Perhaps the "=" is in the extensive testing done by FM demonstrating the need, or lack thereof, of adding the sprinklers to the calcs?
Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: ESFR Calc 2 hds under obstructions Cause it sure is tough to come up with written technical substantiation to support Equivalency when all you do is less. Same thing Bill Brooks pointed out on larger SF/system, although I'd rather write something on that, maybe lessening # of valves = less chance one is shut. When all you do is omit flow cause the other guy says you can, where's the = or better? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: ESFR Calc 2 hds under obstructions NFPA #13 (2010) 16.2.3.5. Does the ROP/ROC for 2013 NFPA #13 contain any proposals to drop the requirement to calc an additional 2 heads under obstructions below ESFR systems as FMG has done? Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4778 - Release Date: 01/31/12 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
