AeIHU=1jfyWhJmiYjADoWN3yFQwnXw-W3Uj_mVkEEZrYWqXcE=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum]

There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re not 
allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as what it 
appears to be.

Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are trying 
to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is a 
“prohibited” procedure.

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with 
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:


From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=Qi814SskoS25kTQqZ9f7KTPoINGV9-DI2T9Mn7AeIHU=1jfyWhJmiYjADoWN3yFQwnXw-W3Uj_mVkEEZrYWqXcE=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Don Casey via Sprinklerforum]

would removing the clapper void the listing?



On Sep 24, 2019, at 3:15 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

 Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve 
with a spool?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:



From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum]

Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are trying 
to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is a 
“prohibited” procedure.

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with 
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:


From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum]

Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with 
a spool?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:



From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum]

From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ's demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen - SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum]

They are creating a pocket in the ceiling right above the opening, the width of 
the opening to act as a “draft curtain”.  This is supposed to capture early 
products of combustion/smoke.  The sprinklers at the opening are installed up 
in this pocket.

So you have a ceiling at 10 ft with the opening starting maybe an inch below 
and a pocketed area right adjacent to the opening (on both sides) that bumps up 
18”.  There would also not be any fork truck traffic through this hallway.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:04 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

The concern I have with heat activated sprinklers is not whether they can 
contain heat for 2 hours; it is what happens right at the beginning of the 
fire. A 2 hour barrier will also stop heat at zero hours, but a hole will let 
fire go right through until the sprinklers activate. If the manufacturing 
facility uses any sort of combustible liquids, or aerosol cans, rags, packaging 
materials, giant fans to cool people off – I would be worried about a fire 
getting started and quickly spreading to the other side of the fire wall before 
there was a response.

Also – the first time that a forklift/irregular part smashes the sprinkler head 
and shuts the line down for an hour, the odds of those openings being protected 
in the future goes down.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 7:27 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>
Subject: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.



NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Don Casey via Sprinklerforum]

Try searching for this:

‘Measurements of the transmission of radiation through water sprays’ by A. J. 
M. Heselden and P. L. Hinkley


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL
Subject: RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Bill,

The EOR has no basis for the design other than “it’s prescribed for vertical 
openings in NFPA 13 so it should work for horizontal openings.”  That’s the 
beginning and end of their technical analysis.

This is an access hallway between an existing building and a new building.  
People will use it as well as it being a pathway for this material handling 
system.  Code requires 2-hrs of separation at each end.  Fully sprinklered 
within and beyond.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of bill.brooks brooksfpe.com via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: bill.brooks brooksfpe.com 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Some of the EOR brainstorms we see on this forum are pretty farfetched.  This 
one seems to be based on precedent in current codes and standards.

The EOR appears to have created a performance objective which says the heat 
absorption rate of the water curtain exceeds the likely rate of heat flow 
through the opening, thereby minimizing the possibility of fire extension 
beyond the opening.  This may be the basis for FM guidelines and probably all 
schemes for protecting holes in otherwise rated assemblies.  I do see “deluge” 
in these arrangements, probably to support the stopping of heat flow sooner 
than a closed head system.

I see the problem being your phrase “protect the opening AND maintain the 
2-hour rating” and your challenge to show equivalency to a 2-hour door.  I 
don’t think any of the current provisions in the building code, NFPA standards, 
or FM can do both (correct me if this isn’t the case).  So you would be in good 
company (ICC, NFPA, FM) to remove the AND from your performance objective.  I 
don’t see much to be gained by the lower temp sprinklers but I have no idea 
about the space you are dealing with.  I think you would be protected (from 
getting burned) by getting buy-in from the AHJ and the insurer.

But you still have a hole in the wall.  Not commenting on any life safety 
considerations with respect to corridors or owner’s concerns about cost, 
complication, or practicality.

Bill Brooks

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:27 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>
Subject: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by 

RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

The concern I have with heat activated sprinklers is not whether they can 
contain heat for 2 hours; it is what happens right at the beginning of the 
fire. A 2 hour barrier will also stop heat at zero hours, but a hole will let 
fire go right through until the sprinklers activate. If the manufacturing 
facility uses any sort of combustible liquids, or aerosol cans, rags, packaging 
materials, giant fans to cool people off – I would be worried about a fire 
getting started and quickly spreading to the other side of the fire wall before 
there was a response.

