[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Sprinklers

[Bobby Welch]

Thanks that’s what I thought, the way it reads makes it seem like the only way 
to avoid the 8 sprinklers is if the area is an unsprinklered combustible 
concealed space that meets the requirements of 11.2.3.1.5.2.

From: Brett Peters [mailto:br...@proudline.ca]
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 2:08 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Sprinklers

If the space above is an unprotected combustible space then it's 8, if the 
space is protected (sprinklered or fire rated or full of insulation) 
then it's 4


Thanks

Brett Peters
General Manager Installation & Design
Proudline Fire Protection Services Ltd.
br...@proudline.ca<mailto:br...@proudline.ca>
780 490 7602 office ext 202
780 490 7605 fax
780 777 0568 cell
780 718 2676 24h
Visit us at www.proudline.ca<http://www.proudline.ca/>

Proudline now offers ULc listed monitoring services, please contact 
m...@proudline.ca<mailto:m...@proudline.ca> for more information



[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRo6r0eNDUWx8YR-4XJLvwcnouQn_xEZH_HIb4jDbepWtON2RWC-ekzvZHKtncFOQqPcNQfzM]
 
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4yJVI287VPLDWiW9maE2Np3U4CdszCY9deeyaLl8DM90wlBd7pnuOZV9U-swv-7gWN_24py6vo]
  
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wlGmqj6Ja06DKOIMLPvEE8B2W8fT_TPPA3w-4JfqygLq9n77ECSni09YLIVICXJYzWo4Z0PjU]
  
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4zEgPbs279KVEfWIpIiWNLel8zAlcloW9dNXGLTaE1cMz88CRkmg17fju5BQB_iIzhWK20DUL8]
  
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4z7J0kfmSGA8jKvDK0pTqW3KQlc5v-tYcWosmy5W7pdok462Gzu_9Ft7UK9oJUWDT1DzhQ4hUU]
  
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wTVHoTZxkppBoWSCTFnGLgGTq0apivi8sNvWPyBsloO0mmy8ZYu4Ax854jo7ihTMFyeYeOceg]
  
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4xwBWEOX5v9mpza4Jqf9lOKSwThBNvyIO7Rl-Cxo7NRiV7p70C0f1biwbh44Y-iIA5GcmD1MCo]
  
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4yPfO1HdtbQPYiKlYE38cwc88ABhX7xN1nh0fCK5LjFXjKplJggk3Xn6_XypmtMWyADKR7ZRGk]


On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:58 AM Bobby Welch 
mailto:bobby.we...@koorsen.com>> wrote:
How many residential sprinkler heads are required to calculate when working on 
a 5 story apartment that is designed per NFPA 13 2016.? 11.3.1.1 states that 
the for adjacent sprinklers that produce the greatest hydraulic demand, but 
11.3.1.2 states 8 sprinkler heads. If there is a combustible concealed space 
between each floor that is protecting with COIN interstitial sprinklers are 4 
residential sprinkler required or 8?

Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer
KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457
bobby.we...@koorsen.com<mailto:bobby.we...@koorsen.com> | 
www.koorsen.com<http://www.koorsen.com>

24x7x365 Service: 937.660.7050 | 
servic...@koorsen.com<mailto:servic...@koorsen.com>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Sprinklers

[Brett Peters]

If the space above is an unprotected combustible space then it's 8, if the
space is protected (sprinklered or fire rated or full of
insulation) then it's 4


Thanks

Brett Peters
General Manager Installation & Design
Proudline Fire Protection Services Ltd.
br...@proudline.ca
780 490 7602 office ext 202
780 490 7605 fax
780 777 0568 cell
780 718 2676 24h
Visit us at www.proudline.ca

Proudline now offers ULc listed monitoring services, please contact
m...@proudline.ca for more information






On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:58 AM Bobby Welch  wrote:

> How many residential sprinkler heads are required to calculate when
> working on a 5 story apartment that is designed per NFPA 13 2016.? 11.3.1.1
> states that the for adjacent sprinklers that produce the greatest hydraulic
> demand, but 11.3.1.2 states 8 sprinkler heads. If there is a combustible
> concealed space between each floor that is protecting with COIN
> interstitial sprinklers are 4 residential sprinkler required or 8?
>
> Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer
>
> *KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY*3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
> P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457
> bobby.we...@koorsen.com | www.koorsen.com
>
> *24x7x365 Service: 937.660.7050* | servic...@koorsen.com
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Sprinklers

[Mike Morey]

The standard specifically says “unsprinklered” when referring to the 
combustible concealed spaces and the 8 head requirement, so if you’re 
installing COINs I would say 4 is the right answer?

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager • Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991
email mmo...@shambaugh.com
[cid:image001.png@01D90657.2C9EDB30]

From: Bobby Welch 
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 1:58 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Residential Sprinklers

How many residential sprinkler heads are required to calculate when working on 
a 5 story apartment that is designed per NFPA 13 2016. ? 11. 3. 1. 1 states 
that the for adjacent sprinklers that produce the greatest hydraulic demand, 
but 11. 3. 1. 2
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message originated outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
How many residential sprinkler heads are required to calculate when working on 
a 5 story apartment that is designed per NFPA 13 2016.? 
11.3.1.1
 states that the for adjacent sprinklers that produce the greatest hydraulic 
demand, but 
11.3.1.2
 states 8 sprinkler heads. If there is a combustible concealed space between 
each floor that is protecting with COIN interstitial sprinklers are 4 
residential sprinkler required or 8?

Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer
KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457
bobby.we...@koorsen.com | 
www.koorsen.com

24x7x365 Service: 937.660.7050 | 
servic...@koorsen.com

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this message in 
error, please  immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, 
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly or 
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message 
if you are not the intended recipient.

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: Residential sprinklers

[Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum]

Richard is correct, our friends at Viking have this product and they should be 
consulted about its use in wood trusses. This may be a case where 8.3.1.3 (2016 
ed.) can be used with approval of the AHJ. (The same would be true for pendent 
sprinklers.)



Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services
Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc.
1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC  29657 
Tel: 864-843-5161 
 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Richard Carr via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 7:09 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Richard Carr 
Subject: RE: Residential sprinklers 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


Viking has a residential upright.

Richard M. Carr, SET
Project Manager/Design
Diboco Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
325 Jackson Loop Road
Flat Rock, NC  28731

rich...@diboco.com
828-696-3400
828-696-2288 Fax
828-708-9118 Mobile



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design INC via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 6:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design INC 
Subject: Residential sprinklers

Has anyone installed or have information on a residential upright sprinkler 
that can be installed in an open wood truss roof. The owner wants to have the 
trusses exposed in the living/dining area.



Troy

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7Ccacb357c35234e89039a08d9b58c9258%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637740437925327684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=26k1ZC2y0RywjqVtXJtRN2WtnLF7tRUXYvqaz7O%2Bj8c%3Dreserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7Ccacb357c35234e89039a08d9b58c9258%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637740437925327684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=26k1ZC2y0RywjqVtXJtRN2WtnLF7tRUXYvqaz7O%2Bj8c%3Dreserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Residential sprinklers

[Richard Carr via Sprinklerforum]

Viking has a residential upright.

Richard M. Carr, SET
Project Manager/Design
Diboco Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
325 Jackson Loop Road
Flat Rock, NC  28731

rich...@diboco.com
828-696-3400
828-696-2288 Fax
828-708-9118 Mobile



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design INC via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 6:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design INC 
Subject: Residential sprinklers 

Has anyone installed or have information on a residential upright sprinkler 
that can be installed in an open wood truss roof. The owner wants to have the 
trusses exposed in the living/dining area.

 

Troy

___
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: Residential Sprinklers in Stairs

[Mark Phillips via Sprinklerforum]

In a condo
all residential heads within in the Unit

In apartments
Residential in the unit and extended coverage in hallways
All other service areas QR heads


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
Raleigh NC 27603
Phone: 919-779-4010
Fax : 919-779-4014
Cell : 919-268-7587
Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com
Web : www.pyebarkerfire.com


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 2:20:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Tony Silva 
Subject: Residential Sprinklers in Stairs

[EXTERNAL]

In a residential building (such as a condominium), I have always used
non-residential quick response sprinklers in the stairs, with residential
sprinklers only in the dwelling units and adjacent corridors. There was a
time when the code permitted the use of residential sprinklers only in
corridors and lobbies having ceilings not more than 10 feet high. So that
was the main reason I shied from using them in the stairs.

My question is: what do you do?

Tony
___
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: residential sprinklers

[Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.]

THANKS FOR ALL HEE HELP

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Taylor Schumacher
Sent: January-07-19 1:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: residential sprinklers

 

That is correct. I was unaware of this until my supplier stated I was the only 
buying higher k-factor sprinklers. Reached out to an AHJ and was sent this-not 
sure if this is allowed in this forum or not…

 

 

Taylor Schumacher, CET

 <http://www.j-berd.com/> Security Fire Sprinkler

P.O. BOX 7308 | St. Cloud, MN 56302-7308

3308 Southway Drive | St. Cloud, MN 56301

Office: 320.656.0847 |  <mailto:tay...@sfsprinkler.com> tay...@sfsprinkler.com

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 12:29 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: residential sprinklers

 

I AM 8' OFF SIDE WALL AND 17'6 OFF FAR WALL. WITH A HSW

 

BUT SINCE ROOM IS LESS THAN 800 SQFT.

 

I CAN USE THE ACTUAL ROOM SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHICH IS 210 SQFT.

 

WHICH THEN SAYS 21.0 GPM. THEN DETERMINE PSI WITH WHATEVER K-FACTOR IS CHOSEN. 
COMPARE THE 21 GPM TO THE LISTED REQUIREMENTS AND USE THE GREATER OF THE 2.

 

ANYONE DISAGREE?

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of cw bamford
Sent: January-07-19 1:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

For 18 x 18   use a 5.8 K 1/2" NPT  or  7.6 K   3/4" NPT

 

and please check the S x L rule(s) maybe you are 9' off 1 wall and 8' off the 
other

for a   18 x 16 spacing =  288 sq ft

 

Chuck Bamford SET

 

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:02 AM Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
 wrote:

YES. I HAVE MANY OPTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SUE I WAS READING THE CODE 
PROPERLY.

 

THANKS FOR THE CONFIRMATION.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: January-07-19 12:57 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

WHy not use a K5.6 residential sprinkler?


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)

 

On Jan 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
wrote:

Sorry ‘bout that last one.

 

Assuming you stretch the spacing to 18’ x 18’ your math is correct.  But you 
don’t have to assume maximum listed areas of coverage, you use the actual S x 
L.  If a residential sprinkler is spaced so that its area of coverage is 14’ x 
16’-9”, you have to use a sprinkler that’s listed up to 18’ x 18’, but you 
would calculate the discharge at 23.45 gpm.

 

Steve L.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: residential sprinklers

 

I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.

 

IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING 
THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY

 

EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER

 

REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY

 

BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.  32.4 GPM @ 
43.72 PSI?

 

OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.

 

THANKS

 

 

___ 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

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

RE: residential sprinklers

[Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G]

Yes. That is correct.

 



Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

 <mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

 

 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D=0>
 http://www.mfpdesign.com

 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D=0>
 https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to us via:  
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
 https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

LinkedIn:  
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0>
 https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

 

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 11:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: residential sprinklers

 

I AM 8' OFF SIDE WALL AND 17'6 OFF FAR WALL. WITH A HSW

 

BUT SINCE ROOM IS LESS THAN 800 SQFT.

 

I CAN USE THE ACTUAL ROOM SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHICH IS 210 SQFT.

 

WHICH THEN SAYS 21.0 GPM. THEN DETERMINE PSI WITH WHATEVER K-FACTOR IS CHOSEN. 
COMPARE THE 21 GPM TO THE LISTED REQUIREMENTS AND USE THE GREATER OF THE 2.

 

ANYONE DISAGREE?

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of cw bamford
Sent: January-07-19 1:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

For 18 x 18   use a 5.8 K 1/2" NPT  or  7.6 K   3/4" NPT

 

and please check the S x L rule(s) maybe you are 9' off 1 wall and 8' off the 
other

for a   18 x 16 spacing =  288 sq ft

 

Chuck Bamford SET

 

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:02 AM Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
mailto:trilliumf...@cwisp.ca> > wrote:

YES. I HAVE MANY OPTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SUE I WAS READING THE CODE 
PROPERLY.

 

THANKS FOR THE CONFIRMATION.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> ] On Behalf Of 
Fpdcdesign
Sent: January-07-19 12:57 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

WHy not use a K5.6 residential sprinkler?


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)

 

On Jan 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
wrote:

Sorry ‘bout that last one.

 

Assuming you stretch the spacing to 18’ x 18’ your math is correct.  But you 
don’t have to assume maximum listed areas of coverage, you use the actual S x 
L.  If a residential sprinkler is spaced so that its area of coverage is 14’ x 
16’-9”, you have to use a sprinkler that’s listed up to 18’ x 18’, but you 
would calculate the discharge at 23.45 gpm.

 

Steve L.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> ] On Behalf Of Trillium 
Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: residential sprinklers

 

I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.

 

IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING 
THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY

 

EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER

 

REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY

 

BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.  32.4 GPM @ 
43.72 PSI?

 

OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.

 

THANKS

 

 

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

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkl

RE: residential sprinklers

[Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.]

I AM 8' OFF SIDE WALL AND 17'6 OFF FAR WALL. WITH A HSW

 

BUT SINCE ROOM IS LESS THAN 800 SQFT.

 

I CAN USE THE ACTUAL ROOM SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHICH IS 210 SQFT.

 

WHICH THEN SAYS 21.0 GPM. THEN DETERMINE PSI WITH WHATEVER K-FACTOR IS CHOSEN. 
COMPARE THE 21 GPM TO THE LISTED REQUIREMENTS AND USE THE GREATER OF THE 2.

 

ANYONE DISAGREE?

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of cw bamford
Sent: January-07-19 1:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

For 18 x 18   use a 5.8 K 1/2" NPT  or  7.6 K   3/4" NPT

 

and please check the S x L rule(s) maybe you are 9' off 1 wall and 8' off the 
other

for a   18 x 16 spacing =  288 sq ft

 

Chuck Bamford SET

 

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:02 AM Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
 wrote:

YES. I HAVE MANY OPTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SUE I WAS READING THE CODE 
PROPERLY.

 

THANKS FOR THE CONFIRMATION.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: January-07-19 12:57 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

WHy not use a K5.6 residential sprinkler?


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)





On Jan 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
wrote:

Sorry ‘bout that last one.

