I don't think what the value of the rule is, or how it's determined or any other thing than what's required is germane to the discussion. If the AHJ wants squealing raccoons glued to the ceiling and FM wants quiet ones you have the problem of serving two masters. When they've both already decided what type of raccoon they demand logic entreaties to them will get a nod of acceptance from the one you agree with and an harrumph from the other. you just need one to back off this time. That's it. After that you can go present your arguments to the International Raccoon Society and/or Raccoon Underwriters and try to get them to agree to a common requirement under all circumstances.
I heard that FM changed their co-effcients for hydrant test to coincide with NFPA's. How did that get fixed and why not the other way. It would be easiest to just use FM as it met the needs of both masters but what if doing so was the difference between a pump or not. You'd be best serving your other master, the owner, by getting a waiver from FM. On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Larrimer, Peter A <peter.a.larri...@va.gov> wrote: > 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-bounces@lists.firesprinkler. > org] *On Behalf Of *John Drucker > *Sent:* Friday, October 07, 2016 8:00 AM > *To:* 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler. > org <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> 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 > > > > 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> 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> wrote: > > [image: 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 > 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