Also – the first time that a forklift/irregular part smashes the sprinkler head 
and shuts the line down for an hour, the odds of those openings being protected 
in the future goes down.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 7:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Subject: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum]

Bill,

The EOR has no basis for the design other than “it’s prescribed for vertical 
openings in NFPA 13 so it should work for horizontal openings.”  That’s the 
beginning and end of their technical analysis.

This is an access hallway between an existing building and a new building.  
People will use it as well as it being a pathway for this material handling 
system.  Code requires 2-hrs of separation at each end.  Fully sprinklered 
within and beyond.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of bill.brooks brooksfpe.com via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: bill.brooks brooksfpe.com 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Some of the EOR brainstorms we see on this forum are pretty farfetched.  This 
one seems to be based on precedent in current codes and standards.

The EOR appears to have created a performance objective which says the heat 
absorption rate of the water curtain exceeds the likely rate of heat flow 
through the opening, thereby minimizing the possibility of fire extension 
beyond the opening.  This may be the basis for FM guidelines and probably all 
schemes for protecting holes in otherwise rated assemblies.  I do see “deluge” 
in these arrangements, probably to support the stopping of heat flow sooner 
than a closed head system.

I see the problem being your phrase “protect the opening AND maintain the 
2-hour rating” and your challenge to show equivalency to a 2-hour door.  I 
don’t think any of the current provisions in the building code, NFPA standards, 
or FM can do both (correct me if this isn’t the case).  So you would be in good 
company (ICC, NFPA, FM) to remove the AND from your performance objective.  I 
don’t see much to be gained by the lower temp sprinklers but I have no idea 
about the space you are dealing with.  I think you would be protected (from 
getting burned) by getting buy-in from the AHJ and the insurer.

But you still have a hole in the wall.  Not commenting on any life safety 
considerations with respect to corridors or owner’s concerns about cost, 
complication, or practicality.

Bill Brooks

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:27 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>
Subject: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.



NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by 

RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Daniel Arnold via Sprinklerforum]

Well stated

Daniel L. Arnold, P.E., FSFPE
Seneca Fire Engineering, LLC
1205 Johnson Ferry Road
Suite 136-400
Marietta, GA 30068
darn...@senecafire.com

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of bill.brooks brooksfpe.com via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: bill.brooks brooksfpe.com
Subject: RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Some of the EOR brainstorms we see on this forum are pretty farfetched.  This 
one seems to be based on precedent in current codes and standards.

The EOR appears to have created a performance objective which says the heat 
absorption rate of the water curtain exceeds the likely rate of heat flow 
through the opening, thereby minimizing the possibility of fire extension 
beyond the opening.  This may be the basis for FM guidelines and probably all 
schemes for protecting holes in otherwise rated assemblies.  I do see “deluge” 
in these arrangements, probably to support the stopping of heat flow sooner 
than a closed head system.

I see the problem being your phrase “protect the opening AND maintain the 
2-hour rating” and your challenge to show equivalency to a 2-hour door.  I 
don’t think any of the current provisions in the building code, NFPA standards, 
or FM can do both (correct me if this isn’t the case).  So you would be in good 
company (ICC, NFPA, FM) to remove the AND from your performance objective.  I 
don’t see much to be gained by the lower temp sprinklers but I have no idea 
about the space you are dealing with.  I think you would be protected (from 
getting burned) by getting buy-in from the AHJ and the insurer.

But you still have a hole in the wall.  Not commenting on any life safety 
considerations with respect to corridors or owner’s concerns about cost, 
complication, or practicality.

Bill Brooks

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Subject: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[bill.brooks brooksfpe.com via Sprinklerforum]

Some of the EOR brainstorms we see on this forum are pretty farfetched.  This 
one seems to be based on precedent in current codes and standards.

The EOR appears to have created a performance objective which says the heat 
absorption rate of the water curtain exceeds the likely rate of heat flow 
through the opening, thereby minimizing the possibility of fire extension 
beyond the opening.  This may be the basis for FM guidelines and probably all 
schemes for protecting holes in otherwise rated assemblies.  I do see “deluge” 
in these arrangements, probably to support the stopping of heat flow sooner 
than a closed head system.