 

Assuming you stretch the spacing to 18’ x 18’ your math is correct.  But you 
don’t have to assume maximum listed areas of coverage, you use the actual S x 
L.  If a residential sprinkler is spaced so that its area of coverage is 14’ x 
16’-9”, you have to use a sprinkler that’s listed up to 18’ x 18’, but you 
would calculate the discharge at 23.45 gpm.

 

Steve L.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: residential sprinklers

 

I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.

 

IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING 
THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY

 

EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER

 

REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY

 

BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.  32.4 GPM @ 
43.72 PSI?

 

OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.

 

THANKS

 

 

___ 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

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

RE: residential sprinklers

[Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G]

Don’t forget you can use area of room / # of sprinklers if it meets small room. 
 That is what you apply your 0.10 toward.  Then, you compare that to the data 
sheet for the floor that corresponds to your ex cov coverage (16x16, 18x18, 
etc).

 

 

 



Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

 <mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

 

 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D=0>
 http://www.mfpdesign.com

 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D=0>
 https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to us via:  
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
 https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

LinkedIn:  
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0>
 https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

 

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of cw bamford
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 11:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

For 18 x 18   use a 5.8 K 1/2" NPT  or  7.6 K   3/4" NPT

 

and please check the S x L rule(s) maybe you are 9' off 1 wall and 8' off the 
other

for a   18 x 16 spacing =  288 sq ft

 

Chuck Bamford SET

 

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:02 AM Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
mailto:trilliumf...@cwisp.ca> > wrote:

YES. I HAVE MANY OPTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SUE I WAS READING THE CODE 
PROPERLY.

 

THANKS FOR THE CONFIRMATION.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> ] On Behalf Of 
Fpdcdesign
Sent: January-07-19 12:57 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

WHy not use a K5.6 residential sprinkler?


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)





On Jan 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
wrote:

Sorry ‘bout that last one.

 

Assuming you stretch the spacing to 18’ x 18’ your math is correct.  But you 
don’t have to assume maximum listed areas of coverage, you use the actual S x 
L.  If a residential sprinkler is spaced so that its area of coverage is 14’ x 
16’-9”, you have to use a sprinkler that’s listed up to 18’ x 18’, but you 
would calculate the discharge at 23.45 gpm.

 

Steve L.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> ] On Behalf Of Trillium 
Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: residential sprinklers

 

I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.

 

IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING 
THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY

 

EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER

 

REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY

 

BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.  32.4 GPM @ 
43.72 PSI?

 

OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.

 

THANKS

 

 

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

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto: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: residential sprinklers

[cw bamford]

For 18 x 18   use a 5.8 K 1/2" NPT  or  7.6 K   3/4" NPT

and please check the S x L rule(s) maybe you are 9' off 1 wall and 8' off
the other
for a   18 x 16 spacing =  288 sq ft

Chuck Bamford SET

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:02 AM Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. <
trilliumf...@cwisp.ca> wrote:

> YES. I HAVE MANY OPTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SUE I WAS READING THE CODE
> PROPERLY.
>
>
>
> THANKS FOR THE CONFIRMATION.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Fpdcdesign
> *Sent:* January-07-19 12:57 PM
> *To:* Sprinklerforum
> *Subject:* Re: residential sprinklers
>
>
>
> WHy not use a K5.6 residential sprinkler?
>
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> Sorry ‘bout that last one.
>
>
>
> Assuming you stretch the spacing to 18’ x 18’ your math is correct.  But
> you don’t have to assume maximum listed areas of coverage, you use the
> actual S x L.  If a residential sprinkler is spaced so that its area of
> coverage is 14’ x 16’-9”, you have to use a sprinkler that’s listed up to
> 18’ x 18’, but you would calculate the discharge at 23.45 gpm.
>
>
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Trillium
> Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
> *Sent:* Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* residential sprinklers
>
>
>
> I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.
>
>
>
> IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN
> SAYING THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY
>
>
>
> EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER
>
>
>
> REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY
>
>
>
> BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.  32.4
> GPM @ 43.72 PSI?
>
>
>
> OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.
>
>
>
> THANKS
>
>
>
>
>
> ___ 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
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: residential sprinklers

[Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.]

YES. I HAVE MANY OPTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SUE I WAS READING THE CODE 
PROPERLY.

 

THANKS FOR THE CONFIRMATION.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: January-07-19 12:57 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: residential sprinklers

 

WHy not use a K5.6 residential sprinkler?


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)






On Jan 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
wrote:

Sorry ‘bout that last one.

 

Assuming you stretch the spacing to 18’ x 18’ your math is correct.  But you 
don’t have to assume maximum listed areas of coverage, you use the actual S x 
L.  If a residential sprinkler is spaced so that its area of coverage is 14’ x 
16’-9”, you have to use a sprinkler that’s listed up to 18’ x 18’, but you 
would calculate the discharge at 23.45 gpm.

 

Steve L.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: residential sprinklers

 

I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.

 

IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING 
THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY

 

EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER

 

REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY

 

BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.  32.4 GPM @ 
43.72 PSI?

 

OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.

 

THANKS

 

 

___ 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: residential sprinklers

[Fpdcdesign]

  
  

 WHy not use a K5.6 residential sprinkler?
  
  
  
 Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (ofc)
  
860-553-3553 (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jan 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM,   (mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> Sorry ‘bout that last one.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Assuming you stretch the spacing to 18’ x 18’ your math is correct.But 
> you don’t have to assume maximum listed areas of coverage, you use the actual 
> S x L.If a residential sprinkler is spaced so that its area of coverage 
> is 14’ x 16’-9”, you have to use a sprinkler that’s listed up to 18’ x 18’, 
> but you would calculate the discharge at 23.45 gpm.   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Steve L.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]  On Behalf Of  
> Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
>   Sent:  Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Subject:  residential sprinklers
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING 
> THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.32.4 
> GPM @ 43.72 PSI?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> THANKS
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>  ___ 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: residential sprinklers

[Steve Leyton]

Sorry 'bout that last one.

Assuming you stretch the spacing to 18' x 18' your math is correct.  But you 
don't have to assume maximum listed areas of coverage, you use the actual S x 
L.  If a residential sprinkler is spaced so that its area of coverage is 14' x 
16'-9", you have to use a sprinkler that's listed up to 18' x 18', but you 
would calculate the discharge at 23.45 gpm.

Steve L.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: residential sprinklers

I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.

IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING 
THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY

EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER

REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY

BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.  32.4 GPM @ 
43.72 PSI?

OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.

THANKS


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

RE: residential sprinklers

[Steve Leyton]

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 9:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: residential sprinklers

I HAVE A HOTEL THAT SAYS NFPA 13 DESIGN.

IF I USE RESIDENTAIL SPRINKLERS IN THE UPPER FLOORS. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING 
THAT I MUST USE .10 DESNITY

EXAMPLE . I WAS GOING TO USE 18x18 4.9 K SPRINKLER

REQUIRES 17 GPM @ 12 PSI FOR .05 DENSITY

BUT SINCE NFPA #13 WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO DESIGN TO THESE NUMBERS.  32.4 GPM @ 
43.72 PSI?

OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.

THANKS


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

RE: Residential Sprinklers

[Reed A. Roisum, SET]

I just informed them to use concealed residential sprinklers and stay with 13R. 
 I think the main driver was that this building has the cops visiting about 3 
times a week so they were looking for something tamper proof.  I did inform 
them that institutional sprinklers are not tamper proof, just more tamper 
resistant than other sprinklers...and that the main purpose for institutional 
is so that occupants can't harm themselves (as easily).  If they keep pushing 
the institutional route, I will just let them know what it will cost for the 
dry system in the attic to move to NFPA 13 and I think we will be just fine as 
I suggest.

Thank you everyone for the help.


Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
http://www.kfiengineers.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 10:25 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

I would not get involved in such a toeing-the-line exercise.   Just 
fire-protect the building per 13 and you don't have to dance with these 
restrictions.The owner's well-intended energies regarding institutional 
sprinklers are blurring the line between application and the intent of 13R, 
i.e. life-safety.

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

Thank you.  New, but related question...the owner wants to install 
institutional sprinklers in the dwelling units as they are concerned with 
tampering and are willing to pay a premium.  The institutional sprinklers (Tyco 
RAVEN) are QR but not residential (as far as I can tell).  So, based on the 
reference John provided below, we could install up to four institutional (QR) 
sprinklers per dwelling unit and the rest would need to be residential 
sprinklers, correct?  And, we would need to design to 0.1 gpm/sq ft.



NFPA 13R, 2013 edition

6.2 Use of Sprinklers.

6.2.1 Inside Dwelling Units.

6.2.1.1 Listed residential sprinklers shall be used unless another type is 
permitted by 6.2.1.3 or 6.2.1.4.

6.2.1.2 Residential sprinklers shall not be used on systems other than wet pipe 
systems unless specifically listed for use on that particular type of system.

6.2.1.3 Listed quick-response sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed in 
dwelling units meeting the definition of a compartment, as defined in Section 
3.3, where no more than four sprinklers are located in the dwelling unit.

6.2.1.3.1 Where quick-response sprinklers, including extended coverage 
quick-response sprinklers, are used, the density/area requirement shall be a 
minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft2 (4.1 mm/min)over the entire dwelling unit.

6.2.1.3.2 Where extended coverage quick-response sprinklers are used, the flow 
shall be sufficient to meet the listing of the sprinklers at the spacing for 
which they are being used.

6.2.1.4 Quick-response sprinklers discharging a minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft2 (4.1 
mm/min) shall be permitted to be used in mechanical closets.







Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com>

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers



Reed:



6.2.1.3  13R, 2016



John Paulsen - SET

Crown Fire System Design

6282 Seeds Rd.

Grove City, OH 43123

P - 614-782-2438

F - 614-782-2374

C - 614-348-8206







-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign

Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:14 AM

To: Sprinklerforum 
<sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>

Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers









Reed,



6.7.7.1.3. (2007). Carries through in later versions (as far as I looked). I 
ran I. To a similar situation recently and we had to change to 13





 Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)











>

> On Mar 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM,   (mailto:raroi...@kfi-eng.com)>  wrote:

>

>

>

>  Thanks Travis. Can you please point me to where it says that?

>

>

> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire

> Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile:

> 701.388.1352 | http://www.kfiengineers.com

>

> -Original Message

RE: Residential Sprinklers

[Steve Leyton]

I would not get involved in such a toeing-the-line exercise.   Just 
fire-protect the building per 13 and you don't have to dance with these 
restrictions.The owner's well-intended energies regarding institutional 
sprinklers are blurring the line between application and the intent of 13R, 
i.e. life-safety.

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

Thank you.  New, but related question...the owner wants to install 
institutional sprinklers in the dwelling units as they are concerned with 
tampering and are willing to pay a premium.  The institutional sprinklers (Tyco 
RAVEN) are QR but not residential (as far as I can tell).  So, based on the 
reference John provided below, we could install up to four institutional (QR) 
sprinklers per dwelling unit and the rest would need to be residential 
sprinklers, correct?  And, we would need to design to 0.1 gpm/sq ft.



NFPA 13R, 2013 edition

6.2 Use of Sprinklers.

6.2.1 Inside Dwelling Units.

6.2.1.1 Listed residential sprinklers shall be used unless another type is 
permitted by 6.2.1.3 or 6.2.1.4.

6.2.1.2 Residential sprinklers shall not be used on systems other than wet pipe 
systems unless specifically listed for use on that particular type of system.

6.2.1.3 Listed quick-response sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed in 
dwelling units meeting the definition of a compartment, as defined in Section 
3.3, where no more than four sprinklers are located in the dwelling unit.

6.2.1.3.1 Where quick-response sprinklers, including extended coverage 
quick-response sprinklers, are used, the density/area requirement shall be a 
minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft2 (4.1 mm/min)over the entire dwelling unit.

6.2.1.3.2 Where extended coverage quick-response sprinklers are used, the flow 
shall be sufficient to meet the listing of the sprinklers at the spacing for 
which they are being used.

6.2.1.4 Quick-response sprinklers discharging a minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft2 (4.1 
mm/min) shall be permitted to be used in mechanical closets.







Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com>

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers



Reed:



6.2.1.3  13R, 2016



John Paulsen - SET

Crown Fire System Design

6282 Seeds Rd.

Grove City, OH 43123

P - 614-782-2438

F - 614-782-2374

C - 614-348-8206







-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign

Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:14 AM

To: Sprinklerforum 
<sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>

Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers









Reed,



6.7.7.1.3. (2007). Carries through in later versions (as far as I looked). I 
ran I. To a similar situation recently and we had to change to 13





 Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)











>

> On Mar 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM,   (mailto:raroi...@kfi-eng.com)>  wrote:

>

>

>

>  Thanks Travis. Can you please point me to where it says that?

>

>

> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire

> Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile:

> 701.388.1352 | http://www.kfiengineers.com

>

> -Original Message-

> From: Sprinklerforum

> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of

> MFP Design, LLC

> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 5:08 PM

> To: 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fir
> esprinkler.org>

> Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

>

> You can only have a maximum of 4 QR sprinklers per dwelling unit, not just 
> compartment. If you need more than 4 standard spray sprinklers, you can't 
> comply with 13R.

>

>

> Travis Mack, SET

> MFP Design, LLC

> 3356 E Vallejo Ct

> Gilbert, AZ 85298

> 480-505-9271

> fax: 866-430-6107

> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

>

> http://www.mfpdesign.com

> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

>

> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
> is forgotten."

>

> -Original Message-

> From: Sprin

RE: Residential Sprinklers

[MFP Design, LLC]

Yes.  You have to design the QR sprinklers at 0.10 density.  So, you have to
make sure your residential sprinklers are flowing at 0.1 density because the
reference below says 0.10 over entire dwelling unit.  It could get tricky
with a picky AHJ.  You don't have the reference to use small room rule for
area of sprinkler in 13R.  So, you may have to choose the larger k factor
residential sprinklers.  We typically do a 4.9k pendent, but you may have to
go to the larger ones depending on your requirements.


Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
price is forgotten."

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On
Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

Thank you.  New, but related question...the owner wants to install
institutional sprinklers in the dwelling units as they are concerned with
tampering and are willing to pay a premium.  The institutional sprinklers
(Tyco RAVEN) are QR but not residential (as far as I can tell).  So, based
on the reference John provided below, we could install up to four
institutional (QR) sprinklers per dwelling unit and the rest would need to
be residential sprinklers, correct?  And, we would need to design to 0.1
gpm/sq ft.



NFPA 13R, 2013 edition

6.2 Use of Sprinklers.

6.2.1 Inside Dwelling Units.

6.2.1.1 Listed residential sprinklers shall be used unless another type is
permitted by 6.2.1.3 or 6.2.1.4.

6.2.1.2 Residential sprinklers shall not be used on systems other than wet
pipe systems unless specifically listed for use on that particular type of
system.

