"You did say one thing that made me cringe when I read it. "If 7 heads
did not suppressed the fire, 12 head would not either."
Joe Hankins has posted to the effect this issue. Maybe not in the exact
terms quoted but testing did show less than 12 is the make or break number.
12 is the feel good code language just like 960 sq. ft. Or at least that's
the way I recall the previous discussions on the forum.
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 Parsley
Consulting
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ESFR Heads below obstructions
Dan,
I understand that we're just seeing it differently, and that it's
probably now a dead horse.
A couple of final points. From what I've been able to read there's
absolutely no paragraph, section, or annex note that says you must flow
14 sprinklers, configured 12 above and 2 below an obstruction when
installing an ESFR system. I'm willing to grant you that.
There is also absolutely no text in NFPA-13 which says you only flow 10
sprinklers above the obstruction and 2 below when installing an ESFR system.
In reading the text from the '02 edition, and the sections I quoted you
initially, I believe the intent of the standard is to flow 14 sprinklers
in the configuration we're discussing.
You did say one thing that made me cringe when I read it. "If 7 heads
did not suppressed the fire, 12 head would not either." I don't know
the science as well as some of the others here, but if you said that to
me across the table in a bid or design meeting I'd have to respond with
the words "prove it" before I allowed as serious a decision as the
number of flowing sprinklers in the remote area to be decided on a
statement like that.
I appreciate your perspective, and it is my hope that you never have to
defend it from the witness chair, because "it seemed logical" isn't
going to be much of a defense, imo.
Hey, how about writing to AFSA for an informal interpretation?
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
