Hi Pete, Just saying what the code stipulates and therein we follow, however if it’s acceptable for AHJs to use interpretive approval discretion (i.e. I don’t agree with that standard) regarding listings just say the word. Case in point UL 2196.
John Drucker From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larrimer, Peter A Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 3:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FM and Concealed Sprinklers Interesting topic. In my humble opinion, the UL 199 tests to qualify concealed sprinklers as quick response is extremely questionable! On the other hand, what do you think you are getting when you install a quick response sprinkler anyway? Effectively, the UL 199 test requires the concealed sprinkler to be plunged into the test chamber exactly like the pendent sprinkler to get the RTI rating. As far as I know, another test used by UL to measure the response time for a concealed sprinkler is to seal up a test room and force the heat of the test fire up through the sprinkler cover plate to measure response time. Neither of those tests used by UL to qualify a concealed head as quick response reflect the conditions in the field that a concealed head would likely encounter. I am not suggesting that concealed sprinklers won’t operate, but I would be willing to bet that they won’t go off any faster than a standard response sprinkler unless the conditions are such that the heat will be forced up through the cover plate, and that won’t often be the case. In addition, concealed sprinklers are not permitted by their listing to be installed in rooms where the space above the ceiling is at a higher pressure than the pressure in the room below. One manufacture states “NOTE: Concealed sprinklers must be installed in neutral or negative pressure plenums only.” That requirement can significantly limit the installation opportunities for those of us in the healthcare industry because we have many negative pressure rooms that are required for infection control purposes and installing a concealed head would be inappropriate (though it happens quite often). Have the installers out there ever asked which rooms were designed to negative pressure requirements prior to installing the sprinkler system? We had one instance where we found out after the fact, that we evidently had leaking duct work in the plenum space above a ceiling and the pressure in the space above the ceiling was enough to have the soot line from a patient bed fire blacken the walls down to a foot off the floor even though we had a quick response sprinkler in the room. The air leaking from the plenum space left a little white line around the cover plate of the concealed sprinkler and the quick response sprinkler didn’t operate at all. I am not saying concealed sprinklers are especially bad, but I would not consider them to be quick response even when listed as such by UL. Maybe that is why there aren’t any FM Approved quick response sprinklers? When somebody makes a concealed sprinkler that gets an FM Approval for quick response, then I would feel more comfortable that the sprinkler will actually operate faster than a standard response. There are FM Approved standard response sprinklers, and FM has a test for quick response concealed sprinklers, but since nobody has a FM Approved concealed sprinkler on the market, it might make you wonder if their test might be more realistic. VA sprinkler specifications require FM approved quick response sprinklers (not UL listed) for new projects. Thus, no concealed sprinklers should be going into any VA Medical Centers. We have negative pressure rooms and hope to get a quicker response from the sprinklers. Have a good weekend. Pete Larrimer VA PS. By the way Todd, my bet is that it isn’t a tie especially if a concealed sprinkler is involved. My guess is that, in an open room, a standard response pendent sprinkler will operate faster than a quick response concealed sprinkler. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: FM and Concealed Sprinklers 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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 -- 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