6.2.1.3 Listed quick-response sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed
in dwelling units meeting the definition of a compartment, as defined in
Section 3.3, where no more than four sprinklers are located in the dwelling
unit.

6.2.1.3.1 Where quick-response sprinklers, including extended coverage
quick-response sprinklers, are used, the density/area requirement shall be a
minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft2 (4.1 mm/min)over the entire dwelling unit.

6.2.1.3.2 Where extended coverage quick-response sprinklers are used, the
flow shall be sufficient to meet the listing of the sprinklers at the
spacing for which they are being used.

6.2.1.4 Quick-response sprinklers discharging a minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft2 (4.1
mm/min) shall be permitted to be used in mechanical closets.







Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 |
KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com>

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers



Reed:



6.2.1.3  13R, 2016



John Paulsen - SET

Crown Fire System Design

6282 Seeds Rd.

Grove City, OH 43123

P - 614-782-2438

F - 614-782-2374

C - 614-348-8206







-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Fpdcdesign

Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:14 AM

To: Sprinklerforum
<sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firespri
nkler.org>>

Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers









Reed,



6.7.7.1.3. (2007). Carries through in later versions (as far as I looked). I
ran I. To a similar situation recently and we had to change to 13





 Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)











>

> On Mar 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM,  mailto:raroi...@kfi-eng.com)>  wrote:

>

>

>

>  Thanks Travis. Can you please point me to where it says that?

>

>

> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire

> Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile:

> 701.388.1352 | http://www.kfiengineers.com

>

> -Original Message-

> From: Sprinklerforum

> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of

> MFP Design, LLC

> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 5:08 PM

> To: 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fir
> esprinkler.org>

> Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

>

> You can only have a maximum of 4 QR sprinklers per dwelling unit, not just
compartment. If you need more than 4 standard spray sprinklers, you can't
comply with 13R.

&

RE: Residential Sprinklers

[Reed A. Roisum, SET]

Thank you.  New, but related question...the owner wants to install 
institutional sprinklers in the dwelling units as they are concerned with 
tampering and are willing to pay a premium.  The institutional sprinklers (Tyco 
RAVEN) are QR but not residential (as far as I can tell).  So, based on the 
reference John provided below, we could install up to four institutional (QR) 
sprinklers per dwelling unit and the rest would need to be residential 
sprinklers, correct?  And, we would need to design to 0.1 gpm/sq ft.



NFPA 13R, 2013 edition

6.2 Use of Sprinklers.

6.2.1 Inside Dwelling Units.

6.2.1.1 Listed residential sprinklers shall be used unless another type is 
permitted by 6.2.1.3 or 6.2.1.4.

6.2.1.2 Residential sprinklers shall not be used on systems other than wet pipe 
systems unless specifically listed for use on that particular type of system.

6.2.1.3 Listed quick-response sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed in 
dwelling units meeting the definition of a compartment, as defined in Section 
3.3, where no more than four sprinklers are located in the dwelling unit.

6.2.1.3.1 Where quick-response sprinklers, including extended coverage 
quick-response sprinklers, are used, the density/area requirement shall be a 
minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft2 (4.1 mm/min)over the entire dwelling unit.

6.2.1.3.2 Where extended coverage quick-response sprinklers are used, the flow 
shall be sufficient to meet the listing of the sprinklers at the spacing for 
which they are being used.

6.2.1.4 Quick-response sprinklers discharging a minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft2 (4.1 
mm/min) shall be permitted to be used in mechanical closets.







Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com>

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers



Reed:



6.2.1.3  13R, 2016



John Paulsen - SET

Crown Fire System Design

6282 Seeds Rd.

Grove City, OH 43123

P - 614-782-2438

F - 614-782-2374

C - 614-348-8206







-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign

Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:14 AM

To: Sprinklerforum 
<sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>

Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers









Reed,



6.7.7.1.3. (2007). Carries through in later versions (as far as I looked). I 
ran I. To a similar situation recently and we had to change to 13





 Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)











>

> On Mar 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM,   (mailto:raroi...@kfi-eng.com)>  wrote:

>

>

>

>  Thanks Travis. Can you please point me to where it says that?

>

>

> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire

> Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile:

> 701.388.1352 | http://www.kfiengineers.com

>

> -Original Message-

> From: Sprinklerforum

> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of

> MFP Design, LLC

> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 5:08 PM

> To: 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

> Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

>

> You can only have a maximum of 4 QR sprinklers per dwelling unit, not just 
> compartment. If you need more than 4 standard spray sprinklers, you can't 
> comply with 13R.

>

>

> Travis Mack, SET

> MFP Design, LLC

> 3356 E Vallejo Ct

> Gilbert, AZ 85298

> 480-505-9271

> fax: 866-430-6107

> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

>

> http://www.mfpdesign.com

> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

>

> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
> is forgotten."

>

> -Original Message-

> From: Sprinklerforum  
> <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>

> On Behalf Of Art Tiroly

> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 4:00 PM

> To: 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

> Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

>

> Using 5.6K QR heads will change the hydraulic calculations and minimum flows 
> allowed by residential sprinklers.

>

>

> Art Tiroly

> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly

> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143

&

RE: Residential Sprinklers

[John Paulsen]

Reed:

6.2.1.3  13R, 2016

John Paulsen - SET
Crown Fire System Design
6282 Seeds Rd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P - 614-782-2438
F - 614-782-2374
C - 614-348-8206



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:14 AM
To: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers

 
 

 Reed,
 

 
6.7.7.1.3. (2007). Carries through in later versions (as far as I looked). I 
ran I. To a similar situation recently and we had to change to 13
 
 
 
 Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-535-2080 (ofc)
 
860-553-3553 (fax)
 
860-608-4559 (cell)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Mar 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM,   (mailto:raroi...@kfi-eng.com)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Thanks Travis. Can you please point me to where it says that? 
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire 
> Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 
> 701.388.1352 | http://www.kfiengineers.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> MFP Design, LLC
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 5:08 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers
>
> You can only have a maximum of 4 QR sprinklers per dwelling unit, not just 
> compartment. If you need more than 4 standard spray sprinklers, you can't 
> comply with 13R. 
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
> is forgotten." 
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>  
> On Behalf Of Art Tiroly
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 4:00 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers
>
> Using 5.6K QR heads will change the hydraulic calculations and minimum flows 
> allowed by residential sprinklers. 
>
>
> Art Tiroly
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
> 216-621-8899
> 216-570-7030 cell
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:47 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Residential Sprinklers
>
> Are residential sprinklers required for dwelling units in NFPA 13R? It 
> appears as though they can be QR or residential in the 2012 IBC (903.3.2). 
> For some reason I had in my mind that they needed to be residential within 
> the dwelling unit or sleeping unit?? 
>
> Thanks. 
>
> Reed R. 
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire 
> Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 
> 701.388.1352 | http://www.kfiengineers.com
>
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. 
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
> __
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. 
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
> __
>
> __
> This email has been sc

Re: Residential Sprinklers

[Fpdcdesign]

 
 

 Reed,
 

 
6.7.7.1.3. (2007). Carries through in later versions (as far as I looked). I 
ran I. To a similar situation recently and we had to change to 13
 
 
 
 Todd G Williams, PE 
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-535-2080 (ofc)
 
860-553-3553 (fax)
 
860-608-4559 (cell)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Mar 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM,   (mailto:raroi...@kfi-eng.com)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Thanks Travis. Can you please point me to where it says that? 
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
> Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
> http://www.kfiengineers.com 
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC 
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 5:08 PM 
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers 
>
> You can only have a maximum of 4 QR sprinklers per dwelling unit, not just 
> compartment. If you need more than 4 standard spray sprinklers, you can't 
> comply with 13R. 
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET 
> MFP Design, LLC 
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct 
> Gilbert, AZ 85298 
> 480-505-9271 
> fax: 866-430-6107 
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com 
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com 
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack 
>
> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
> is forgotten." 
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Sprinklerforum  <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>  On 
> Behalf Of Art Tiroly 
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 4:00 PM 
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers 
>
> Using 5.6K QR heads will change the hydraulic calculations and minimum flows 
> allowed by residential sprinklers. 
>
>
> Art Tiroly 
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly 
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143 
> 216-621-8899 
> 216-570-7030 cell 
>
>
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET 
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:47 PM 
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> Subject: Residential Sprinklers 
>
> Are residential sprinklers required for dwelling units in NFPA 13R? It 
> appears as though they can be QR or residential in the 2012 IBC (903.3.2). 
> For some reason I had in my mind that they needed to be residential within 
> the dwelling unit or sleeping unit?? 
>
> Thanks. 
>
> Reed R. 
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
> Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
> http://www.kfiengineers.com 
>
>
> __ 
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. 
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
> __ 
> ___ 
> Sprinklerforum mailing list 
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
>
>
> --- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus 
>
> ___ 
> 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 
>
> __ 
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. 
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
> __ 
>
> __ 
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. 
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
> __ 
> ___ 
> Sprinklerforum mailing list 
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o

RE: Residential Sprinklers

[Reed A. Roisum, SET]

Thanks Travis.  Can you please point me to where it says that?


Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
http://www.kfiengineers.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

You can only have a maximum of 4 QR sprinklers per dwelling unit, not just 
compartment.  If you need more than 4 standard spray sprinklers, you can't 
comply with 13R.


Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten."

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On Behalf 
Of Art Tiroly
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 4:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

Using 5.6K QR heads will change the hydraulic calculations and minimum flows 
allowed by residential sprinklers.


Art Tiroly
ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
216-621-8899
216-570-7030 cell



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers

Are residential sprinklers required for dwelling units in NFPA 13R?  It appears 
as though they can be QR or residential in the 2012 IBC (903.3.2).
For some reason I had in my mind that they needed to be residential within the 
dwelling unit or sleeping unit??

Thanks.

Reed R.

Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
http://www.kfiengineers.com


__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
__
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
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

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
__

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Residential Sprinklers

[MFP Design, LLC]

You can only have a maximum of 4 QR sprinklers per dwelling unit, not just
compartment.  If you need more than 4 standard spray sprinklers, you can't
comply with 13R.


Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
price is forgotten."

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On
Behalf Of Art Tiroly
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 4:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers

Using 5.6K QR heads will change the hydraulic calculations and minimum flows
allowed by residential sprinklers.


Art Tiroly
ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
216-621-8899
216-570-7030 cell



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers

Are residential sprinklers required for dwelling units in NFPA 13R?  It
appears as though they can be QR or residential in the 2012 IBC (903.3.2).
For some reason I had in my mind that they needed to be residential within
the dwelling unit or sleeping unit??

Thanks.

Reed R.

Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 |
http://www.kfiengineers.com


__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
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: Residential Sprinklers

[Art Tiroly]

Using 5.6K QR heads will change the hydraulic calculations and minimum flows
allowed by residential sprinklers.


Art Tiroly
ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
216-621-8899
216-570-7030 cell



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers

Are residential sprinklers required for dwelling units in NFPA 13R?  It
appears as though they can be QR or residential in the 2012 IBC (903.3.2).
For some reason I had in my mind that they needed to be residential within
the dwelling unit or sleeping unit??

Thanks.

Reed R.

Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 |
http://www.kfiengineers.com


__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Re: Residential Sprinklers

[Ron Greenman]

If someone asked me to interpret this I think I’d say 903.3.2 refers back
to just 903.3.1 which directs you to 903.3.1.1 “unless otherwise permitted
by Sections 903.3.1.2

 and 903.3.1.3

and
other chapters of this code, as applicable.”

This suggests to me that 903.3.2 only refers to structures designed to NFPA
13 and not 13D or 13R. But it’s pretty confusing and I’d bet for everyone
that agrees with me there’s someone that disagrees.

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:46 PM Reed A. Roisum, SET 
wrote:

> Are residential sprinklers required for dwelling units in NFPA 13R?  It
> appears as though they can be QR or residential in the 2012 IBC (903.3.2).
> For some reason I had in my mind that they needed to be residential within
> the dwelling unit or sleeping unit??
>
> Thanks.
>
> Reed R.
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection
> Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 |
> http://www.kfiengineers.com
>
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Fire Marshals

[Steve Leyton]

JD:

I'm going to offer this up in the absence of any response.   I don't think 
you're going to get any opinion from AHJ's in general except, "residential fire 
sprinklers save lives and are good for our community".From a fire service 
perspective, sprinklers also provide an exponentially higher measure of safety 
for firefighters, who aren't exposed to the dangers of fully involved structure 
fires.   But I had to chuckle when I read your post because in my  warped mind, 
I read the contrarian paraphrase of your question.   You might as well have 
asked:  "Are there any fire officials out there willing to go on record 
opposing residential sprinklers?"

Adoption of the IRC provisions is challenging.  For a local or state government 
to be swayed, there has to be a coordinated effort to enlist and appease all of 
the stakeholders including homebuilders (the MOST outspoken objectors), water 
purveyors, building/fire officials and the community at large.   In California, 
our State Fire Marshal did an outstanding job of getting everybody around the 
same table and we undertook studies and task group work to resolve the 
challenges and concerns of any agency or group that might have otherwise took 
in the way of state adoption of the sprinkler code.  And that included the 
state homebuilders association, which made their issues known at the onset.  
That gave us - as a group - the opportunity to address and mitigate those 
concerns.  At the end, we made amendments to the state residential code (such 
as derating the required separation between dwelling units and attached garages 
and narrowing the setback for sprinklered buildings in R-1 zones) that 
effectively subsidize some of the cost of the building sprinkler systems.   
Water purveyors have generally dropped the unjust and punitive capacity and 
connection fees that can drive the cost of larger meters up by thousands - that 
was a key diplomatic piece of the legislative puzzle.If homes require a 1" 
meter, but all the developer or owner has to pay is the cost of the larger 
meter, the other mitigating measures can sometimes offset nearly the entire 
cost of the systems in a subdivision, particular with higher density formats 
such as cluster housing where the savings can be amplified.

If implemented thoughtfully, the cost-impacts of adding sprinklers to home can 
be managed, even if homes aren't all served by municipal utilities, as I'm sure 
many are in Wyoming.   But you have to get a buy-in from the stakeholders and a 
consolidated effort to all go in the same direction.  If you can do that, then 
the question of "value to the community" is a no-brainer.

My opinions only,
Steve Leyton

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of JD Gamble
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 12:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Fire Marshals

Just looking for some feedback from some of our code officials on forum.

Where do you stand on a community's need for fire sprinklers?




Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan

JD Gamble
jgam...@lssofsheridan.com
(307) 763-3361


[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png]

Virus-free. 
www.avast.com


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

Re: Residential Sprinklers

[George Medina Jr]

Excellent!






George Medina Jr. 
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Whitfield cl...@fire-design.com
To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Sun, Feb 6, 2011 3:36 pm
Subject: Residential Sprinklers



Folks,
Here is a link to an excellent article from the PME eNewsletter 2/3/11.  I
ish more PE’s felt this way.
http://www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Ballanco/2011/01/01/The-Engineering-Dilem
a  
Cliff Whitfield, SET
resident
ire Design, Inc.


l...@fire-design.com
ww.fire-design.com

___
prinklerforum mailing list
prinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
ttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers

[Rod DiBona]

Interesting take on the possible litigation. I will be curious to see if any 
cases play out that way. Love his point of view.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cliff Whitfield
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 4:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers

Folks,

Here is a link to an excellent article from the PME eNewsletter 2/3/11.  I wish 
more PE's felt this way.

http://www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Ballanco/2011/01/01/The-Engineering-Dilem
ma  

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President
Fire Design, Inc.
 


cl...@fire-design.com
www.fire-design.com



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: residential sprinklers on the TV

[Ron Greenman]

Nicely done. Hard to argue with the 1% and the firefighter says it's
good and the insurance guy says save money.

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Rod DiBona r...@rapidfireinc.com wrote:
 Outstanding George!! We need more publicity like that.

 Rod DiBona
 Rapid Fire Protection

 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
 Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:38 AM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: residential sprinklers on the TV

 http://pahomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=159316


 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




-- 
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
AFSA, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, NFSA, AFAA, ASEE, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis
Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers on a dry System

[Matt Grise]

The residential dry pendant is approved for dry pipe systems!

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP 
Sales Engineer 
Alliance Fire Protection 
*Licensed in KS  MO 

913.888.0647 ph 
913.888.0618 f 
913.927.0222 cell 
www. AFPsprink.com 

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:33 PM
To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM
Subject: Residential Sprinklers on a dry System



Here is the problem

 

Have a dry pipe system where a portion of the building is rated R and the 
remainder

is A  B.

 

Recently TYCO has come out with residential dry pendent sprinkler for 
residential systems.

 

OK now here is my question What have you contractors' done in the past in a 
situation like

this one?

 

I take it no one manufacturers makes a residential sprinkler that is approved 
on dry pipe systems.

 

Mike
  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers on a dry System

[Mike Hairfield]

The residential area is a conditioned space above and below the ceiling, why

can't we use residential pendents on return bends?

 

Mike
 
 From: m...@afpsprink.com
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:36:35 -0500
 Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers on a dry System
 
 The residential dry pendant is approved for dry pipe systems!
 
 Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP 
 Sales Engineer 
 Alliance Fire Protection 
 *Licensed in KS  MO 
 
 913.888.0647 ph 
 913.888.0618 f 
 913.927.0222 cell 
 www. AFPsprink.com 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield
 Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:33 PM
 To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM
 Subject: Residential Sprinklers on a dry System
 
 
 
 Here is the problem
 
 
 
 Have a dry pipe system where a portion of the building is rated R and the 
 remainder
 
 is A  B.
 
 
 
 Recently TYCO has come out with residential dry pendent sprinkler for 
 residential systems.
 
 
 
 OK now here is my question What have you contractors' done in the past in a 
 situation like
 
 this one?
 
 
 
 I take it no one manufacturers makes a residential sprinkler that is approved 
 on dry pipe systems.
 
 
 
 Mike
 
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers on a dry System

[Steve Leyton]

And, presuming the system is designed per 13 (Mike didn't say), you can use 
spray sprinklers and design for Light Hazard with conventional area/density or 
largest room design.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design  Consulting
San Diego, CA




-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:37 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org'
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers on a dry System

The residential dry pendant is approved for dry pipe systems!

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP 
Sales Engineer 
Alliance Fire Protection 
*Licensed in KS  MO 

913.888.0647 ph 
913.888.0618 f 
913.927.0222 cell 
www. AFPsprink.com 

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:33 PM
To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM
Subject: Residential Sprinklers on a dry System



Here is the problem

 

Have a dry pipe system where a portion of the building is rated R and the 
remainder

is A  B.

 

Recently TYCO has come out with residential dry pendent sprinkler for 
residential systems.

 

OK now here is my question What have you contractors' done in the past in a 
situation like

this one?

 

I take it no one manufacturers makes a residential sprinkler that is approved 
on dry pipe systems.

 

Mike
  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
 

__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5315 (20100726) __

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5315 (20100726) __

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Mike Cabral]

ECO Group Has shown a residential dry valve in the past link below:

Mike Cabral


http://www.theecogroupllc.com/index.html

Mike Cabral


On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Steve Leyton wrote:

 They exist.  Next question:  who's got a small dry pipe valve?   Does
 anyone remember seeing the little preaction valve that was displayed 
 at
 the trade show in DC?   What was the name of that company?

 Seems to me, if we've got some product available we can dance around 
 the
 antifreeze mess ...

 Steve Leyton
 Protection Design  Consulting
 San Diego, CA




 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
 Williams
 Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:40 AM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

 Always the last to know. However, I could not access either of the TFP 
 documents referenced in the product description. Does this actually 
 exist? Maybe that I why I couldn't find it under regular search 
 criteria.



 At 09:38 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
 Todd,

 Go to http://www.tyco-fire.com/

 And look under Latest News.

 Best Regards,
 Ken Holsopple

 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
 Williams
 Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:29 AM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

 There is no dry-type residential sprinkler that I could find on the
 Tyco web site. Never heard of one either. Unless this is something
 new, he may be blowing smoke up your whoops-a-daisy.

 My guess is that you are going to have to use QR sprinklers and a
 1950 sqft design area. Could you split the building into wet and dry
 systems?



 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email
 to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

 Todd G. Williams, PE
 Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 Stonington, CT
 860.535.2080
 www.fpdc.com

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email
 to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
 signature database 5265 (20100709) __

 The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 http://www.eset.com

 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
 signature database 5266 (20100709) __

 The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 http://www.eset.com

 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
 signature database 5266 (20100709) __

 The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 http://www.eset.com
  ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email 
 to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Todd Williams]

There is no dry-type residential sprinkler that I could find on the 
Tyco web site. Never heard of one either. Unless this is something 
new, he may be blowing smoke up your whoops-a-daisy.

My guess is that you are going to have to use QR sprinklers and a 
1950 sqft design area. Could you split the building into wet and dry systems?



At 09:21 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:


  Have a situation where there is a dry pipe sprinkler system being 
 installed in

a multi use building A-3, B, R-2 and S-1 Occupancies.



In the R-2 portion the space above the ceiling is conditioned and I was hoping

to use Listed Residential Sprinklers on return bends. Local AHJ 
states that only

TYCO LFII Dry-Type Residential Sprinklers can be used in this area 
since this is

the only Listed Residential Sprinkler for use on Dry Pipe Systems.



Has anyone run across this situation besides me?



Mike Hairfield

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860.535.2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Ken Holsopple (forum)]

Todd,

Go to http://www.tyco-fire.com/

And look under Latest News.

Best Regards,
Ken Holsopple

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

There is no dry-type residential sprinkler that I could find on the 
Tyco web site. Never heard of one either. Unless this is something 
new, he may be blowing smoke up your whoops-a-daisy.

My guess is that you are going to have to use QR sprinklers and a 
1950 sqft design area. Could you split the building into wet and dry
systems?



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Mike Hairfield]

It also states why use Commercial Dry Sprinklers in Residential Systems so in 
the past using

non-residential sprinklers in R use Groups was OK?

 

Mike
 
 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 06:33:54 -0700
 From: tm...@mfpdesign.com
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems
 
 The product flyer says wet, dry or preaction.
 
 On 7/9/2010 6:32 AM, Mike Hairfield wrote:
  Has to be dry pipe system only and TYCO has a new Dry pendent Residential 
  Sprinklers TY2235, TY2535 and TY2335
 
  it's in TYCO's Rapid Response Home Fire Sprinkler System data.
 
 
 
  Mike
 
  
  Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:28:35 -0400
  To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  From: t...@fpdc.com
  Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems
 
  There is no dry-type residential sprinkler that I could find on the
  Tyco web site. Never heard of one either. Unless this is something
  new, he may be blowing smoke up your whoops-a-daisy.
 
  My guess is that you are going to have to use QR sprinklers and a
  1950 sqft design area. Could you split the building into wet and dry 
  systems?
 
 
 
  At 09:21 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
 
 
  
  Have a situation where there is a dry pipe sprinkler system being
  installed in
 
  a multi use building A-3, B, R-2 and S-1 Occupancies.
 
 
 
  In the R-2 portion the space above the ceiling is conditioned and I was 
  hoping
 
  to use Listed Residential Sprinklers on return bends. Local AHJ
  states that only
 
  TYCO LFII Dry-Type Residential Sprinklers can be used in this area
  since this is
 
  the only Listed Residential Sprinkler for use on Dry Pipe Systems.
 
 
 
  Has anyone run across this situation besides me?
 
 
 
  Mike Hairfield
 
  ___
  Sprinklerforum mailing list
  Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
  For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
  To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
  (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
  
  Todd G. Williams, PE
  Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  Stonington, CT
  860.535.2080
  www.fpdc.com
 
  ___
  Sprinklerforum mailing list
  Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
  For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
  To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
  (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
  
  
  ___
  Sprinklerforum mailing list
  Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
  For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
  To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
  (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
  
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Fletcher, Ron]

3.4.5 in the handbook says dry systems should only be installed where
pipe is subject to freezing. I have had AHJ's use this to require a wet
system in the heated areas and dry in the unheated.

Ron Fletcher
Aero Automatic
Phoenix, AZ

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Hairfield
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:33 AM
To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems


Has to be dry pipe system only and TYCO has a new Dry pendent
Residential Sprinklers TY2235, TY2535 and TY2335

it's in TYCO's Rapid Response Home Fire Sprinkler System data.

 

Mike
 
 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:28:35 -0400
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 From: t...@fpdc.com
 Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems
 
 There is no dry-type residential sprinkler that I could find on the 
 Tyco web site. Never heard of one either. Unless this is something 
 new, he may be blowing smoke up your whoops-a-daisy.
 
 My guess is that you are going to have to use QR sprinklers and a 
 1950 sqft design area. Could you split the building into wet and dry
systems?
 
 
 
 At 09:21 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
 
 
  Have a situation where there is a dry pipe sprinkler system being 
  installed in
 
 a multi use building A-3, B, R-2 and S-1 Occupancies.
 
 
 
 In the R-2 portion the space above the ceiling is conditioned and I
was hoping
 
 to use Listed Residential Sprinklers on return bends. Local AHJ 
 states that only
 
 TYCO LFII Dry-Type Residential Sprinklers can be used in this area 
 since this is
 
 the only Listed Residential Sprinkler for use on Dry Pipe Systems.
 
 
 
 Has anyone run across this situation besides me?
 
 
 
 Mike Hairfield
 
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
 To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
 
 Todd G. Williams, PE
 Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 Stonington, CT
 860.535.2080
 www.fpdc.com
 
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
 To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Todd Williams]

Always the last to know. However, I could not access either of the 
TFP documents referenced in the product description. Does this 
actually exist? Maybe that I why I couldn't find it under regular 
search criteria.



At 09:38 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
Todd,

Go to http://www.tyco-fire.com/

And look under Latest News.

Best Regards,
Ken Holsopple

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

There is no dry-type residential sprinkler that I could find on the
Tyco web site. Never heard of one either. Unless this is something
new, he may be blowing smoke up your whoops-a-daisy.

My guess is that you are going to have to use QR sprinklers and a
1950 sqft design area. Could you split the building into wet and dry
systems?



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860.535.2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Dave Phelan]

I see a few heads listed for dry service in residential systems ..
Interesting but is there a specific DPV that must be used with a residential
system?

 

A listed head is great but the end result is still water delivery in 15
seconds and that seems pretty tough to achieve without carefully design and
piping . presuming we can even get the DPV tripped and pipe flooded fast
enough to deliver the water out the far end in 15 seconds or less.

 

It's a start indeed but I would expect water delivery problems in anything
other than a very small one or two family building.

 

Dave P.

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Dave Phelan]

When you look at the press release they mention at the very bottom to follow
special bulletins TFP 460 and TFP 461 for listing and design information etc
..

 

Those particular bulletins don't seem to be available off the TFP website
but I'm also not an authorized dealer / installer.

 

Can anyone on the list forward them to me directly - thanks much.

 

Dave P.

Fire Fighting  Codes - no pipe wrenches

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[George Church]

Dave, 
you might be surprised at how fast water can be delievered into a dry
system, given a high-pressure supply and a piping configuration that tends
to trap air in non-flowing branch lines.

The key is the 4 second trip time with the new electronic accelerator -
slimmed down now, too.
We've met similar criteria for 1000 gal systems in under 30 seconds. 

Read James' white paper on dry system performance (on TFP website) and
you'll understand the variables which can help.

glc

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dave Phelan
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

I see a few heads listed for dry service in residential systems ..
Interesting but is there a specific DPV that must be used with a residential
system?

 

A listed head is great but the end result is still water delivery in 15
seconds and that seems pretty tough to achieve without carefully design and
piping . presuming we can even get the DPV tripped and pipe flooded fast
enough to deliver the water out the far end in 15 seconds or less.

 

It's a start indeed but I would expect water delivery problems in anything
other than a very small one or two family building.

 

Dave P.

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Steve Leyton]

They exist.  Next question:  who's got a small dry pipe valve?   Does
anyone remember seeing the little preaction valve that was displayed at
the trade show in DC?   What was the name of that company?

Seems to me, if we've got some product available we can dance around the
antifreeze mess ...

Steve Leyton
Protection Design  Consulting
San Diego, CA




-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
Williams
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:40 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

Always the last to know. However, I could not access either of the 
TFP documents referenced in the product description. Does this 
actually exist? Maybe that I why I couldn't find it under regular 
search criteria.



At 09:38 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
Todd,

Go to http://www.tyco-fire.com/

And look under Latest News.

Best Regards,
Ken Holsopple

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
Williams
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

There is no dry-type residential sprinkler that I could find on the
Tyco web site. Never heard of one either. Unless this is something
new, he may be blowing smoke up your whoops-a-daisy.

My guess is that you are going to have to use QR sprinklers and a
1950 sqft design area. Could you split the building into wet and dry
systems?



