Understood and agree. My point is that testing and engineering can be used as a tool but do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Some of the old guys that wrote NFPA 13 were quite good.
I forgot Polybuthlene and PozLock piping which were listed and tested etc. but were removed from the market. There are probably more that I cannot remember. Mike Brown -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Pressure Anomaly Mike, My point is that NFPA 13 should be read literally rather than being interpreted on the basis of assumptions about the depth and breadth of testing that may or may not be true, depending on the application. 13 is not defective, but some of the interpretations of it are. Joe Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) wrote: > Before you get too excited about the engineering process and testing I offer > the following: > > In the early 70's, GEM (Not called Tyco then) had a HSW that covered 16 x 28 > ft. It was UL Listed until they figured out that they did not test it with a > ceiling. When they did, the water spray hit the ceiling about mid-way and > never got to 28 ft. It quietly disappeared from the market place. > > In the early 80's or there about there was the Central, and I think Grinnell, > "On and Off" head was tested and listed by UL until it too quietly > disappeared from the market place. > > Even lately there was an antifreeze system that was pushed by Tyco and FM as > well as a PHD at FM that was installed in a number of places until it too was > quietly removed from the market place. > > There was also the Central "Super Valve" that disappeared from the market > place. > > And I do not even have to bring up the Omega and the GB which were the > greatest screw up of them all > > There are others if I had time to list all of them. > > Many of the rules and regulations in NFPA 13 have stood the test of time in > the market place and too just dismiss these out of hand is a mistake. > > Too many times based on a few fire tests we have, as an industry, jumped on > the band wagon and the wagon ran into a ditch along the way. > > Michael L. Brown > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 2:12 PM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly > > Thom- > If you're a contractor- and I know you don't just play one on TV :)- > You're a risk-taker. In this litigious society, you can be held liable for > meeting the adopted standard, but not applying a newer code. Or, for that > matter, the reverse. So even with staying within the boundaries of adopted > standards and codes does not relieve you of risk - and I know you and Noreen > work hard at reducing and controlling the risks you have. And there are no > "right" answers, but there certainly are wrong ones! > > If you're the first to "take the test" and you show up with K25's and 50 > PSI, you've got a pretty good shot at knocking down a challenge. Certainly > not everything, and perhaps it could have been done with less- but at mega > cost to continue running iterations of continually decreasing pressures. > > Heck, Thom, if I didn't feel lucky I wouldn't do what we do. Spent last Wed > in depositions trying to collect money almost 3 years after a job completed. > > And certainly adopting good practices in advance of them being required is a > way to both reduce risk and offer something of value to your customers. > > We'll keep doing work under both the adopted standards and the Equivalency > clause, dotting on I's, crossing our t's, because the stuff that blindsides > us is often independent of the design criteria, and it can come down to the > layman or judge (non-expert in either case) and their opinion on what was > presented, not what SHOULD be, what COULD be, or what actually was. > > I was flabbergasted to learn about the old area/density curve development > we've relied on for years- in a late-night war stories session at an AFSA > convention (yes, that's a plug, how many places are you going to run into a > discussion on this topic at 2 AM, and still be able to get drinks after > hours to keep the discussion, well, "moving"?). I'd placed a lot more > credibility on these graphs, and sweated out calcs to the 3rd decimal point, > to find out they were derived- well, arbitrarily isn't far off the mark. > > glc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 1:50 PM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: ESFR Pressure Anomaly > > The main point James has made for class I-IV, is that the lower end of the > curve, may actually work most of the time, but as soon as you try to rise up > > the curve the greater the risk of failure. (Tyco has this nice test facility > > where he can play, and see things that have not been tested for FM or UL > approval, just the increased knowledge of TYCO and their staff) > We are risk takers. Our insurance companies are risk takers, with Attitude. > And our owners believe that we have removed all of their risk. Increasing > our exposure because its allowed has never been appealing to me, and each of > > us shouldn't wait for it to be "Code" before we adopt good practices. So > before you climb up that curve, ask yourself "Do Ya Feel Lucky?" > > Thom McMahon > Firetech, Inc. > 2560 Copper Ridge Dr > Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 > Tel: 970-879-7952 > Fax: 970-879-7926 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Cahill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:12 AM > Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly > > > I was reading from the cut sheet, technically FM criteria. NFPA according > to the cut sheet there is no protection scheme for the K25. Even in the > table you reference there is no ESFR 25 for this. > > As far as flows 25's = 178gpm, 17's = 99.4pgm and 14's 99 gpm. So I can go > along with the meaningless gpm on the 14's vs. 17's but not on the 25's. > > > Joe wrote: > "Anytime you treat NFPA 13 as a scientific, consistent engineering document, > you're asking for trouble!" > > I did make that mistake apparently. Suckered right in on a Monday morning > when I normally should know better. > > So the real answer is it was tested at 50 with no implied meaning. > > I have seen James Golinveaux (Tyco) SFPE's presentation on area/density > curves - which is what really got me into trouble thinking too much on the > anomaly. If you (anyone in this business) haven't seen it you really > should. Especially, the younger you are and not having the opportunity to > live professionally though the evolution. And when you see it don't > necessarily apply it to ESFR and special testing schemes like I mistakenly > did. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of å... .... > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:09 AM > To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org > Subject: ESFR Pressure Anomaly > > I can´t find your numbers. > I think what you are referring to is: 2007 NFPA 13, Table 17.2.3.1 > but for uncartoned (exposed) unexpanded, > the pressures and K-factors do not match > your quotations at the 25 ft storage height. > > the pressures and K-factors come close to > matching -- for cartoned unexpanded, at > 25 ft storage under 30 ft building height, > but I see the K25 at 15psig, not 25 P psig. > > the pattern with the latter is one that i remarked on > roughly 2 years ago, and got lambasted > for not knowing what I was talking about. > But the table remains the same, only my > grey matter has degenerated in that time frame. > > regardless of the pressure, about the same amount > of water is being delivered. within 5% for this instance. > as noted then, and repeated again, it seems that the criticality > is not so much in the momentum of the sprinkler water > forcing its way down through the fire plume, as it is in > achieving a critical amount of water onto the fire. > Certainly, we are past the point where a critical > pressure is reached whereby the fire plume can no > longer put up even a sham of resistance > to the onslaught of water drafted through the > ESFR´s. > > What seems critical is: the amount of water thrown > onto the fire, and getting that water on the fire FAST.... > hence the incorporation of low RTI´s into the ESFR´s. > > > scot deal > excelsior fire > > > > >> Anyone have a theory why uncartoned unexpanded plastics doesn't follow the >> pressure patterns of everything else. In all other cases outside this the >> smaller the orifice the larger the pressure. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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) > _______________________________________________ > 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)
