With each new issue of the standard we hope to have a better, more
comprehensive and functional document. Some of that can be done by
committee, and input from the industry. There are some things which to
change without enough support data could actually end up endorsing a bad or
less than good practice. Residential spacing and flow/coverage is an area
where I think that the Mfg's have to take the leed with testing. The same
white paper I mentioned in previous postings was the "Guide" for new rules
based upon its "Recommendations" for a local fire district. It was until I
pointed out that not only does it not make any recommendations, it provides
no flow/coverage criteria. (They are still reviewing that.) Additionally
while the test was done by TYCO and used TYCO heads, no testing was done at
the flows and pressures already required by those products for an 8/12
ceiling. All testing was done at 13 Gpm per head. (About 72% of the average
flow currently required for 8/12) Would the results have been different? I
believe that in some tests they would have, not necessarily in all though.
In any case back to topic. I believe that there is very little the standards
can do until more testing is done. I know that most of the old area density
was interpolation from some very limited testing, but that was in a
different age. A less Litigious time, I think we all should recognize the
value and need for testing before revising the standard.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Leyton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
What would you have the T/C do? Give us something in writing and I'm
sure the other AFSA rep's would join me in crafting a committee proposal
to work into the ROC if it's well-conceived. The challenge of course,
is that it's not reasonably possible to account for every eventuality.
You know that Tyco has done and continues to do tests with exposed beams
and sloped ceilings; has Reliable got anything in the can that you can
share with us about the direction of testing and new listings for these
conditions? There are sprinklers already on-market that are listed for
this exact scenario, so I'm not sure that any committee action is
warranted or would even be useful at this time.
Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Brown (TECH- GVL)
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines to
follow in these situations. I do not care if they say calculate the
room to light hazard as long as they put it in writing. But the way it
is now, it is just what ever the contractor or engineer (designer) can
get the AHJ to go along with.
Michael L. Brown
Manager of Technical Services
The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.reliablesprinkler.com
(864) 843-5228
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matsuda,
Richard
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that
the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the
AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve them.
I remembered a similar discussion saying something about not allowing
them to build something that you can't protect...I think it was a boat
storage rack or something about ESFR sprinklers. The problem with these
houses is that the architect, builder, and home owner have conspired to
build them and now we have to figure out how to protect them. I guess I
could tell them to rip it all out and make a smooth flat ceiling, but I
don't think that would be acceptable to our administration.
So what do we do? My simplistic answer is that if it looks like an
over-kill design with 10 heads in a 20 x 20-foot room, then it probably
is a waste of money. If one head can protect the room with a smooth flat
ceiling, then maybe four or five heads should be "reasonable" with beam
pockets. Depends on the size and occupancy of the room, beam locations,
depth, ceiling height, type of sprinklers used, and other
variables...but there is a "reasonable" answer to it. The difficulty is
deciding what's "reasonable"...and no single solution will fit all
situations.
rick matsuda
city of dallas, bldg insp dept
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling
broken
up by "beam pockets". These vary in width from 2'8" to 3'3" o.c. with
the
beams being 6" deep. Concealed residential sprinklers are being used.
In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers. This averages out to 17 sf
per
head. Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers. This
averages
at 37.5 per head. In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in
every pocket? Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be
acceptable? Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like
this?
Any and all suggestions will help.
Thanks,
Bob Knight, CET
(208) 318-3057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.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)
_______________________________________________
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)
