Not sure what you mean by "academic"- It doesn't matter how many heads activate above, below, or between IF the # of heads open < or = to # calc'd to be open.
It's pretty serious if you double the # of heads opened vrs calc'd. If you calc'd 2 levels and all the calc'd heads below, but only some of the roof heads go off, then I'd agree that's "academic". The roof heads would contribute to structural integrity being maintained, while the heads below the obstruction take care of the wet stuff on the red stuff. But don't discount the need to put heads above, or that they'll be "of marginal value" if all you're considering is application on the floor. Having heads that go off and trigger egress and FD response don't need to do much else to be considered "of material value" vrs heads 5' down under a weird woven blanket "ceiling" that may be the ones actually providing any control- once they finally DO activate... glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 1:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Obstruction issue Is it really academic when the sprinklers below the obstructions triple the number in the area and the heads at the deck might do little other than activate? At 01:02 PM 8/27/2007, you wrote: >stop thinking about academic realities and embrace the explicit >methodology. After all, do fires activate sprinklers in areas that >are long rectangles, do individual sprinklers discharge water as a >10X13 shape, do you think we are getting the assigned density on the >floor, etc etc? Why get hung up on ignoring the sprinkler below the >obstruction (provided it's not an ESFR and though unstated, it isn't >a mile of 1 inch pipe feeding multiple sprinklers)? > >Roland > >On Aug 27, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Todd Williams - work wrote: > >> >>Secondly, NFPA 13 (2002) section 11.2.3.1.8(6) says that sprinklers >>below obstructions do not need to be included in the hydraulic >>calculations. I am having a hard time accepting this as well >>because I'm not sure the potential fire demand will only include >>sprinklers at the deck. Actually, sprinklers at the deck may be so >>obstructed that very little will effectively get to the fire area. >>I would think it be more than likely a combination of sprinklers >>above and below. Any thoughts? >> >>Todd G. Williams, PE > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >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 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
