I've always seen a SIPA as a wet with empty piping until a smoke alarm, or
some other detection that's more sensitive than heat detection filling the
pipe in anticipation of a head fusing. Same with a DIPA except it's becomes
a DPV when that sensitive detection releases it to respond as a normal dry
pipe would if a head also fuses. since both are "pre-action" what is: 1,
the pre-action and 2, the action? Viking's definitions seem to suggest pre
means changing from a state similar to a closed control valve on either a
SIPA or DIPA into post pre state, becoming the equivalent of a wet or a dry
pipe respectively.
Supervisory air in a SIPA has nothing to do with activation, just
notification if the system integrity is compromised, and the higher
pressure air in a DIPA fulfills that function when the detection is holding
the valve in a pre state.
I think (that might be a problem) that the definition of pre-action and the
explanatory annex material (2013) is wholly inadequate, and the commentary
in the handbook regarding DIPA sounds like it was written by a salesman
trying to promote the most complicated, and therefore, costly system. Apart
from the comment that accidental discharge is rare, it sounds like the only
way to alleviate such a fear is with DIPA, in my opinion (there's that
problem again) an inappropriate solution unless rapid freezing (two or
three hours or less, or getting a technician out would be longer and it's
so cold that a freeze-up would occur faster than that, say a freezer
warehouse, or a loading dock in Frozen Butte, Montana in winter) is
anticipated.
But the book says what it says and Roland will tell me to write a change
suggestion if I don't like it, and I'm speculating and not directly
addressing the topic, and Steve M. having to weigh in recently and probably
still a little sensitive, and of course opening myself to the possibility
of another salvo from Steve L. (although with admittedly the best filthy
epithet fired in my direction in recent memory), I shall bid you all adieu.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Brad Casterline
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Picking up where your but... left off Ron I thought the same thing if you
> were thinking this is a matter of Definition trumps Operation. And we
> cannot plan for failure of the detection system any more than we can plan
> for the fire not starting in one place on the floor, but... half-way up a
> combustible wall in a room with a combustible ceiling.
>
> > On Mar 31, 2014, at 5:33 PM, "rongreenman ." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Seems odd as it should be filled with water before a single head fuses so
> > it should act like a wet, but if the detection fails to trip the valve no
> > number of heads opening will make it act like a dry. It would have
> > deterioration characteristics similar to dry sitting around with wet air
> in
> > it all day so the 100C would make sense, but....
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not in the 1979 edition of NFPA 231 which is what is applicable to my
> >> project for the original design. So the exception was not present in
> the
> >> Storage standard in 1979 and didn't make it to NFPA 13 until 1999. That
> >> makes it irrelevant for the original design.
> >>
> >> It is not applicable based on current NFPA 13 either, so it is what it
> is,
> >> a dry system by definition.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Craig L. Prahl, CET
> >> Fire Protection Group Lead
> >> CH2MHILL
> >> Lockwood Greene
> >> 1500 International Drive
> >> Spartanburg, SC 29303
> >> Direct - 864.599.4102
> >> Fax - 864.599.8439
> >> CH2MHILL Extension 74102
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:
> >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of
> rongreenman .
> >> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:41 PM
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: Single interlock PA equal to Wet
> >>
> >> If it wasn't editions previous to 1999 could it have been in a 231
> series
> >> document since that's the year when 231 and 231C were folded into 13?
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Bob,
> >>>
> >>> I kept digging, found this verbiage in 1999 NFPA 13, 7-4.1.5.3
> >>> Located in the Rack Storage Section. It was also applicable for areas
> >>> that are highly susceptible to water damage.
> >>>
> >>> "Where preaction systems are used, preaction systems shall be treated
> >>> as dry pipe systems.
> >>>
> >>> Exception: This requirement shall not apply where it can be
> >>> demonstrated that the detection system that activates the preaction
> >>> system causes water to be discharged from sprinklers as quickly as the
> >>> discharge from a wet pipe system."
> >>>
> >>> This was new for 1999. So that answers two questions, this was not in
> >>> force in 1982 and what's there now doesn't have a snowball's chance of
> >>> working correctly. I can duplicate the original design if I calc it
> >>> using
> >>> C-120 for a wet system, if you use C-100 for black steel, dry system
> >>> as it actually exists, the system is non-functional.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NFPA 13, 2010 has removed this statement from all areas within where
> >>> it used to reside.
> >>>
> >>> Oh the fun of it all.
> >>>
> >>> Craig L. Prahl, CET
> >>> Fire Protection Group Lead
> >>> CH2MHILL
> >>> Lockwood Greene
> >>> 1500 International Drive
> >>> Spartanburg, SC 29303
> >>> Direct - 864.599.4102
> >>> Fax - 864.599.8439
> >>> CH2MHILL Extension 74102
> >>> [email protected]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:
> >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:22 PM
> >>> To: [email protected]
> >>> Subject: RE: Single interlock PA equal to Wet
> >>>
> >>> 2002 ed, 12.2.3.2.2.5 (B)
> >>>
> >>> Thank You,
> >>>
> >>> Bob Knight, CET III
> >>> 208-318-3057
> >>> www.Firebyknight.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [email protected]
> >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 2:03 PM
> >>> To: [email protected]
> >>> Subject: Single interlock PA equal to Wet
> >>>
> >>> At some point in time I thought I had seen a blurb in NFPA 13 which
> >>> stated that for some certain design conditions a single interlock
> >>> preaction system was considered the same as a wet pipe system. The
> >>> rationale behind the premise being that the system piping would be
> >>> charged prior to activation of sprinklers. Trying to look for a
> >>> similar statement in NFPA 13 2010, and not just finding it.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone recall this in prior or the 2010 edition?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Craig L. Prahl, CET
> >>> Fire Protection Group Lead
> >>> CH2MHILL
> >>> Lockwood Greene
> >>> 1500 International Drive
> >>> Spartanburg, SC 29303
> >>> Direct - 864.599.4102
> >>> Fax - 864.599.8439
> >>> CH2MHILL Extension 74102
> >>> [email protected]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>>
> >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> >>> er.org
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>>
> >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> >>> er.org _______________________________________________
> >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>>
> >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> >>> er.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ron Greenman
> >> Instructor
> >> Fire Protection Engineering Technology
> >> Bates Technical College
> >> 1101 So. Yakima Ave.
> >> Tacoma, WA 98405
> >>
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/
> >>
> >> 253.680.7346
> >> 253.576.9700 (cell)
> >>
> >> Member:
> >> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC
> >>
> >> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis
> >> Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
> >>
> >> A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering,
> >> inventor and engineer (1876-1958)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >>
>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >>
>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ron Greenman
> > Instructor
> > Fire Protection Engineering Technology
> > Bates Technical College
> > 1101 So. Yakima Ave.
> > Tacoma, WA 98405
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/
> >
> > 253.680.7346
> > 253.576.9700 (cell)
> >
> > Member:
> > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC
> >
> > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis
> Bacon,
> > essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
> >
> > A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering,
> > inventor and engineer (1876-1958)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > [email protected]
> >
>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
>
>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405
[email protected]
http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/
253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)
Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC
They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering,
inventor and engineer (1876-1958)
