actually I'd view this as two questions.
First, the engineer should have spec'd a specific density IF that is
what's required by the hazard. AS such, going up the curve would be
in complete compliance with the Spec and NFPA 13.
The second question is about going up the curve in general. The ONLY
advantage for going up the curve is when you pass the magical 0.25
gpm/sf and now you get 130 sf/sprinkler and a 15 ft spacing. That
can reduce your number of sprinklers by about 30% and for typically
bays reduce the number of branch lines from 3 to 2 per bay. Both
being cost savers. In a normal wet system you'll have bigger mains
(obviously not applicable to a deluge system) to account for the
significant increase in water flow. In the on-going debate within
the 13 committee, there is still a lot of BS smoke and mirrors
claiming other benefits (but not one has been backed up by hard cold
facts like a comparison set of hydraulic calculations). From a
purely contracting perspective, this ALONE is a worthy benefit.
We have taken a longer perspective regarding what is best for the
industry by providing better fire protection. The bottom of the
curve provides notably better fire protection on wet pipe systems
especially storage. The occupancy hazard approach curves are
basically being pulled along for the ride (a consistency thing). Once
you've seen James Golinveaux's presentation on the validity of the
storage curves you too would climb aboard the effort to eliminate the
curves
Roland
On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Travis Mack wrote:
I have a small building that is spec'd to have a deluge system with
Ex Haz
Grp I for the sprinkler density. The room is just under 5000 sq
ft. Since
this is going to be a deluge system, I have to flow every head in
the area
with a design area of 5000 sq ft. I want to "go up the curve" and
have the
density of 0.20 gpm / sq ft over the most demanding 5000 sq ft.
I don't see any reason why I can't do this, but just wanted to get
some
input as to whether it is a good idea or not? Some other things
that come
about with the lower density is that I can stretch the sprinklers
to 130 sq
ft instead of 100 sq ft and go up to 15' between sprinklers instead
of 12'.
This will allow saving a couple sprinklers and branch lines in this
area.
So, good idea or bad? Anything I am missing?
Thanks in advance.
Travis
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum-
[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)
