See NFPA 13, 2007 section 12.6.7 same as in the 2002 edition, permits
ordinary hazard with ESFR system.
Tom LaCorte, CFPS
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
The information in this email and in any attachment(s) is confidential. If
you are not the named addressee(s) or if you receive this email in error,
then any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the
information in it is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately by
email at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and then delete the message from your computer.
While attachments are virus checked, Chubb Group of insurance Companies
does not accept any liability with respect to any virus, which is not
detected.
Our evaluations, reports and recommendations are made solely to assist the
insurer in underwriting and loss control. No warranties or representations
of any kind are made to you or any other party. Evaluation for any hazard
or condition does not mean that it is covered under any policy. Any
reports or certificates we provide in connection with any state-required
pressure vessel inspection do not mean that all hazards or conditions were
under control at the time of the inspection. Neither we nor the insurer
shall be liable to you or any other person for the use of any information
provided or statements made by any of our employees or agents during the
performance of an evaluation.
Joe Hankins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ast.net> To
Sent by: [email protected]
sprinklerforum-bo cc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
er.org Subject
Re: ESFR in production areas
12/19/2006 01:59
PM
Please respond to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
resprinkler.org
You can't calculate and ESFR for a density less than about 0.80 because
they will not develop an effective distribution patern at those low
pressures. That's why Tyco reacted to your suggestion the way they did.
Joe
Fletcher, Ron wrote:
>We have run into the problem of ESFR's in production areas many times
>but mostly due to the obstruction rules. I haven't had an AHJ try to
>apply area/density criteria to ESFR's.
>
>Offer to calc a full RA at "X" density to prove the system exceeds that
>prescribed for the hazard. There is no precedence for treating ESFR's as
>area/density but if the AHJ wants a full size remote "area" then they
>should be willing to allow a "density" calc in lieu of the ESFR
>discharge criteria. (In for a penny in for a pound.)
>
>The Tyco guys once asked me if I had any ideas for new products. I
>suggested they cross list ESFR's for area/density. They looked at me
>like I had two heads so I wouldn't look for any changes from the OEM.
>
>Ron Fletcher
>Aero Automatic
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John
>Powell
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:25 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: ESFR in production areas
>
>We have an issue with ESFR in a rack storage area interspersed with
>componant assembly. The assembly process does not involve flamable
>liquids or hydraulic equipment. There are no shielded hazards and the
>storage complies with the ESFR listing. Our AHJ requires that the
>limited assembly/process hazard be listed for QR sprinklers, which it
>is, and the number of ESFR sprinklers calculated for the usual OH area
>of operation discharging at the listed pressure for the storage and
>building height involved. Seems excessive to me. Have the forum
>members had any similar ruling?
>John Powell - New Zealand
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sprinklerforum mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>_______________________________________________
>Sprinklerforum mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
