And that all just punctuates the need for sprinklers in addition to alarms wherein the alarms can warn you it's time to leave but they can't get you out faster. Once again sprinklers buy survival time. Now where do we bury those survivors?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > This information brings this thread to a whole new level for me. Thank you > John for your input as per usual. We have always used the clarification that > Joe brought up to justify NOT changing to QR but I think that this > information changes my perspective and I would rather use these facts as a > tool to convince AHJ's to mandate the change. I was completely unaware of the > difference in CO levels. > > Rod DiBona > Rapid Fire > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Drucker > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: QR vs SSP sprinklers in LH vs OH delivery > > The 1996 Sprinkler Handbook Commentary sums it up, emphasis in CAPS; > > "Quick response sprinklers are considered NECCESARY because of their life > safety benefits." "Most of the sprinkler systems installed in light hazard > occupancies, such as hospitals, hotels, and apartments are installed for > life safety purposes" "Given the current level of knowledge concerning the > performance of quick response sprinklers, THE USE OF STANDARD RESPONSE > TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF QUICK RESPPNSE TECHNOLOGY IN LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCIES > IS CONSIDERED INAPPROPRIATE." > > The 2006 IBC and IFC also provide; > > [F] 903.3.2 Quick-response and residential sprinklers. > Where automatic sprinkler systems are required by this code, QUICK-RESPONSE > OR RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE FOLLOWING > AREAS in accordance with Section 903.3.1 and their listings: > 1. Throughout all spaces within a smoke compartment containing patient > sleeping units in Group I-2 in accordance with this code. > 2. Dwelling units, and sleeping units in Group R and I-1 occupancies. > 3. Light-hazard occupancies as defined in NFPA 13. > > Interesting the IBC Commentary (Vol 1 Pg -31) references FM and FEMA Test > Data wherein room gas temperatures where 550F for QR's and 1470F for SR's, > additionally and "more importantly" the data concluded that carbon monoxide > levels were greatly reduced; 1860ppm for SR and 350ppm for QR. Keep in mind > that 1200ppm of CO is considered an IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and > Health) atmosphere by NIOSH. As we all know the majority of fire victims > succumb to fire gases long before thermal trauma and that includes fire > fighters who suffer one of the highest cardiovascular incident rates of any > profession, perhaps theirs a link. > > In summary this is not a question of water supply, spacing, density, etc. > but rather a question of the sprinkler head itself specifically how fast > that sprinkler reacts and BEGINS controlling the fire, in the case of QR's > appx five times faster than that of SR's. > > With that said a designer is free to design to the a higher hazard including > but not limited to water supply, area of operation, density, pipe size, > spacing, and so forth but if the use is a light hazard occupancy the > sprinkler heads MUST be Quick Response Type. > > Hope that helps > > John Drucker, CET > Fire Protection Subcode Official > Fire/Building/Electrical Inspector > Fire Marshals Office > Borough of Red Bank, NJ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: QR vs SSP sprinklers in LH vs OH delivery > > "Are ya'll trying to say that if they put in a EH water-spray deluge system, > in this building it wouldn't put out a LH fire?" > > See that's where we went astray. I don't think this conversation was ever > about fire control or suppression. It is about code compliance. The two > are sometimes confused. > > If you do not use QR in an LH you are not in compliance with the Code. > Existing exception noted. > > Now if you (a PE) wants to submit an alternate for a EH deluge...code > official...proposed design...complies with the intent...at least > equivalent...quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability > and safety they certainly can. The only area for debate is durability in an > EH deluge. Is a deluge as durable over time given the complexity? > > Want to use SR vs. QR the debate is probably over effectiveness. Is waiting > for a SR head as effective as a QR head? Yes, I know it's a matter of > seconds in most cases. But the wise NFPA committee was convinced there was > a benefit. No matter how long the difference the fire IS bigger if you > wait. > > So EH deluge or SR I think complies with the intent but maybe lacking in the > list of specific criteria depending on how YOU look at it and the skill of > the PE in convincing an AHJ. Or that is to say the skill of the AHJ in how > fine they want to split the hair. > > FWIW I would not accept SR OH in a LH when I was AHJ. I won't say I had a > fancy reason based on anything. But I also never had a crafty PE submit an > alternate. And I'm not sure what I'd do with the change of use issue you > mention. Don't recall a similar. Base code says new so does that override > the NFPA 13 exception? We'll only know after a loss and the lawyers get > through with it. > > 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 George Church > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: QR vs SSP sprinklers in LH vs OH delivery > > There ya go, David- common sense and the code coinciding with your initial > reaction. I'd call it a day while you're ahead. > > glc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: QR vs SSP sprinklers in LH vs OH delivery > > The question is compliance with the 1996 #13 change requiring QR heads in > light hazard occupancies. Since you have a change in use, I believe that you > could require that. > > Course if the salespeople are selling groceries, wouldn't that still > constitute OH 2 mercantile since they're selling the same commodity, albeit > with a different delivery method. > > I don't see the problem with an office being deemed OH and not having it > retrofit with QR in a situation like that. There's probably a lot to be said > for a 100% increase in density over minimum, largest impact being whether or > not the ceiling is 12~15; high or >20' high for response time. If I were an > FPE, I'd render an opinion, but I'm not. > > We've got older buildings Back East; a LOT of unsprinklered existing stock. > I'd sure spend more time worrying about unsprinklered buildings instead of > this one getting changed to QR IF I were a PE or BCO. Big picture time? > > glc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Autry, David > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: QR vs SSP sprinklers in LH vs OH delivery > > I got an old grocery store (OH GR II), which is being bought and turned into > office space with cubicles (LH). > So according to this thread, they must replace all the sprinklers at the > ceiling with QR sprinklers. > Seems like an added expense that's not really needed. I can't seem to put my > finger on the thought that the sprinkler system "knows" what hazard is below > and what it's protecting. If it's good for OH GP II why would it not be good > for OH GR I or LH? > Are ya'll trying to say that if they put in a EH water-spray deluge system, > in this building it wouldn't put out a LH fire? > > David Autry > Plans Examiner > Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office > 246 S. 14th Street > Lincoln, NE 68508 > 402-471-9659 > 402-471-3118 fax > www.sfm.ne.gov > > ** Note new email address: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
