I think duration of supply is the biggest concearn. If two tanks shoot their w*d in 5 minutes, it would take twelve tanks to last 30 minutes. On Sep 18, 2016 6:20 PM, "Scott Futrell" <sco...@ffcdi.com> wrote:
> Scot, > > > > The simple answer is yes. The area and construction and other exemptions > are not allowed if rooms/areas that are required to be sprinklered for > fully sprinklered buildings are not. > > > > Scott > > > > Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2 > > Cell: (612) 759-5556 > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler. > org] *On Behalf Of *å... .... > *Sent:* Friday, September 16, 2016 2:16 PM > *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > *Subject:* Do gas-suppression systems in electrical rooms (for example) > w/o sprinklers void the exemptions awarded to a fully-sprinklered occupancy? > > > > > > > My guess as to the answer of this is, "yes", but I want to be sure. > > Feel comfortable to offer your judgment. > > > > If a design guide calls for the occupancy to be sprinklered throughout, > then if electronics and electrical rooms are not sprinklered but protected > with alternative gas suppression systems, are the lucrative exemptions > awarded when a building is "sprinklered throughout", withheld? > > > > I sense this is a building code question, not an NFPA 13 question. > > > > > > Commentary to 2009 IBC -903.1.1 states in its last sentence, if sprinklers > are not installed as backup for alternative (i.e. gas systems ), then the > lucrative exemptions granted via reduction to other fire safety systems > throughout this building code are not awarded due to the lower safety > offered by the less reliable gas suppression systems. > > > > > > 2009 NFPA 101 -9.7.3 commentary says it is a good idea to have sprinklers > as backup to the 'special' first-line-of-defense alternative systems, but > it does not go so far, as far as I could tell, as to eliminate the > financially beneficial trade-offs linked to an occupany/building that is > sprinklered throughout, in the event that electronic/electrical rooms have > only gas-suppression without automatic sprinklers. > > > > Section -19.3.5.4 of 2009 NFPA 101 says sprinklers should be throughout a > health care facility, but in the instance where the AHJ allows omission, > then section -19.3.5.5 states these areas need by Type I or II construction > and enclosed with FRR. But the commentary to the NFPA 101 on these > section says the lucrative sprinkler exemptions remain valid. > > > > The IBC is clear: sprinklers throughout. > > The NFPA 101 seems clear—except for health care. > > I do not know what the 2009 NFPA 5000 states. > > > > If there are electronic/electrical rooms without sprinklers, but with > alternative gas agent suppression, are the exceptions for '*fully-sprinklered > building*' withheld? I think – yes. The US Air Force seems to agree with > this suggestion. > > > > Segueing into WHY using only-gaseous agent fire suppression is NOT enough, > consider the Air Force wording, already 15 years old, by the time of first > draft. ETL 01-18 is paraphrased below: > > > > the US Air [1] states that sprinklers will be provided as backup to > “clean” agent systems because the sprinklers are THAT reliable. If any > customer has a big and quasi reliable database, I would argue the US Air > Force would be in that group. The US Air Force requires fire sprinklers > over mission critical electrical gear. The US Air Force discourages > pre-action sprinkler systems to wet pipe systems, which again is in > concurrence with the experiences and stories I have encountered. The US > Air Force states “Leaky roofing, air conditioning, and plumbing systems > present a far greater risk of water damage than a wet-pipe sprinkler system > properly installed in accordance with NFPA 13. > > Further, mission essential information technology rooms shall be located > only in facilities that are fully sprinklered, by a wet-pipe sprinkler > system[2]. Alternative suppression system to wet-pipe standard spray > sprinkler are allowed on approval of Major Command, but the alternatives > both involve--water suppression: water mist and water pre-action. > Pre-action systems are of significantly lower reliability than wet-pipe > systems. [3]. > > > > [1]. ETL 01-18, Engineering Technical Letter (ETL 01-18) Fire Protection > Criteria – Electronic Equipment Installations 24 Oct 2001, (pp. -7.3.10.2 > last sentence > > [2]. op. cit., ETL 01-18, -7.3.9.1 > > [3]. op. cit., Ibid, -7.3.10.2 > > > > Scot Deal > > Excelsior Risk/Fire Engineering > > gms: +420 722 141 478 GMT+1 > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org > >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
