I'm NOT arguing against QR but keep the CO things in the proper perspective.
It takes CO over time to do damage. The numbers reported by John yesterday
that are above IDLH can be misleading. John and the sources are not
misleading, just taking the data out of context can be. IDLH is I believe
a 5 minute exposure. So it's not like a lethal injection if exposed to IDLH
for a moment. Loiter and you have a problem.
The concentrations are also misleading depending on room size. The fire of
a given size will only put out so much CO. It's diluted in the volume of
the room to get the concentration. So in my single bed hospital room the CO
would be higher than in the middle of a Walmart even if the Walmart fire is
much bigger.
Also note with either head once it operates the CO will go down quickly.
The fire gets smaller, much smaller, very quick and the CO has diluted more
as the smoke leave the room.
Also watch where the CO is measured in the testing. Measuring it in the
upper layer is again misleading. Living humans in a sprinklered building
will never be in the upper layer even with SR heads and bedridden. Even
after the head operates depending on a lot of factors the CO in the upper
layer now being well mixed will have a much smaller concentration. This is
because as an example if you have 1200ppm in the upper layer that is 1/2 the
room you only have 600ppm once mixed. The time-exposure curve is not linear
if I recall. If 1200 is 5 minute, 600 is more than 10 minutes.
We don't have a good record on fire deaths in sprinklered buildings. We
don't know if CO is the agent of death like it is in unsprinklered
buildings. I tend to think proximity to fire in sprinklered buildings is
the leading death agent not the CO. And there are a ridiculous low number
of deaths anyway. So the data is probably too scattered to form real
insights.
Sure FF have some things to think about. Working in overhaul conditions w/o
SCBA when the fire is smoldering. Rate of CO per fire size is higher but
total volume may not be compared to a flaming fire. FF are also working
their a$% off and breathing much heavier thus increasing exposure to what
ever is in the air. But really this has nothing to do with SR v. QR
conversation. That is a discussion up to and shortly after sprinkler
operation. The FF exposure is long after. And even in warehouse type fires
minor compared to unsprinklered buildings.
FWIW QR saves pipe size in most cases more that the couple extra dollars the
heads cost. I can't recall the last time I didn't use QR in a ceiling under
20' whether LH or OH. Yeah ECOH are technically SR on paper, not talking
about those situations.
Chris Cahill, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Sentry Fire Protection, Inc.
763-658-4483
763-658-4921 fax
Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com
Mail: P.O. Box 69
Waverly, MN 55390
Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW
Waverly, MN 55390
-----Original Message-----
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: QR vs SSP sprinklers in LH vs OH delivery
This CO thing is intriguing. I'm seeing a potential ADA issue. If we
have strobes for the hearing impaired because someone with this
impairment may be in a building as a solution to the equal access a
priori of ADA, equal access to being warned, as well as all the stuff
associated with movement for the movement impaired why not reduced CO
for the asthmatic or sufferers of other breathing impairments. I think
of my wife's now deceased grandmother who had had TB as a child and so
was breathing impaired as well as sight impaired, hearing impaired and
just plain slow (conditions many of us Boomers are now looking forward
to) in the grocery store. Perhaps instead of arguing against QR in
offices we should be proposing them in M occupancies.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:57 AM, John Drucker <john.druc...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Scot, et al.
>
> The 1996 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook (Puchovsky), Pg 225 goes on
to
> say;
>
> "However, even in those occupancies where life safety IS NOT A THE PRIMARY
> REASON FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLATION, SUCH AS IN OFFICES AND
> RESTAURANTS, quick response sprinklers are still considered important
> because they limit fire damage AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY OR DEATH OF
> OCCUPANTS AND FIREFIGHTERS.
>
> The 2002 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook, Pg 197 restates the 1996
> commentary;
>
> 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. However, even in those occupancies where life
> safety IS NOT A THE PRIMARY REASON FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLATION, SUCH
> AS IN OFFICES AND RESTAURANTS, quick response sprinklers are still
> considered important because they limit fire damage AND THE POTENTIAL FOR
> INJURY OR DEATH OF OCCUPANTS AND FIREFIGHTERS.
>
> However the 2002 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook (Dubay) commentary,
Pg
> 197, expands on that of the 1996 with the following statement;
>
> In some occupancies that are traditionally considered light hazard,
> ORIDINARY HAZARD DESIGNS are sometimes used due to an uncertainty in the
> fire loading (office buildings for example). In these cases, QUICK
RESPONSE
> SPRINKLERS SHOULD BE USED even though a HIGHER DENSITY IS PROVIDED BY
USING
> AN ORDINARY HAZARD DESIGN.