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860.535.2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
 

__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5265 (20100709) __

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
  

__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5266 (20100709) __

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5266 (20100709) __

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

[Ron Greenman]

Reliable has some little pre-action valves run by solenoid valves
directly controlling the flow of water rather than as just a releasing
device. Other mfgs may also have similar products but I'm too lazy to
think now. It's near 100, we don't belive in ac here and I've been
away from California, Southeast Asia and Panama for too long.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Steve Leyton
st...@protectiondesign.com wrote:
 They exist.  Next question:  who's got a small dry pipe valve?   Does
 anyone remember seeing the little preaction valve that was displayed at
 the trade show in DC?   What was the name of that company?

 Seems to me, if we've got some product available we can dance around the
 antifreeze mess ...

 Steve Leyton
 Protection Design  Consulting
 San Diego, CA




 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
 Williams
 Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:40 AM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

 Always the last to know. However, I could not access either of the
 TFP documents referenced in the product description. Does this
 actually exist? Maybe that I why I couldn't find it under regular
 search criteria.



 At 09:38 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
Todd,

Go to http://www.tyco-fire.com/

And look under Latest News.

Best Regards,
Ken Holsopple

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
 Williams
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems

There is no dry-type residential sprinkler that I could find on the
Tyco web site. Never heard of one either. Unless this is something
new, he may be blowing smoke up your whoops-a-daisy.

My guess is that you are going to have to use QR sprinklers and a
1950 sqft design area. Could you split the building into wet and dry
systems?



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email
 to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

 Todd G. Williams, PE
 Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 Stonington, CT
 860.535.2080
 www.fpdc.com

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email
 to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
 signature database 5265 (20100709) __

 The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 http://www.eset.com


 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
 signature database 5266 (20100709) __

 The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 http://www.eset.com



 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
 signature database 5266 (20100709) __

 The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 http://www.eset.com

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




-- 
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering
Bates Technical College
Tacoma, WA

Member:
AFT WA 4184/AFL-CIO, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential sprinklers

[George Church]

By using residential heads in a 13 residential calc, 4 head MRA vrs not
using res hds and having a 3000 sf mra due to permissible unprotected
combustible construction, the res hds DO allow a 4 hd calc- vrs the largest
room, and it'd only be 4 res hds in the corr not 5.

Residential sprinklers offer us much more than high wall wetting.

glc 

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of tom poisal
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:06 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential sprinklers

tony, first off why a 3000 sq ft remote area ? second - utilizing res
spkrs will not let you reduce an area to be calculated wherein 13
requires; largest room, corridor heads etc.

Tom Poisal, CET
Fire Sprink Ink

On 3/31/10, Ed Kramer k...@frii.com wrote:
 Tony, for what it's worth, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says Where
 corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces,
residential
 sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor.  The FAQ located
in
 the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the intent of 8.4.5 to
allow
 residential sprinklers to be installed in corridors adjoining dwelling
units
 that serve adjoining spaces other than dwelling units AND THEIR INCEDENTAL
 SERVICE AREAS?  (The capital letters are my doing)

 The odd thing (to me) is that nothing in 8.4.5.1 or A.8.4.5.1 or the
 commentary mentions incidental service areas.  So how are we to
interpret
 all that?  Too much 'engineering' for my pay level.

 Ed Kramer
 Littleton, CO




 Care facility designed to NFPA 13, 2002. Residential heads in patient
 rooms
 and adjacent corridors. All other rooms with non-residential qr heads. A
 corridor opens to a dining room. There are no walls separating them. Any
 problems using res. heads in the dining room? I'm trying to use res.
 heads
 as much as possible to avoid a 3000 sq.ft. calc.

 Tony

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential sprinklers

[lamarvaughn]

I'm still confused by the 3000 sq.ft. mra.13 requires the combustible dead 
spaces to be protected.Just because you are using residential sprinklers in a 
13 system it does not allow you to ignore these spaces as would be allowed in 
13R.Maybe I have missed part of this thread.

Lamar Vaughn,

SET 
 George Church for...@ptd.net wrote: 
 By using residential heads in a 13 residential calc, 4 head MRA vrs not
 using res hds and having a 3000 sf mra due to permissible unprotected
 combustible construction, the res hds DO allow a 4 hd calc- vrs the largest
 room, and it'd only be 4 res hds in the corr not 5.
 
 Residential sprinklers offer us much more than high wall wetting.
 
 glc 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of tom poisal
 Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:06 AM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: Re: Residential sprinklers
 
 tony, first off why a 3000 sq ft remote area ? second - utilizing res
 spkrs will not let you reduce an area to be calculated wherein 13
 requires; largest room, corridor heads etc.
 
 Tom Poisal, CET
 Fire Sprink Ink
 
 On 3/31/10, Ed Kramer k...@frii.com wrote:
  Tony, for what it's worth, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says Where
  corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces,
 residential
  sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor.  The FAQ located
 in
  the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the intent of 8.4.5 to
 allow
  residential sprinklers to be installed in corridors adjoining dwelling
 units
  that serve adjoining spaces other than dwelling units AND THEIR INCEDENTAL
  SERVICE AREAS?  (The capital letters are my doing)
 
  The odd thing (to me) is that nothing in 8.4.5.1 or A.8.4.5.1 or the
  commentary mentions incidental service areas.  So how are we to
 interpret
  all that?  Too much 'engineering' for my pay level.
 
  Ed Kramer
  Littleton, CO
 
 
 
 
  Care facility designed to NFPA 13, 2002. Residential heads in patient
  rooms
  and adjacent corridors. All other rooms with non-residential qr heads. A
  corridor opens to a dining room. There are no walls separating them. Any
  problems using res. heads in the dining room? I'm trying to use res.
  heads
  as much as possible to avoid a 3000 sq.ft. calc.
 
  Tony
 
  ___
  Sprinklerforum mailing list
  Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
  For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
  To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
  (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
 
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
 
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential sprinklers

[tom poisal]

The main driving force is what is the overall occupancy, I gather its
an assisted living facility or such, so to install residential heads
in a dining area to achieve a four head calc is just plain wrong!

On 4/3/10, George Church for...@ptd.net wrote:
 By using residential heads in a 13 residential calc, 4 head MRA vrs not
 using res hds and having a 3000 sf mra due to permissible unprotected
 combustible construction, the res hds DO allow a 4 hd calc- vrs the largest
 room, and it'd only be 4 res hds in the corr not 5.

 Residential sprinklers offer us much more than high wall wetting.

 glc

 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of tom poisal
 Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:06 AM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: Re: Residential sprinklers

 tony, first off why a 3000 sq ft remote area ? second - utilizing res
 spkrs will not let you reduce an area to be calculated wherein 13
 requires; largest room, corridor heads etc.

 Tom Poisal, CET
 Fire Sprink Ink

 On 3/31/10, Ed Kramer k...@frii.com wrote:
 Tony, for what it's worth, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says Where
 corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces,
 residential
 sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor.  The FAQ located
 in
 the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the intent of 8.4.5 to
 allow
 residential sprinklers to be installed in corridors adjoining dwelling
 units
 that serve adjoining spaces other than dwelling units AND THEIR INCEDENTAL
 SERVICE AREAS?  (The capital letters are my doing)

 The odd thing (to me) is that nothing in 8.4.5.1 or A.8.4.5.1 or the
 commentary mentions incidental service areas.  So how are we to
 interpret
 all that?  Too much 'engineering' for my pay level.

 Ed Kramer
 Littleton, CO




 Care facility designed to NFPA 13, 2002. Residential heads in patient
 rooms
 and adjacent corridors. All other rooms with non-residential qr heads. A
 corridor opens to a dining room. There are no walls separating them. Any
 problems using res. heads in the dining room? I'm trying to use res.
 heads
 as much as possible to avoid a 3000 sq.ft. calc.

 Tony

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential sprinklers

[A.P.Silva]

3000 sf design is required for non-residential heads, due to unsprinklered
combustible concealed spaces, drywall tight to bottom of TJI's, using NFPA
13, 2002. This cannot be reduced for largest room, etc. This building has
several wings. Some wings consist of patient rooms, corridors and incidental
rooms such as laundry rooms, storage rooms and janitor rooms. In patient
rooms and corridors I'm using residential heads with 4 head design. In the
other rooms I'm using non-res heads and calculating all heads in such rooms
that are adjacent to each other. This works out to about 12 heads, less than
3000 sf. I hope I don't have to extend the design area to the corridors and
patient rooms to get up to 3000 sf, as the different k factors would create
havoc. (I have this same dillemma when designing attics with attic heads and
adjacent standard heads).

In other wings, corridors open to dining rooms (no separating walls). In
these, I'm now using res heads only in the patient rooms. The non-res heads
in the dining room, corridor and other rooms within the 1.2 x sq.rt. Of 3000
(which works out to about 25 heads) are included in the design area. Again,
didn't extend design area to patient rooms to get the full 3000 sf.

Any comments?

Tony   

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of tom poisal
Sent: April 2, 2010 9:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential sprinklers

tony, first off why a 3000 sq ft remote area ? second - utilizing res spkrs
will not let you reduce an area to be calculated wherein 13 requires;
largest room, corridor heads etc.

Tom Poisal, CET
Fire Sprink Ink

On 3/31/10, Ed Kramer k...@frii.com wrote:
 Tony, for what it's worth, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says 
 Where corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces, 
 residential sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor.  
 The FAQ located in the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the 
 intent of 8.4.5 to allow residential sprinklers to be installed in 
 corridors adjoining dwelling units that serve adjoining spaces other 
 than dwelling units AND THEIR INCEDENTAL SERVICE AREAS?  (The capital 
 letters are my doing)

 The odd thing (to me) is that nothing in 8.4.5.1 or A.8.4.5.1 or the 
 commentary mentions incidental service areas.  So how are we to 
 interpret all that?  Too much 'engineering' for my pay level.

 Ed Kramer
 Littleton, CO




 Care facility designed to NFPA 13, 2002. Residential heads in patient 
 rooms and adjacent corridors. All other rooms with non-residential qr 
 heads. A corridor opens to a dining room. There are no walls 
 separating them. Any problems using res. heads in the dining room? 
 I'm trying to use res.
 heads
 as much as possible to avoid a 3000 sq.ft. calc.

 Tony

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email 
 to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential sprinklers

[Ron Greenman]

I'm merely asking 'cause I didn't look anything up and I don't even
have an opinion but if your TJIs are blocked and compartmentalized to
the 164 cuft (again, I didn't look anything up but think that's the
number) would that then eliminate the 3000 sqft design area rule?

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:00 AM, A.P.Silva silva...@shaw.ca wrote:
 My question is:

 For the 3000 ft2 design, do I need to (1) include all QR and RES heads in
 the 3000 ft2 area. Or (2) do I need to go to the full 3000, regardless of
 the length of the design area to include only QR heads? Or (3) include
 only QR heads up to the length of the 3000 sq.ft. not necessarily the full
 3000 sq.ft.

 By length I mean the 1.2x sq.rt. Of 3000 sf.

 Tony

 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
 Sent: April 3, 2010 10:33 AM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: RE: Residential sprinklers

 Tony:
 11.2.3.1.4 Restrictions. Regardless of which of the two methods
 (density/area or room design method) is used, the following restrictions
 shall apply:
 (3)*Unless the requirements of 11.2.3.1.4(4) are met for buildings having
 un-sprinklered combustible concealed spaces, as described in 8.15.1.2 and
 8.15.6, the minimum area of sprinkler operation for that portion of the
 building shall be 3000 ft2 (279 m2). The design area of 3000 ft2
 (279 m2) shall be applied only to the sprinkler system or portions of the
 sprinkler system that are adjacent to the qualifying combustible concealed
 space.

 I'd say that since Residential head design is not Room Design it does not
 need to meet the room design criteria if you're using residential listed
 heads. (4 Head design) When you switched from res. Heads to the QR heads for
 your other rooms
 your back to room design, and must meet 11.2.3.1.4(3)

 I spend a lot of time teaching AHJ's , that as soon as you see tji's you
 need to start looking for a 3000 SF remote area, and if you don't see one
 you need to look closely as to why you don't see one. Res. Heads will get
 you out of it in res. Occupancies, but only where they are allowed.

 Don't forget the tail end of (3) says The design area of 3000 ft2
 (279 m2) shall be applied only to the sprinkler system or portions of the
 sprinkler system that are adjacent to the qualifying combustible concealed
 space.

 Thom McMahon, SET
 Firetech, Inc.
 2560 Copper Ridge Dr
 P.O. Box 882136
 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
 Tel:  970-879-7952
 Fax: 970-879-7926



 Subject: RE: Residential sprinklers

 In the other rooms I'm using non-res heads and calculating all heads in such
 rooms that are adjacent to each other. This works out to about 12 heads,
 less than 3000 sf. I hope I don't have to extend the design area to the
 corridors and patient rooms to get up to 3000 sf, as the different k factors
 would create havoc.

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




-- 
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering
Bates Technical College
Tacoma, WA

Member:
SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential sprinklers

[Parsley Consulting]

Tony,

That's going to change in the 2010.  Read this:

11.3.1.2* Unless the requirements of 11.2.3.1.4(4) are met for buildings 
having unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces, as described in 
8.15.1.2 and 8.15.6, the minimum design area of sprinkler operation for 
that portion of the building shall be 3000 ft2 (279 m2).

11.3.1.2.1 The design area of 3000 ft2 (279 m2) shall be applied only to 
the portion of the residential sprinklers that are adjacent to the 
qualifying combustible concealed space.

11.3.1.2.2 When applying the 3000 ft2 (279m2) design area, the rules of 
22.4.4.1.1 and 22.4.4.6.1 shall be permitted to apply.

I've been told by some very astute people that this has always been the 
intent, but now it's called out.

Food for thought.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential sprinklers

[tom poisal]

tony, first off why a 3000 sq ft remote area ? second - utilizing res
spkrs will not let you reduce an area to be calculated wherein 13
requires; largest room, corridor heads etc.

Tom Poisal, CET
Fire Sprink Ink

On 3/31/10, Ed Kramer k...@frii.com wrote:
 Tony, for what it's worth, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says Where
 corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces, residential
 sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor.  The FAQ located in
 the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the intent of 8.4.5 to allow
 residential sprinklers to be installed in corridors adjoining dwelling units
 that serve adjoining spaces other than dwelling units AND THEIR INCEDENTAL
 SERVICE AREAS?  (The capital letters are my doing)

 The odd thing (to me) is that nothing in 8.4.5.1 or A.8.4.5.1 or the
 commentary mentions incidental service areas.  So how are we to interpret
 all that?  Too much 'engineering' for my pay level.

