Nothing the committee does is contradictory (by definition)! It only
appears contradictory until there is an explanation that makes the
apparent
contradiction plausible.
So...
It appears the committee is saying:
1. Debris - combustible fluid = no hazard
2. Debris + combustible fluid = hazard
By itself, any quantity of accumulated debris is not a hazard.
Wouldn't
this be borne out by past experience? Does this remove the
contradiction?
Bill Brooks
Pittsburgh, PA
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John
Drucker
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 1:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: hydraulic elevators
The NFPA-13 hoistway pit suppression requirement is contradictory.
The
explanatory material states; " The sprinklers in the pit are
intended to
protect against fires caused by debris, which can accumulate over
time."
The exception permits the omission of sprinklers in hoistway pits
that
are enclosed, of non combustible construction and that do not contain
combustible hydraulic fluids. So what happened to the debris ?. The
removal of combustible hydraulic fluids does not alleviate the debris
issue. A hazard still exists.
Additionally the non combustible fluid issue is not addressing
hydraulic
elevators but rather traction elevators that don't utilize
hydraulics as
their means of locomotion.
John Drucker
Fire Protection Subcode Official
New Jersey
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 1:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: hydraulic elevators
the problem with hydraulic oil is not how well it burns in standard
liquid form (ie flash point). It's when a small leak occurs under
pressure and you get atomized oil spraying out. As a comparison,
grain dust laying on the ground is not that big a deal but when
floating in the air, can go boom.
Roland
On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Loren Johnson wrote:
In my dealings with FM Global, their Approval Guide
does list manufacturers who have a less hazardous type
of hydraulic fluid, which has a higher flash point
than normal hydraulic fluids. FM indicates that these
too will burn under certain conditions, but the fire
risk has been reduced to an acceptable degree.
Loren Johnson - CFPS, CET
Fire Protection Systems Consultant
The Hitchcock Company
Peoria, IL
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had been told by one elevator inspector that there
was an FM approved
hydraulic media that was non-combustible and if that
was being used the
sprinkler in the pit could be deleted.
On the other hand in another jurisdiction I was told
that regardless of
the hydraulic media used that we were to provide a
sprinkler in the pit
due to the possible accumulation of miscellaneous
debris which could
catch fire.
Isn't it wonderful to be in an industry where
everything is so black and
white? ;)
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lg.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George
Church
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: hydraulic elevators
Perhaps everyone else in the area installs to #13R ?
Perhaps a call to the local AHJ(s) would clear up
whether you're the
only one doing it correctly, in which case maybe
your competitors will
be a little dismayed to find themselves going back
and retrofitting
their bottoms. The call to the AHJ(s) could be
two-fold: ask them if
they believe it should be required; and ask WHY it
is not- you may find
in the near future you're no longer alone in the
shaft.
George Church
Rowe Sprinkler
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David de
Vries/Firetech
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: hydraulic elevators
Pat on the back to the only contractor in the area
complying with this
provision of 13.
--
David de Vries, P.E., CSP
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Greg McGahan"
We are receiving mixed reviews from AHJ's
regarding this issue: Are
sprinklers required in the bottom of hydraulic
elevator shafts?
I know what the code says but we have never been
able to document that
ANY
hydraulic elev fluid is non-combustible by
definition. I was informed
this
morning that we are the only contractor in the
area putting sprinklers
in the bottom of these shafts.
Thanks,
Greg McGahan
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
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