>
> Expanding on the 2006 IBC Commentary;
>
> NIOSH Publication 2007-133 Carbon Monoxide;
>
> Carbon monoxide, a by-product of incomplete combustion, is present in
> virtually all fire environments. A number of studies have quantified a
fire
> fighters exposure during various phases of fire suppression [Gold 1978;
> Brandt-Rauf 1988; Jankovic 1991]. High concentrations of carbon monoxide
> have been documented not only during knockdown, but also during overhaul
> when fire fighters frequently remove their self contained breathing
> apparatus (SCBA) [Bolstad-Johnson 2000]. If inhaled, carbon monoxide
> disrupts the bloods transport of, and intracellular use of, oxygen [Ernst
> 1998]. The resulting hypoxia can cause myocardial injury [Satran 2005].
> Carboxyhemoglobin (COHB) levels were analyzed for only 39 (30%) of the
131
> deaths NIOSH investigated. COHB levels ranged from 0% to 10%. These levels
> are unlikely to have been directly responsible for any of the 39
fatalities.
> However, for fire fighters with significant CAD, COHB levels between 5%
and
> 10% may have been a contributing factor. Low levels of COHB (2.4% to 5.6%)
> have been linked to reduced-time to angina and reduced-time to ischemic
> changes on electrocardiogram in subjects with CAD, suggesting a clinical
> effect [Allred 1989, 1991; USEPA 1992].
>
> CPSC Document 466;
>
> The health effects of CO depend on the CO concentration and length of
> exposure, as well as each individual's health condition. CO concentration
is
> measured in parts per million (ppm). Most people will not experience any
> symptoms from prolonged exposure to CO levels of approximately 1 to 70 ppm
> but some heart patients might experience an increase in chest pain. As CO
> levels increase and remain above 70 ppm, symptoms become more noticeable
and
> can include headache, fatigue and nausea. At sustained CO concentrations
> above 150 to 200 ppm, disorientation, unconsciousness, and death are
> possible.
>
>
> 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: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of å... ....
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:42 AM
> To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: QR vs SSP sprinklers in LH vs OH delivery
>
> Perspective:
>
> 1. *This conversation was ever about fire control or suppression. It is
> about
> code compliance. The two are sometimes confused*. --- yes they are
> confusing.
> One seems to effect real world results, the other seems to effect whether
we
>
> get paid or not. At the
> end of the day, if Code compliance is most of what we care about
> (and I know it is not since we believe our job is to save property and
> lives),
> then don't read another word. The fire will not, either.
>
>
> *common sense and the code coinciding with your initial
> reaction. *We must comply with the
> Code, but the Code already got batted aside the head by the gal or guy
> that wrote the specs with the OH vs LH designation. We can call an office
> LH,
> but that don't matter none to the fire. We can put in QR sprinklers,
even
> if they are not needed (relative to SR) for life safety or property
> protection in this
> occupancy.
>
> It was adroitly pointed out that QR sprinklers will activate
> sooner than SR. It was also well-explained how CO levels are lower
> in QR vs SR controlled fires. But with this occupancy-sprinkler
> configuration,
> both types of response-sprinklers will easily put the fire out.
>
> *Perspective: *This is not a residential, hospital, hotel, or apartment
> where QR
> sprinklers are keenly advantageous. This is an office occupancy. We can
> call an office occupany
> LH with an exclamation point, and the Code can prescribe QR sprinklers in
> all LH occupancies. But that doesn't mean in this hybridized Code
> application,
> in this office occcupancy, that QR are needed for life safety.*
> *
> What does history say about fire safety in office buildings? I know, it
> does not
> matter what Nature, history or the fire says, when we are being Code
> compliant,
> but I still wonder, what is the fire safety record of sprinkelred offices?
> At 1200 ppm CO ...... a conservative STEL, but but at 1200 ppm CO, most
of
> us with
> reasonable health can not just breath this for 20 minutes, we can do
jumping
> jacks in it for 10 minutes. In an office occupancy with this delivery
> density and
> MRA, using a QR or SR will make virtually no difference in life safety--
> the CO
> concentrations in either case is low enough to allow everyone ample exit
> time, if they even
> need to exit. Firefighters have chronic exposure to smoke. Office
> occupants almost
> surely, will not have long-term measurable detriments to their health from
> exposure
> to smoke from a sprinklered fire (SR or QR controlled), in the remote
chance
> that they are exposed in the first place.
>
> *Yes, we must be Code compliant. *But if the original thread was, "can I
> breath easy
> and sleep soundly knowing I installed SR sprinklers in an office occupancy
> which
> is covered with OH1 density?" ... the answer is yes.* *Where the Code
> prescriptions
> fall on a specification that is hybridized, is another question.*
> *
> QR sprinklers are great. So are Code prescriptions. Common-sense in
> this particular hybridized Code application also deserves mention.
>
> scot deal
> excelsior fire engineering
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> (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
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