 Ed Kramer
 Littleton, CO




 Care facility designed to NFPA 13, 2002. Residential heads in patient
 rooms
 and adjacent corridors. All other rooms with non-residential qr heads. A
 corridor opens to a dining room. There are no walls separating them. Any
 problems using res. heads in the dining room? I'm trying to use res.
 heads
 as much as possible to avoid a 3000 sq.ft. calc.

 Tony

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential sprinklers

[Ed Kramer]

Tony, for what it's worth, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says Where
corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces, residential
sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor.  The FAQ located in
the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the intent of 8.4.5 to allow
residential sprinklers to be installed in corridors adjoining dwelling units
that serve adjoining spaces other than dwelling units AND THEIR INCEDENTAL
SERVICE AREAS?  (The capital letters are my doing)

The odd thing (to me) is that nothing in 8.4.5.1 or A.8.4.5.1 or the
commentary mentions incidental service areas.  So how are we to interpret
all that?  Too much 'engineering' for my pay level.

Ed Kramer
Littleton, CO


 
 
 Care facility designed to NFPA 13, 2002. Residential heads in patient
 rooms
 and adjacent corridors. All other rooms with non-residential qr heads. A
 corridor opens to a dining room. There are no walls separating them. Any
 problems using res. heads in the dining room? I'm trying to use res.
 heads
 as much as possible to avoid a 3000 sq.ft. calc.
 
 Tony

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS IN NFPA #13

[Reed Roisum]

You are allowed to go to NFPA 13R for I-1 occupancies.

IBC 2006

903.2.5 Group I. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout 
buildings with a Group I fire area.
Exception: An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 
903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 shall be allowed in Group I-1 facilities.


903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Where allowed in buildings of Group R, up 
to and including four stories in height, automatic sprinkler systems shall be 
installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R.


Reed A. Roisum, CET
Fire Protection

Ulteig Engineers, Inc.
3350 38th Avenue S.
Fargo, ND 58104
701.280.8580 direct
701.212.8810 cell
www.ulteig.com

Energy | Water | Built-Environment

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION:Emails from this company normally contain 
confidential and privileged material, and are for the sole use of the intended 
recipient.  Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited, and 
may be a violation of law.  If you believe that you received this in error, 
please do not read the body of this e-mail and please inform the sender that 
you have deleted the e-mail and any copies.  Thank you.


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ralphy Henderson
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS IN NFPA #13

Hello,

I'm looking at a set of plans that calls out residential sprinklers in an 
assisted living facility with an i-1 occupancy classification. I thought you 
could only use them in residential occupancies - residential meaning 
R-occupancies. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

R





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS IN NFPA #13

[Dewayne Martinez]

You can use them but must follow NFPA 13 rules for residential
sprinklers. 

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ralphy
Henderson
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS IN NFPA #13

Hello,

I'm looking at a set of plans that calls out residential sprinklers in
an assisted living facility with an i-1 occupancy classification. I
thought you could only use them in residential occupancies -
residential meaning R-occupancies. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

R




  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential sprinklers

[Jim Johnston]

Scott,

My company has done a lot of high end homes, I asked our residential
superintendent to get me some pictures.  I will gladly forward them to you.

Jim Johnston, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Inland Fire Protection, Inc
1100 Ahtanum Road
Yakima, WA 98903
Phone 509-248-4471
Fax 509-248-1180
j...@inlandfireprotection.com


-Original Message-
From: Scott A. Futrell [mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential sprinklers

  

I am preparing a presentation (pro residential sprinklers) for a building
officials group and I am looking for good pictures of residential (13D only)
valve assemblies on city water and not on city water, with and without
pumps, with and without tanks, and with wells.
If you have any pictures that you would share with me for this presentation
(and other presentations that the Minnesota Residential Sprinkler Coalition
will be utilizing) would you contact me off forum please?  My goal is
education and showing the possibilities, especially for rural installations.
Thanks in advance,

 

Scott A. Futrell, FSFPE, PE, SET 

Futrell Fire Consult  Design, Inc. 
8860 Jefferson Highway
Osseo, MN 55369-1500
(763) 425-1001 Office
(763) 425-2234 Fax
(612) 759-5556 Cell
sco...@ffcdi.com 

 www.ffcdi.com 

This message has been sent via the Internet. Internet communications are not
secure against interception or modification. Futrell Fire Consult  Design,
Inc. therefore cannot guarantee that this message has not been modified in
transit. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and
destroy your copies of the message and any attached files.  Although this
e-mail (including attachments) is believed to be free of any virus or other
defect that might negatively affect any computer system by which it is
received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
that it is virus or defect free.  No responsibility is accepted by the
sender for any loss or damage arising in any way in the event that such a
virus or defect exists.  

 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch

[Todd Williams - FPDC]

This is a tough one. For 13D systems, I usually propose to calc 3 
sprinklers instead of two and the AHJs have so far gone along. I can 
only think of one 13R system where that applied. The AHJ on that one 
went along with using the head requirements for the maximum pitch (I 
think the pitch was actually around 9/12), provided we had a good 
cushion (I think around 15 psi). I would be tempted to suggest the 5 
head calc for those in the future. I know there is probably no 
technical basis for this and I may suffer some chastising from my 
fellow forumites, but given the situation and lack of guidance from 
NFPA or others, it seemed a reasonable approach.



At 05:41 PM 6/12/2008, you wrote:

It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
leaves it up to the local AHJ which has resulted in a few different
requirements.
I would like to hear from anyone who may hold the solution to this on going
dilemma. What does your AHJ required you to do in these situations??
Any help would be greatly appreciated.



Thanks
Dave Killey
Fire Busters Inc

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
7:13 PM


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
www.fpdc.com
860.535.2080  
___

Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch

[Ron Greenman]

I can think of a few things. Since we're doing a 0.05 density we could
go up to 0.06 or 0.07 at the maximum spacing (15x14 actual equals
16x16) kind of like FM degrades the co-efficient for hydrant outlets
relative to NFPA. We could go up one area so if we'd normally be using
the psi/gpm numbers from the 16x16 chart for our layout we instead use
the 18x18 (if they're the same then no penalty). Todd's ideas are also
sound but why are we concerned in the first place? What's inadequate
when we go from 8/12 t0 9/12? Pressure? Flow? Both? Or have they just
not been tested at those angles? If the latter is it that the
manufacturers just don't see a return on the cost of testing? Seems a
couple of years ago vaulted 10/12  12/12 were the architects'
rooflines d'jour but that may already be out of fashion. I just don't
know.

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Todd Williams - FPDC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a tough one. For 13D systems, I usually propose to calc 3 sprinklers
 instead of two and the AHJs have so far gone along. I can only think of one
 13R system where that applied. The AHJ on that one went along with using the
 head requirements for the maximum pitch (I think the pitch was actually
 around 9/12), provided we had a good cushion (I think around 15 psi). I
 would be tempted to suggest the 5 head calc for those in the future. I know
 there is probably no technical basis for this and I may suffer some
 chastising from my fellow forumites, but given the situation and lack of
 guidance from NFPA or others, it seemed a reasonable approach.


 At 05:41 PM 6/12/2008, you wrote:

 It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
 approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
 leaves it up to the local AHJ which has resulted in a few different
 requirements.
 I would like to hear from anyone who may hold the solution to this on
 going
 dilemma. What does your AHJ required you to do in these situations??
 Any help would be greatly appreciated.



 Thanks
 Dave Killey
 Fire Busters Inc

 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG.
 Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
 7:13 PM


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

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

 Todd G. Williams, PE
 Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 Stonington, Connecticut
 www.fpdc.com
 860.535.2080  ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




-- 
Ron Greenman
at home
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch

[herb]

Dave
In every instance we have to do a 3 head calc when there are at least 3
heads in the room where the steep pitched roof is (over 8:12).  We've also
had to use the UL listed flow required for the head up to 8:12 pitched
ceilings which is 18gpm per head.  These homes are also usually large homes
on wells which means we have to put in 600+ gallon (10 minutes X 54gpm = 540
gallons) tank and a pump.  The AHJ's want a cushion just in case the pump is
pumping more than the required 54gpm and draining the tank too fast.

Herb Schairbaum
Blue Water Fire Sprinklers
253-279-3603
253-927-8781 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Killey
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch


It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
leaves it up to the local AHJ which has resulted in a few different
requirements.
I would like to hear from anyone who may hold the solution to this on going
dilemma. What does your AHJ required you to do in these situations??
Any help would be greatly appreciated.



Thanks
Dave Killey
Fire Busters Inc

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
7:13 PM


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch

[Thom McMahon]

Three AHJ's all different all 13D.
#1
Requires 2 head calc for all homes under 5000 Sf @ 0.05
Requires 3 head calc over 5000 Sf @ 0.05
Requires 4 head calc for over 8/12  any size, also 0.10, also only recessed
heads (He will accept recessed heads that are not listed for up to 8/12, but
will not allow concealed heads that are listed for up to 8/12.)
#2
Requires 4 head design for all homes over 3000 SF @ 0.05
Requires 4 head design for over 8/12 @ 0.10
#3
Requires only 2 head design, until such a time as 13D says specifically what
to do with non conforming situations.


Thom McMahon, SET
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
P.O. Box 882136
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
Tel:  970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Killey
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch

It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
leaves it up to the local AHJ which has resulted in a few different
requirements. 
I would like to hear from anyone who may hold the solution to this on going
dilemma. What does your AHJ required you to do in these situations??
Any help would be greatly appreciated. 



Thanks
Dave Killey
Fire Busters Inc

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
7:13 PM
 

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch

[Ron Greenman]

I like AHJ number three since he's not guess engineering. The more is
better/save the building with a guess tweaked life safety system
design is the second biggest deterrent (after the water guys and
their 4 minimum residential lead-ins and the $14K one inch tap
fees--my personal favorite although this 4 thing is running a close
second) to residential sprinkler ordinances.

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Thom McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Three AHJ's all different all 13D.
 #1
 Requires 2 head calc for all homes under 5000 Sf @ 0.05
 Requires 3 head calc over 5000 Sf @ 0.05
 Requires 4 head calc for over 8/12  any size, also 0.10, also only recessed
 heads (He will accept recessed heads that are not listed for up to 8/12, but
 will not allow concealed heads that are listed for up to 8/12.)
 #2
 Requires 4 head design for all homes over 3000 SF @ 0.05
 Requires 4 head design for over 8/12 @ 0.10
 #3
 Requires only 2 head design, until such a time as 13D says specifically what
 to do with non conforming situations.


 Thom McMahon, SET
 Firetech, Inc.
 2560 Copper Ridge Dr
 P.O. Box 882136
 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
 Tel:  970-879-7952
 Fax: 970-879-7926



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Killey
 Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:41 PM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch

 It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
 approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
 leaves it up to the local AHJ which has resulted in a few different
 requirements.
 I would like to hear from anyone who may hold the solution to this on going
 dilemma. What does your AHJ required you to do in these situations??
 Any help would be greatly appreciated.



 Thanks
 Dave Killey
 Fire Busters Inc

 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG.
 Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
 7:13 PM


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

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




-- 
Ron Greenman
at home
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Mike Brown (TECH- GVL)]

My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines to follow in 
these situations.  I do not care if they say calculate the room to light hazard 
as long as they put it in writing. But the way it is now, it is just what ever 
the contractor or engineer (designer) can get the AHJ to go along with.

Michael L. Brown
Manager of Technical Services
The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.reliablesprinkler.com
(864) 843-5228

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matsuda, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

  I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that
the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the
AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve them.

I remembered a similar discussion saying something about not allowing
them to build something that you can't protect...I think it was a boat
storage rack or something about ESFR sprinklers. The problem with these
houses is that the architect, builder, and home owner have conspired to
build them and now we have to figure out how to protect them. I guess I
could tell them to rip it all out and make a smooth flat ceiling, but I
don't think that would be acceptable to our administration.

So what do we do? My simplistic answer is that if it looks like an
over-kill design with 10 heads in a 20 x 20-foot room, then it probably
is a waste of money. If one head can protect the room with a smooth flat
ceiling, then maybe four or five heads should be reasonable with beam
pockets. Depends on the size and occupancy of the room, beam locations,
depth, ceiling height, type of sprinklers used, and other
variables...but there is a  reasonable answer to it. The difficulty is
deciding what's reasonable...and no single solution will fit all
situations.

rick matsuda
city of dallas, bldg insp dept

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling
broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with
the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.
In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Steve Leyton]

What would you have the T/C do?  Give us something in writing and I'm
sure the other AFSA rep's would join me in crafting a committee proposal
to work into the ROC if it's well-conceived.   The challenge of course,
is that it's not reasonably possible to account for every eventuality.
You know that Tyco has done and continues to do tests with exposed beams
and sloped ceilings; has Reliable got anything in the can that you can
share with us about the direction of testing and new listings for these
conditions?   There are sprinklers already on-market that are listed for
this exact scenario, so I'm not sure that any committee action is
warranted or would even be useful at this time.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design  Consulting


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Brown (TECH- GVL)
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines to
follow in these situations.  I do not care if they say calculate the
room to light hazard as long as they put it in writing. But the way it
is now, it is just what ever the contractor or engineer (designer) can
get the AHJ to go along with.

Michael L. Brown
Manager of Technical Services
The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.reliablesprinkler.com
(864) 843-5228

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matsuda,
Richard
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

  I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that
the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the
AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve them.

I remembered a similar discussion saying something about not allowing
them to build something that you can't protect...I think it was a boat
storage rack or something about ESFR sprinklers. The problem with these
houses is that the architect, builder, and home owner have conspired to
build them and now we have to figure out how to protect them. I guess I
could tell them to rip it all out and make a smooth flat ceiling, but I
don't think that would be acceptable to our administration.

So what do we do? My simplistic answer is that if it looks like an
over-kill design with 10 heads in a 20 x 20-foot room, then it probably
is a waste of money. If one head can protect the room with a smooth flat
ceiling, then maybe four or five heads should be reasonable with beam
pockets. Depends on the size and occupancy of the room, beam locations,
depth, ceiling height, type of sprinklers used, and other
variables...but there is a  reasonable answer to it. The difficulty is
deciding what's reasonable...and no single solution will fit all
situations.

rick matsuda
city of dallas, bldg insp dept

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling
broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with
the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.
In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Eckard, Mark - Mark E]

Re: obstruction to sprinkler spray pattern development in 13-D.  

First lets take a look at the purpose of NFPA-13D.  Chapter 1.2 prevent
flash over and to allow the occupants to escape during the 10 minute
water supply.   If too many sprinklers are operating in an area that has
been hydraulically designed for one sprinkler that will 
(a.) deplete the duration of the reliable water supply, and (b.) the
source residual pressure and available flow.  The prevention of
flashover and control of fire is accomplished through cooling and
pre-wetting areas adjacent to the fire.  

