Whenever I get into an ants nest like this I call the people that make the sprinkler and get there input and get documentation from them whether it's in my favor or not. It may be that this is mission impossible and the architect is going to have to make some alterations, like maybe a few rows of flat bottom soffits parallel to the ridge that the sprinkler could hide under from the one above it. The documentation comes in handy in this case.
Russell -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: steep pitch roofs Here is the quandary. Figure 8.6.4.1.3.1(b) defines S as the distance along the slope over the peak. Section 8.6.3.4.1 says sprinklers shall not be spaced less that 6 ft. It does not define how the 6 ft shall be defined. If you follow the slope, it would be OK, but if it is in a horizontal line, it wouldn't. The argument could be made that I am meeting the criteria by measuring the slope over the peak as specified in the standard. However, will there be a potential interference by one sprinkler on another? When sprinklers are installed along a slope this steep and they operate at 7 psi, how skewed is the umbrella pattern? Is it distorted enough so this is not an issue? What's a poor engineer to do on a Friday afternoon before an alleged holiday weekend whthis?en the contractor is screaming for drawings and a cut list? Am I over thinking At 03:04 PM 5/23/2008, you wrote: >Then that's very new. It was only a few months ago I last called Tyco on >this. They absolutely say only attics. No actual occupancy below. And >they quit at 12/12. I couldn't get the why out of them. Either they didn't >do parts of the UL199 test like the pans or they tried it and it didn't >work. My bet is they tried it in their lab and something wouldn't pass the >test like density minimums in each pan. But I speculate. > >We've run perpendicular to the ridge line down the truss and used sidewalls >spraying parallel to the ridge line. But I don't think that helps you. Do >you have a peak line and then start the spacing down the slopes or do you >have 2 lines at the same elevation at the high point and those are your >problem. If so can you get a peak line in to substitute for the 2 lines. >Probably a place where a picture does good. > >In a round about way I also think you expose a flaw in the UL199. They test >for closeness at the same elevation but in reality adjacent basic heads >could be 11" different. Often wondered if that was a problem. And 28/12 >certainly creates a mess. And there is no testing on slopes that I know of. > > >Chris Cahill, P.E. >Fire Protection Engineer >Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. > >763-658-4483 >763-658-4921 fax > >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Mail: P.O. Box 69 > Waverly, MN 55390 > >Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW > Waverly, MN 55390 >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins >Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:28 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: steep pitch roofs > >Could you use Attic sprinklers at the peak? They accomplish the same >intent as sidewalls at the peak, and have actually been tested in that >configuration. > >Joe > >Todd Williams - FPDC wrote: > > I am working on a historic church sanctuary with a pitch of > > approximately 28/12. The arrangement calls for branch lines to be > > symmetrical on each side, similar to NFPA 13 (2002) figure > > 8.6.4.1.3.1(b). I can meet the requirements for the steeply pitched > > roof section 8.6.4.1.3.3 and my "S" distance over the peak is good, > > but my straight line distance between sprinklers would be less than 6 > > ft and the deflectors would be effectively pointing the discharge > > towards the sprinkler on the opposite side. I think I have a problem > > here, but I am not sure how to address it. Any thoughts? > > > > Todd G. Williams, PE > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > Stonington, Connecticut > > www.fpdc.com > > 860.535.2080 _______________________________________________ > > 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) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 _______________________________________________ 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) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1462 - Release Date: 5/23/2008 7:20 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1462 - Release Date: 5/23/2008 7:20 AM _______________________________________________ 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)