I see the problem being your phrase “protect the opening AND maintain the 
2-hour rating” and your challenge to show equivalency to a 2-hour door.  I 
don’t think any of the current provisions in the building code, NFPA standards, 
or FM can do both (correct me if this isn’t the case).  So you would be in good 
company (ICC, NFPA, FM) to remove the AND from your performance objective.  I 
don’t see much to be gained by the lower temp sprinklers but I have no idea 
about the space you are dealing with.  I think you would be protected (from 
getting burned) by getting buy-in from the AHJ and the insurer.

But you still have a hole in the wall.  Not commenting on any life safety 
considerations with respect to corridors or owner’s concerns about cost, 
complication, or practicality.

Bill Brooks

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Subject: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

We used the FM guidelines a few years ago at San Diego airport where luggage 
conveyors pass through the wall separating the interior from the tub bays 
outside.   Two SSW or nozzles (can’t remember which at the moment, but I think 
sprinklers because the systems are all wet-pipe), located in the upper corners 
and spraying down diagonally toward the center of the opening.  We calculated 
like window sprinklers, including all openings in the wall that fell into a 
1.2/sq. root(DA) dimension, which I think was 3 pair, flowing concurrently with 
the compartment immediately inside.   The only other design concept you could 
point to in 13 that’s even remotely related is exposure protection, probably on 
both sides of the wall in this case but how you “prove” 2-hour equivalency 
without a full-scale fire model would be challenging.

Steve

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL; Travis Mack
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

I proposed the FM Global recommendations for this application but it was deemed 
too complicated.

The problem is equivalency.  I’ve challenged the EOR to provide documentation 
that the proposed solution provided the same level of protection as a 2-hr fire 
door.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

I’ve done a few jobs where the conveyors pass through 2 hr walls. They were FM 
Global jobs where this occurred. FM has some criteria for deluge systems and 
spray nozzles at the openings.

I don’t recall the particular data sheet for FM at this time. But hopefully 
that can at least get you in the right direction.
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone


On Sep 24, 2019, at 5:27 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum]

I proposed the FM Global recommendations for this application but it was deemed 
too complicated.

The problem is equivalency.  I’ve challenged the EOR to provide documentation 
that the proposed solution provided the same level of protection as a 2-hr fire 
door.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

I’ve done a few jobs where the conveyors pass through 2 hr walls. They were FM 
Global jobs where this occurred. FM has some criteria for deluge systems and 
spray nozzles at the openings.

I don’t recall the particular data sheet for FM at this time. But hopefully 
that can at least get you in the right direction.
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone


On Sep 24, 2019, at 5:27 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org



NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum]

I’ve done a few jobs where the conveyors pass through 2 hr walls. They were FM 
Global jobs where this occurred. FM has some criteria for deluge systems and 
spray nozzles at the openings. 

I don’t recall the particular data sheet for FM at this time. But hopefully 
that can at least get you in the right direction. 

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 24, 2019, at 5:27 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu 
> of a fire rated door assembly. 
>  
> I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system 
> used to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
> facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the 
> corridors have 2-hour rated separations.
>  
> Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
> possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.   
>  
> One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of 
> the NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops 
> and closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
> acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The 
> EOR on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced 
> sprinklers at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the 
> means to protect the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation. 
>  
> My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
> opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 
> 2-hour fire door or other Listed assembly system. 
>  
> Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or 
> the other.
>  
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>  
> 
> 
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged 
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, 
> copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended 
> recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting 
> it from your computer.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Sprinklers in lieu of fire rated assemblies

[Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum]

Looking for documentation speaking to the pros or cons of sprinklers in lieu of 
a fire rated door assembly.

I have a manufacturing facility where there is an overhead monorail system used 
to move a product from one machining station to another throughout the 
facility.  This system passes through corridors where the ends of the corridors 
have 2-hour rated separations.

Fire doors on the openings where the track system passes through are not 
possible due to a multitude of issues according to the owner.

One of our internal code consultants has queried ICC and NFPA on the use of the 
NFPA 13s guidance for protection of vertical opening using draft stops and 
closely spaced sprinklers.  Neither the ICC nor NFPA have given any 
acknowledgement that the concept is suitable for horizontal openings.  The EOR 
on the project has the idea of using a draft stop and closely spaced sprinklers 
at a temperature rating lower than the surrounding room as the means to protect 
the opening and maintain the 2-hr rating of the separation.

My contention is that neither is the concept applicable to the horizontal 
opening but additionally it does not provide a definable equivalent to a 2-hour 
fire door or other Listed assembly system.

Anyone dealt with this type situation before?  I need some ammo one way or the 
other.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org