Now. My Opinion combined with rhetorical questioning.  Even if there is
a small amount of spray pattern obstruction will the sprinkler system
accomplish is intended purpose? 
Will the sprinkler still provide enough cooling effect and provide
adequate wetting of surfaces adjacent to the fire?   

Mark E. Eckard S.E.T.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling
broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with
the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.
In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Thom McMahon]

With each new issue of the standard we hope to have a better, more 
comprehensive and functional document. Some of that can be done by 
committee, and input from the industry. There are some things which to 
change without enough support data could actually end up endorsing a bad or 
less than good practice. Residential spacing and flow/coverage is an area 
where I think that the Mfg's have to take the leed with testing. The same 
white paper I mentioned in previous postings was the Guide for new rules 
based upon its Recommendations for a local fire district. It was until I 
pointed out that not only does it not make any recommendations, it provides 
no flow/coverage criteria. (They are still reviewing that.) Additionally 
while the test was done by TYCO and used TYCO heads, no testing was done at 
the flows and pressures already required by those products for an 8/12 
ceiling. All testing was done at 13 Gpm per head. (About 72% of the average 
flow currently required for 8/12) Would the results have been different? I 
believe that in some tests they would have, not necessarily in all though.
In any case back to topic. I believe that there is very little the standards 
can do until more testing is done. I know that most of the old area density 
was interpolation from some very limited testing, but that was in a 
different age. A less Litigious time, I think we all should recognize the 
value and need for testing before revising the standard.

Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message - 
From: Steve Leyton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions


What would you have the T/C do?  Give us something in writing and I'm
sure the other AFSA rep's would join me in crafting a committee proposal
to work into the ROC if it's well-conceived.   The challenge of course,
is that it's not reasonably possible to account for every eventuality.
You know that Tyco has done and continues to do tests with exposed beams
and sloped ceilings; has Reliable got anything in the can that you can
share with us about the direction of testing and new listings for these
conditions?   There are sprinklers already on-market that are listed for
this exact scenario, so I'm not sure that any committee action is
warranted or would even be useful at this time.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design  Consulting


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Brown (TECH- GVL)
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines to
follow in these situations.  I do not care if they say calculate the
room to light hazard as long as they put it in writing. But the way it
is now, it is just what ever the contractor or engineer (designer) can
get the AHJ to go along with.

Michael L. Brown
Manager of Technical Services
The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.reliablesprinkler.com
(864) 843-5228

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matsuda,
Richard
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

 I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that
the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the
AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve them.

I remembered a similar discussion saying something about not allowing
them to build something that you can't protect...I think it was a boat
storage rack or something about ESFR sprinklers. The problem with these
houses is that the architect, builder, and home owner have conspired to
build them and now we have to figure out how to protect them. I guess I
could tell them to rip it all out and make a smooth flat ceiling, but I
don't think that would be acceptable to our administration.

So what do we do? My simplistic answer is that if it looks like an
over-kill design with 10 heads in a 20 x 20-foot room, then it probably
is a waste of money. If one head can protect the room with a smooth flat
ceiling, then maybe four or five heads should be reasonable with beam
pockets. Depends on the size and occupancy of the room, beam locations,
depth, ceiling height, type of sprinklers used, and other
variables...but there is a  reasonable answer to it. The difficulty is
deciding what's reasonable...and no single solution will fit all
situations.

rick matsuda
city of dallas, bldg insp dept

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Ron Greenman]

Maybe what we need is a reference in 13D similar to that in 13R that
you refer to 13 when there is no guidance in the lesser document.
Another perhaps is to have the scope of the documents printed in bold,
big print on the covers. You all know and I know that fires happen,
that fire damage unchecked is far more severe than water damage, etc.,
etc., but the public doesn't know it and thinks the fire men will get
to their rural mansion in Topanga Canyon in moments and save their
precious home without causing any additional damage and probably
fixing the existent damage with their hoses. And right know I guess my
biggest peeve is AHJs that add crap to 13D to protect property. If
they want to do that have people put in 13 residential systems and be
done with it. Maybe we need a 13-LS (life safety) and a 13D-LS/P (life
safety  property) and let the owner sign a document that says he
knows what he's getting. End of rant.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Steve Leyton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 What would you have the T/C do?  Give us something in writing and I'm
  sure the other AFSA rep's would join me in crafting a committee proposal
  to work into the ROC if it's well-conceived.   The challenge of course,
  is that it's not reasonably possible to account for every eventuality.
  You know that Tyco has done and continues to do tests with exposed beams
  and sloped ceilings; has Reliable got anything in the can that you can
  share with us about the direction of testing and new listings for these
  conditions?   There are sprinklers already on-market that are listed for
  this exact scenario, so I'm not sure that any committee action is
  warranted or would even be useful at this time.


  Steve Leyton
  Protection Design  Consulting



 -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
  Brown (TECH- GVL)
  Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:10 AM
  To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org


 Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

  My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines to
  follow in these situations.  I do not care if they say calculate the
  room to light hazard as long as they put it in writing. But the way it
  is now, it is just what ever the contractor or engineer (designer) can
  get the AHJ to go along with.

  Michael L. Brown
  Manager of Technical Services
  The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.reliablesprinkler.com
  (864) 843-5228

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matsuda,
  Richard
  Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:08 PM
  To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

   I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that
  the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the
  AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve them.

  I remembered a similar discussion saying something about not allowing
  them to build something that you can't protect...I think it was a boat
  storage rack or something about ESFR sprinklers. The problem with these
  houses is that the architect, builder, and home owner have conspired to
  build them and now we have to figure out how to protect them. I guess I
  could tell them to rip it all out and make a smooth flat ceiling, but I
  don't think that would be acceptable to our administration.

  So what do we do? My simplistic answer is that if it looks like an
  over-kill design with 10 heads in a 20 x 20-foot room, then it probably
  is a waste of money. If one head can protect the room with a smooth flat
  ceiling, then maybe four or five heads should be reasonable with beam
  pockets. Depends on the size and occupancy of the room, beam locations,
  depth, ceiling height, type of sprinklers used, and other
  variables...but there is a  reasonable answer to it. The difficulty is
  deciding what's reasonable...and no single solution will fit all
  situations.

  rick matsuda
  city of dallas, bldg insp dept

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
  Knight
  Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
  To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

  I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling
  broken
  up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with
  the
  beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.
  In
  one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
  think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
  per
  head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
  averages
  at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
  every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
  acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[bigtnp]

Hi Mark,

Your questions about the intent an function, even with some blocked spray 
pattern were concerns during the sloped and beamed ceiling testing that was 
done.? The Tyco sloped and?beamed ceiling testing is posted under? the 
'Literature' drop down on the Tyco website at www.tyco-fire.com.? It appears as 
a 'White Paper' on the subject, and it is available to all.

If you page past the section that has all of the ceiling configurations that 
were tested, you will find a section on 'Tenability Criteria'.? This was a 
major part of the pass/fail criteria in each test.? If the sprinklers failed 
the tenability criteria, the test was not successful.? The results are 
tabulated in the Appendix for each of the tests.? 

The partial obstruction of spray patterns had as much (and in some cases, more 
of an) effect on tenability as it did on controlling the fire.

Tom


-Original Message-
From: Eckard, Mark - Mark E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:30 am
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions




Re: obstruction to sprinkler spray pattern development in 13-D.  

First lets take a look at the purpose of NFPA-13D.  Chapter 1.2 prevent
flash over and to allow the occupants to escape during the 10 minute
water supply.   If too many sprinklers are operating in an area that has
been hydraulically designed for one sprinkler that will 
(a.) deplete the duration of the reliable water supply, and (b.) the
source residual pressure and available flow.  The prevention of
flashover and control of fire is accomplished through cooling and
pre-wetting areas adjacent to the fire.  

Now. My Opinion combined with rhetorical questioning.  Even if there is
a small amount of spray pattern obstruction will the sprinkler system
accomplish is intended purpose? 
Will the sprinkler still provide enough cooling effect and provide
adequate wetting of surfaces adjacent to the fire?   

Mark E. Eckard S.E.T.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling
broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with
the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.
In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Steve Leyton]

Except that we absolutely positively don't want to defer to 13.   I get
what you're saying, but it's a challenge because, frankly, a strong case
could be made for the argument that 13D is a almost purely a
listing-driven standard.   Yes, there are prescriptive elements to it,
but it could simplistically be boiled down to, Lay out sprinklers per
their listing, install and support piping per its listing; hydraulically
calculate per manufacturer's design guide criteria for sprinklers and
piping; stir vigorously and strain over ice with a mint sprig.

The second we let any part of 13 leak into the equation (notwithstanding
references to the hydraulic design method), we risk losing the basis of
the design as you note, i.e. purely a life-safety system.  This leads to
the dropping of the second domino by raising costs, then strangulating
the water supply and triggering more costs, etc., etc.   Your suggestion
is intriguing, but we should all be working hard to educate people that
both lives AND property are saved 95+% of the time.  The notion that
this is a life-safety system, IN LIEU of a property protection system is
only a partial truth in that regard.


Steve Leyton
Protection Design  Consulting

Disclaimer here that I should have started adding yesterday - my opinion
only.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron
Greenman
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

Maybe what we need is a reference in 13D similar to that in 13R that
you refer to 13 when there is no guidance in the lesser document.
Another perhaps is to have the scope of the documents printed in bold,
big print on the covers. You all know and I know that fires happen,
that fire damage unchecked is far more severe than water damage, etc.,
etc., but the public doesn't know it and thinks the fire men will get
to their rural mansion in Topanga Canyon in moments and save their
precious home without causing any additional damage and probably
fixing the existent damage with their hoses. And right know I guess my
biggest peeve is AHJs that add crap to 13D to protect property. If
they want to do that have people put in 13 residential systems and be
done with it. Maybe we need a 13-LS (life safety) and a 13D-LS/P (life
safety  property) and let the owner sign a document that says he
knows what he's getting. End of rant.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Steve Leyton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 What would you have the T/C do?  Give us something in writing and I'm
  sure the other AFSA rep's would join me in crafting a committee
proposal
  to work into the ROC if it's well-conceived.   The challenge of
course,
  is that it's not reasonably possible to account for every
eventuality.
  You know that Tyco has done and continues to do tests with exposed
beams
  and sloped ceilings; has Reliable got anything in the can that you
can
  share with us about the direction of testing and new listings for
these
  conditions?   There are sprinklers already on-market that are listed
for
  this exact scenario, so I'm not sure that any committee action is
  warranted or would even be useful at this time.


  Steve Leyton
  Protection Design  Consulting



 -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
  Brown (TECH- GVL)
  Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:10 AM
  To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org


 Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

  My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines to
  follow in these situations.  I do not care if they say calculate the
  room to light hazard as long as they put it in writing. But the way
it
  is now, it is just what ever the contractor or engineer (designer)
can
  get the AHJ to go along with.

  Michael L. Brown
  Manager of Technical Services
  The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.reliablesprinkler.com
  (864) 843-5228

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matsuda,
  Richard
  Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:08 PM
  To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

   I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that
  the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the
  AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve them.

  I remembered a similar discussion saying something about not allowing
  them to build something that you can't protect...I think it was a
boat
  storage rack or something about ESFR sprinklers. The problem with
these
  houses is that the architect, builder, and home owner have conspired
to
  build them and now we have to figure out how to protect them. I guess
I
  could tell them to rip it all out and make a smooth flat ceiling, but
I
  don't think that would be acceptable to our administration

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Eckard, Mark - Mark E]

I do agree. That white-paper refers to sloped beamed ceilings. Bob has
not specified that is dealing with a sloped ceiling.

Mark E. Eckard S.E.T.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions


Hi Mark,

Your questions about the intent an function, even with some blocked
spray pattern were concerns during the sloped and beamed ceiling testing
that was done.? The Tyco sloped and?beamed ceiling testing is posted
under? the 'Literature' drop down on the Tyco website at
www.tyco-fire.com.? It appears as a 'White Paper' on the subject, and it
is available to all.

If you page past the section that has all of the ceiling configurations
that were tested, you will find a section on 'Tenability Criteria'.?
This was a major part of the pass/fail criteria in each test.? If the
sprinklers failed the tenability criteria, the test was not successful.?
The results are tabulated in the Appendix for each of the tests.? 

The partial obstruction of spray patterns had as much (and in some
cases, more of an) effect on tenability as it did on controlling the
fire.

Tom


-Original Message-
From: Eckard, Mark - Mark E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:30 am
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions




Re: obstruction to sprinkler spray pattern development in 13-D.  

First lets take a look at the purpose of NFPA-13D.  Chapter 1.2 prevent
flash over and to allow the occupants to escape during the 10 minute
water supply.   If too many sprinklers are operating in an area that has
been hydraulically designed for one sprinkler that will 
(a.) deplete the duration of the reliable water supply, and (b.) the
source residual pressure and available flow.  The prevention of
flashover and control of fire is accomplished through cooling and
pre-wetting areas adjacent to the fire.  

Now. My Opinion combined with rhetorical questioning.  Even if there is
a small amount of spray pattern obstruction will the sprinkler system
accomplish is intended purpose? 
Will the sprinkler still provide enough cooling effect and provide
adequate wetting of surfaces adjacent to the fire?   

Mark E. Eckard S.E.T.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling
broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with
the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.
In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Thom McMahon]

We really don't want to refer to 13. As an example what would 13 have us do 
in a 13D system with slope ceilings? Add 30% coverage? Ok so we flow 3 heads 
instead of 2? at what flow? 0.05 Gpm/Sf? 0.10 Gpm, /Sf cause its in 13, or 
is it room design, small room rules apply? the list of questions this raises 
is endless. We've spent years discussing the implications of 13 as used in 
13R, this would even be a bigger ball of wax.

Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message - 
From: Steve Leyton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions


Except that we absolutely positively don't want to defer to 13.   I get

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Ron Greenman]

Bob,

Just to throw one of those ever present Pacific Northwest dark clouds
into the mix I was talking to a guy from Tyco at a seminar a couple of
months ago and asked if they had any conclusions regarding that
report. He said that they hadn't been able to reproduce the result
since that first series of tests and so had no specific conclusion at
that time. Now this chat was brief and ancillary to the general topics
of the day so I might have heard it wrong or left a part in orYou
might want to see where Tyco is at on this today if it matters to your
project.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 As most always, there has been a very interesting mix of responses and
  ideas, so based on the information given during this posting, we are going
  with what Mike and Thom gave as helpful info.  Where construction features
  or other special conditions exist that are outside the scope of sprinkler
  listings, listed sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed beyond their
  listing limitations and If you read the white paper for slope Beam
  ceilings exceeding 8/12 you'll see that the concealed sprinklers responded
  slightly better when in the beams than in the pockets.
  The situation we have has ceilings that vary in slope from 5/12 all the way
  up to 10/12.  The other situation, as I mentioned in other posts, is that
  the beam spacing is less then the published guideline of 3'4 o.c. So, in
  the smaller rooms we are going to place the sprinklers at the bottom of the
  beams and use a 3 head calc.  While in the larger areas, due to multiple
  beam depths of 6 to 24 we are going to be using a combination of
  sprinklers at the bottom of beams and sprinklers in the pockets, then we
  will use a 3 head calc.  The trouble I see with this is not placing the
  sprinklers at the bottoms of the beams, but rather the heads that are in the
  pockets.  According to the White Paper during there testing the sprinklers
  that were in the pockets performed the worst since they were not able to
  provide coverage outside of the actual pocket width that they were placed
  in.  So, basically, if we were to place a sprinkler in every pocket the
  coverage is greatly limited and the chance increases that too many
  sprinklers would operate and thus overwhelm the supply.  Based on this
  information, my judgment says when possible place the sprinkler at the
  bottom of the beams and calc the additional head.  As well, the AHJ and the
  contractor both like this alternative arrangement.
  So, thanks to all who helped with this post your answers have once again
  provided valuable help and incite.


  Bob Knight, CET
  (208) 495-2057
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.firebyknight.com


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

  To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




-- 
Ron Greenman
at home
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Todd Williams - FPDC]

Bob,

I've got a similar situation in a building with residential 
sprinklers designed to NFPA 13, only with soffits. Four sprinklers in 
a 60 sqft bathroom seems excessive. So far I haven't come up with 
anything to let me eliminate sprinklers.



IAt 12:51 PM 5/6/2008, you wrote:

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
www.fpdc.com
860.535.2080  
___

Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Joe Burtell]

Look at Tyco's residential design guide for beams and pockets for their
residential sprinklers.

Best regards,

Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS
Burtell Fire Protection, Inc.
Phone: 406.652.7697
Fax: 406.652.7743
Cell: 406.861.4507
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Bob,

Is there a specific reason you can't use the type of residential 
sprinklers which are allowed to be installed
either drilled through the beams, or installed adjacent to the bottom of 
the beams?  From what you've
described it seems as though the maximum depth of the pockets isn't 
more than 6 (nominal).  I know
that Viking (VK468) and Tyco (TY2284 and TY2234) both have sprinklers 
which can be installed at
the bottom of a beam under certain circumstances.  For both models the 
beam depth can be up to 14.
Now, neither of those is a concealed sprinkler, but I'd rather use them 
than pocket 13-17 sprinklers in

a 224 sf room.

Just my thoughts.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website



Bob Knight wrote:

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


  

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Jamie Seidl]

Some res heads will let you go 8 below the ceiling.  With a 6 beam, stick one 
in the beam and let it go.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[John O'Connor]

Bob,
Refer to Tyco data sheet TFP400 (for the LFII), page 4 of 8 where they
discuss Beam Ceiling Design Criteria.  You should be able to locate the
heads in the bottom of the beams and avoid the pockets for obvious reasons.
John

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)



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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Thom McMahon]

Bob:

We run into this all the time. First question are the beams structural? If 
the beams are decorative only drill the beams use your concealed heads and 
space as normal. While the beam rules for TYCO are ok, they have a lot of 
situations where you would have to tell the Arch. how to layout the beams 
before hand.(Like that's ever going to happen!) If you read the white paper 
for slope Beam ceilings exceeding 8/12 you'll see that the concealed 
sprinklers responded slightly better when in the beams than in the pockets. 
If this is true on a steep slope ceiling it should be reasonable to apply it 
to flat beam ceilings. (With heads in the beams less than 12 below the 
actual flat ceiling, we usually use the flows for 8/12 slope to offset any 
delay for the lower position of the heads,) All our AHJ's are OK with this.


If your beams are structural, good luck getting the Arch. or Structural Eng. 
to let you put a 21/2 hole vertically thru a structural member. Then we 
usually end up with heads in every pocket, because you can't center a head 
and still get far enough away from the beams to spray under them.


Good Luck!
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message - 
From: Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions



I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf 
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This 
averages

at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like 
this?

Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Owen Evans]

Hi Bob,
I know you're using concealed but would your customer accept a sidewall in the 
beamed rooms?
Owen

 Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/06/08 9:50 AM 
I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Mike Brown (TECH- GVL)]

The NFPA 13D Committee in their wisdom (or as some people have suggested lack 
thereof) put in the 2007 Edition Paragraph 8.1.3.1.2

Where construction features or other special conditions exist that are outside 
the scope of sprinkler listings, listed sprinklers shall be permitted to be 
installed beyond their listing limitations.


I hope that you and the AHJ have good insurance or a lot of money.

Michael L. Brown
Manager of Technical Services
The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.reliablesprinkler.com
(864) 843-5228


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

Bob:

We run into this all the time. First question are the beams structural? If
the beams are decorative only drill the beams use your concealed heads and
space as normal. While the beam rules for TYCO are ok, they have a lot of
situations where you would have to tell the Arch. how to layout the beams
before hand.(Like that's ever going to happen!) If you read the white paper
for slope Beam ceilings exceeding 8/12 you'll see that the concealed
sprinklers responded slightly better when in the beams than in the pockets.
If this is true on a steep slope ceiling it should be reasonable to apply it
to flat beam ceilings. (With heads in the beams less than 12 below the
actual flat ceiling, we usually use the flows for 8/12 slope to offset any
delay for the lower position of the heads,) All our AHJ's are OK with this.

If your beams are structural, good luck getting the Arch. or Structural Eng.
to let you put a 21/2 hole vertically thru a structural member. Then we
usually end up with heads in every pocket, because you can't center a head
and still get far enough away from the beams to spray under them.

Good Luck!
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message -
From: Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions


 I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
 up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
 beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
 one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
 think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
 per
 head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
 averages
 at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
 every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
 acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
 this?
 Any and all suggestions will help.

 Thanks,

 Bob Knight, CET
 (208) 318-3057
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.firebyknight.com


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

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)



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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Thom McMahon]

Never worry about the AHJ's insurance, they don't need it. As far as ours 
goes, what is outside the scope of 13D, and is approved by the AHJ, is all 
we really need.(Or at least the best we can hope for.) Just like those pesky 
10/12, 12/12, 16/12 beamed sloped ceilings, sauna's, elevators, elevator 
equipment rooms, or the two thousand other things 13D never considered in 
residences. Basically unless a new listing procedure has been accepted, 
anything but a flat smooth ceiling is outside the listing of residential 
heads. I don't know what deal the mfg's use to list for 4/12 or 8/12, but 
it's not an actual test, I believe its just an interpolation of 
data.(Someone correct me if I'm wrong?)


The Insurance companies money was meant to be spent somewhere, if not then 
our premiums would be a lot less.


Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message - 
From: Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions


The NFPA 13D Committee in their wisdom (or as some people have suggested 
lack thereof) put in the 2007 Edition Paragraph 8.1.3.1.2


Where construction features or other special conditions exist that are 
outside the scope of sprinkler listings, listed sprinklers shall be 
permitted to be installed beyond their listing limitations.



I hope that you and the AHJ have good insurance or a lot of money.

Michael L. Brown
Manager of Technical Services
The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.reliablesprinkler.com
(864) 843-5228


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

Bob:

We run into this all the time. First question are the beams structural? If
the beams are decorative only drill the beams use your concealed heads and
space as normal. While the beam rules for TYCO are ok, they have a lot of
situations where you would have to tell the Arch. how to layout the beams
before hand.(Like that's ever going to happen!) If you read the white paper
for slope Beam ceilings exceeding 8/12 you'll see that the concealed
sprinklers responded slightly better when in the beams than in the pockets.
If this is true on a steep slope ceiling it should be reasonable to apply it
to flat beam ceilings. (With heads in the beams less than 12 below the
actual flat ceiling, we usually use the flows for 8/12 slope to offset any
delay for the lower position of the heads,) All our AHJ's are OK with this.

If your beams are structural, good luck getting the Arch. or Structural Eng.
to let you put a 21/2 hole vertically thru a structural member. Then we
usually end up with heads in every pocket, because you can't center a head
and still get far enough away from the beams to spray under them.

Good Luck!
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message -
From: Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions



I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[rahe . loftin]

Please ignore.  Sent to wrong party.



Rahe Loftin



- Original Message -
From: rahe.loftin
Sent: 05/06/2008 03:16 PM EST
To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions



Please call them and tell them I am on the way


Rahe Loftin



- Original Message -
From: Thom McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05/06/2008 02:00 PM CST
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions



Never worry about the AHJ's insurance, they don't need it. As far as ours
goes, what is outside the scope of 13D, and is approved by the AHJ, is all
we really need.(Or at least the best we can hope for.) Just like those pesky
10/12, 12/12, 16/12 beamed sloped ceilings, sauna's, elevators, elevator
equipment rooms, or the two thousand other things 13D never considered in
residences. Basically unless a new listing procedure has been accepted,
anything but a flat smooth ceiling is outside the listing of residential
heads. I don't know what deal the mfg's use to list for 4/12 or 8/12, but
it's not an actual test, I believe its just an interpolation of
data.(Someone correct me if I'm wrong?)

The Insurance companies money was meant to be spent somewhere, if not then
our premiums would be a lot less.

Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message -
From: Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions


The NFPA 13D Committee in their wisdom (or as some people have suggested
lack thereof) put in the 2007 Edition Paragraph 8.1.3.1.2

Where construction features or other special conditions exist that are
outside the scope of sprinkler listings, listed sprinklers shall be
permitted to be installed beyond their listing limitations.


I hope that you and the AHJ have good insurance or a lot of money.

Michael L. Brown
Manager of Technical Services
The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.reliablesprinkler.com
(864) 843-5228


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

Bob:

We run into this all the time. First question are the beams structural? If
the beams are decorative only drill the beams use your concealed heads and
space as normal. While the beam rules for TYCO are ok, they have a lot of
situations where you would have to tell the Arch. how to layout the beams
before hand.(Like that's ever going to happen!) If you read the white paper
for slope Beam ceilings exceeding 8/12 you'll see that the concealed
sprinklers responded slightly better when in the beams than in the pockets.
If this is true on a steep slope ceiling it should be reasonable to apply it
to flat beam ceilings. (With heads in the beams less than 12 below the
actual flat ceiling, we usually use the flows for 8/12 slope to offset any
delay for the lower position of the heads,) All our AHJ's are OK with this.

If your beams are structural, good luck getting the Arch. or Structural Eng.
to let you put a 21/2 hole vertically thru a structural member. Then we
usually end up with heads in every pocket, because you can't center a head
and still get far enough away from the beams to spray under them.

Good Luck!
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message -
From: Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions



I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)




___
Sprinklerforum

RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[Matsuda, Richard]

  I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that
the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the
AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve them. 

I remembered a similar discussion saying something about not allowing
them to build something that you can't protect...I think it was a boat
storage rack or something about ESFR sprinklers. The problem with these
houses is that the architect, builder, and home owner have conspired to
build them and now we have to figure out how to protect them. I guess I
could tell them to rip it all out and make a smooth flat ceiling, but I
don't think that would be acceptable to our administration.

So what do we do? My simplistic answer is that if it looks like an
over-kill design with 10 heads in a 20 x 20-foot room, then it probably
is a waste of money. If one head can protect the room with a smooth flat
ceiling, then maybe four or five heads should be reasonable with beam
pockets. Depends on the size and occupancy of the room, beam locations,
depth, ceiling height, type of sprinklers used, and other
variables...but there is a  reasonable answer to it. The difficulty is
deciding what's reasonable...and no single solution will fit all
situations.

rick matsuda
city of dallas, bldg insp dept

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling
broken
up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with
the
beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.
In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
per
head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
averages
at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions

[IPA]

Sometimes, no matter how ridiculous it seems, it's better to just to install
them in every pocket then at least you're covered liability wise. Also, when
you get into these high dollar luxury homes with beams, slopes, fireplaces
in every room etc.. aesthetics plays a very important role and the homeowner
will usually want a ton of flat plate concealed sprinklers VS. four 'uglies'
sticking out of the beams. I can't say I'd blame them when forking over
large amounts of money just to have the ugliest sprinklers on the market
installed in the most conspicuous places in the most extravagant rooms in
the house.



On 5/6/08, Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
 up by beam pockets.  These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
 beams being 6 deep.  Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.  In
 one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
 think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers.  This averages out to 17 sf
 per
 head.  Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers.  This
 averages
 at 37.5 per head.  In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
 every pocket?  Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
 acceptable?  Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
 this?
 Any and all suggestions will help.

 Thanks,

 Bob Knight, CET
 (208) 318-3057
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.firebyknight.com


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

 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Residential Sprinklers in a 13 System

[Travis Mack, SET]

Use 0.10 density over the room, or the head listing, whichever is greater.

If you head is protecting 20'x12' then the area is 240 sq ft.  At 0.1 gpm,
the requirement is 24 gpm.  A 4.9k head at 20x20 is 20 gpm, so you use the
24 gpm.

If the head was protecting 20'x6', then you would use the listing of the
head at 20 gpm. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers in a 13 System

Somebody help a rookie out.. This is the 1st time I've used Residential
heads in a 13 system and I want to make sure my calc's are right, I'm not
totally clear on 11.3.1.2 (07). What density do I need to use? Any other
catches I should know about?
 

Regards,

 
http://www.firstdefensefire.com/  

 

 



__ NOD32 2879 (20080215) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Re: residential sprinklers / NFPA 13

[Roland Huggins]

I would call the 07 ed material CLARIFICATION on what was the  
original intent.  Keep in mind that this applies only to the 0.1  
density side of the residential criteria.  It is interesting that for  
discharge criteria we treat the residential sprinkler as a hybrid  
having to meet both the residential listing at a minimum of 0.05 gpm/ 
sf and a spray sprinkler at 0.1 gpm/sf.  IF we are treating it part  
of the time as a spray sprinkler, why wouldn't the small room rule  
apply?  If you are on the 02 ed,  take this line of reasoning and  
have a chat with the AHJ (BEFORE installing them).


Roland

On Feb 8, 2008, at 7:51 PM, Ed Kramer wrote:


Travis,

It may depend on which flavor of 13 you're using.  The '02  
[11.2.3.5.2(2)]
says to use the SxL method.  The '07 version [11.3.1.2(2)] added  
the option
of using the 'small room' rule.  OK, I didn't know that off the top  
of my

head, but I just learned something also.

Ed Kramer
Littleton, CO



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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)