From a code compliance standpoint Underwriters Laboratories is one of appx 22 
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL).  Interestingly UL 199, 1626 
etc. are the defacto standards for fire sprinklers which any of the other 
NRTL’s would use to test and list a fire sprinkler (aside from perhaps FM 
Global)  should they choose to do so. So it’s not really UL itself but rather 
does the sprinkler comply with the applicable UL Standard. A UL Listed Quick 
Response Fire Sprinkler is a listed quick response fire sprinkler.

As for insurance companies and what they want well ask them, so long as it 
meets the applicable code its code compliant.

John Drucker, CET
Assistant Construction Official
Fire Protection Subcode Official
Electrical Subcode Official
Building Inspector
Borough of Red Bank, NJ
90 Monmouth Street
Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
Cel/Text: 732-904-6823
Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org<mailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org>






From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Morey, Mike
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 9:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: FM and Concealed Sprinklers

I still don’t see why you’d need a variance, real world example, my apologies 
for not being brand agnostic but for this exercise its hard to avoid but I 
think most brands have similar offerings:

Reliable G5-56 with G4 plate, UL listed Quick response, FM listed Standard 
response.  FM does not require Quick response, so the fact they don’t accept it 
as QR is irrelevant.  Your real world AHJ should accept the UL listing.

On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Travis Mack, SET 
<tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>> wrote:


Your argument is a moot point.  It is about FM approval.  FM does not have 
approval for those sprinklers.

You have to get a variance from the FM reviewer.  Then you may be battling an 
AHJ that says they don't recognize FM and you have to follow NFPA 13 criteria.  
These are real world scenarios that come into play daily for many of us.

Not everything comes down to 15 significant figures and exponents to the 1000th 
power.  Sometimes it is just dealing with what is available and playing the 
game.

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

2508 E Lodgepole Drive

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com>



http://www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com/>

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
On 10/6/2016 4:52 PM, Brad Casterline wrote:

Which activates quicker, in an LH, ~10' ceiling, 225 s.f. spacing:
200F QR, or,
155F SR?

SURVEY SAID!

it's a tie.

I.O.W., I.M.H.O., (opinion being entire weekends spent jacking with it bcoz i 
been divorced for 16 years and the kids are grown and on their own)

activation is more about ceiling height, temp rating, and spacing than QR vs SR.
On Oct 6, 2016 6:39 PM, "rongreenman ." 
<rongreen...@gmail.com<mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
The problem with FM allowing something like SE where NFPA requires QR is that 
the AHJ may require compliance to NFPA. You then playing to two masters and 
which one will give. Probably FM  but you have to get approval and ad was 
earlier stated your best served by getting it in writing.

On Thursday, October 6, 2016, Todd Williams 
<fpdcdes...@gmail.com<mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote:
[Image removed by sender.]
I am working on a hospital job that is FM. FM was very good about allowing us 
to use concealed QR (even concealed sidewalls). However, it needs to be run 
past their loss control peeps to make sure they are OK with it.
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-608-4559 (cell)

via Newton 
Mail<https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti&cv=9.1.9&pv=9.3.5&source=email_footer_2>

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Morey, Mike <mo...@bmwc.com> wrote:
If you look at data sheet 2-0, FM doesn’t require QR heads in HC-1, 2 or 3 if 
you use k5.6 standard coverage heads at least. And last I looked there are a 
number of QR concealed heads that are FM approved, only as standard response. 
Since your AHJ presumably uses NFPA/UL, they’re QR heads, and since FM doesn’t 
care, it’s fine that they accept them only as standard response. Since our 
client is all FM it’s always a picnic trying to design systems that satisfy 
both because it’s easier to deal with the AHJs without having to explain the FM 
design criteria in detail (they do accept them when its an issue though).

> On Oct 6, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Mark Phillips <markphill...@webolton.com> wrote:
>
> Just ask their rep for a variance in a written letter.
>
> Have done many a hospital this way.
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> On Oct 6, 2016 6:13 PM, Scott Holman <shol...@rlhfp.com> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I have an FM job where the customer wants concealed sprinklers in light 
> hazard occupancies. Since it is light hazard, quick response sprinklers are 
> required. However, FM does not have any approved quick response concealed 
> pendents that I could find. Has anyone dealt with this before?
>
>
>
> Thank you for your input!
>
>
>
> Scott H.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org




_______________________________________________

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto: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