Why not a large orifice sidewall at each side of each trailer? 

Going back to objectives, and what is not objective. Writing it out helps, at 
least me.

1. Goal is not to protect trailer or trailers contents;

Assumed after this:

2. Goal is not to keep fire originating in building from spreading to 
trailer/contents.

3. Goal is to confine fire originating in trailer or at opening from spreading 
to building. 

4. Design to reduce smoke damage is not a consideration.

5. Activation reliability/cost. Normally we think of reliability and cost as 
being in conflict. In this case I don't think they are. It is my observation 
that sprinkler heads are much more reliable than detection system coupled to 
deluge valve.

6. Effectiveness. Some judgement and experience are call for. But I'd expect 
the sidewall would likely be as or more effective at cooling the plume moving 
into the building as the drill holes. 

7. On-going cost. Sidewall would be cheaper. 

8. Feasibility. We'd need to see more detail to see this.

9. Alarm, and response. Deluge detection, and sidewall would both result in 
response. Assuming waterflow detection and off-site monitoring.

Is this an old European national standard that pre-dates the EU? Similar here 
to that DOD long term housing goods storage in plywood bins, administered by 
someone who doesn't understand and doesn't care?

You might find this has been around for decades, long before higher flow 
sidewalls were available. (Again, like that outside canopy/loading dock detail 
showing a dry pendant on a 45. Why? Because it was quite awhile before dry 
sidewalls were commonly available.)

Maybe asking the question will result in a change in practice. To me it sounds 
like a spec coated in dust.

Best

Bruce Verhei

> On Sep 19, 2016, at 08:59, <mphe...@aerofire.com> <mphe...@aerofire.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Because, Ron, it would need to be a fuse that is UL Listed for use with the 
> Keg. (actuating device) But it would be fun to watch the test.
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of rongreenman .
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 8:50 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: spray bar versus deluge heads for opening protection
>  
> Why not just put a barrel of water on top of keg of black powder with a fuse 
> going into the trailer? 
>  
>  
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Brad Casterline <bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com> 
> wrote:
> That's upstream Gus. I'm just trying to help Craig get out of the (if Mr.
> Greenman will pardon my French) Remote Area with the calc software he has.
> 
> :)
> 
> Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of Gus Olson
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 10:37 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: spray bar versus deluge heads for opening protection
> 
> Brad,
> Don't forget to add a strainer
> 
> Gus Olson
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of Brad Casterline
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 11:30 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: spray bar versus deluge heads for opening protection
> 
> P = 40 PSI
> K = 1.55
> Q = 9.8 GPM
> 
> 36 GPM / 9.8 = 3.67 holes per nozzle
> 
> call it 4 :)
> 
> Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 9:57 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: spray bar versus deluge heads for opening protection
> 
> Dude, you need serious help.   HAHA
> 
> Now how many average sprinkler designers could have figured that out?
> 
> But it has to equal the discharge of spray nozzles which are required to
> provide a minimum of 36 gpm at 40 psi around the perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> Craig L. Prahl
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> CH2M
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
> Fax - 864.920.7129
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of Brad Casterline
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 10:37 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: spray bar versus deluge heads for opening protection [EXTERNAL]
> 
> (.25/24)^2 * PI = .000314 ft^2
> assume coefficient of discharge of .9
> .000314 *.9 = .000283
> 
> 'imply' 7 PSI
> 7 / .433 = 16.167 (h)
> v = (2gh)^.5 = 32.266 ft/sec
> 
> 32.266 ft/sec * .000283 ft^3 = .00913 ft^3/sec, * 7.48 * 60 = 4.1 GPM
> 
> Q = 4.1
> P = 7.0
> K = 1.55
> 
> Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 9:11 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: spray bar versus deluge heads for opening protection
> 
> Today's teaser.
> 
> An owner gives you this criteria for protecting a truck dock door opening.
> A semi-trailer is parked at the opening up against the dock seal, the
> trailer contains wooded pallets.
> 
> The rollup door and the trailer doors remain open at all times for in and
> out access.
> 
> Their recommended method of protecting the opening is to use 1.5" pipe with
> 1/4" holes drilled every 6".  Provide this around the opening which is 12"
> wide by 9' high.  This is approved by their international corporate safety
> department.
> 
> This will be a deluge system for two dock doors.
> 
> How are you going to calculate this?
> 
> 
> Craig L. Prahl
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> CH2M
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
> Fax - 864.920.7129
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Ron Greenman
> 
> 4110 Olson Dr., NW
> Gig Harbor, WA 98335
> 
> rongreen...@gmail.com
> 
> 253.576.9700
>  
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner 
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to