I'd look at shielded fire potential. EX2?
 
 
 
 Todd G Williams, PE 
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-535-2080 (ofc)
 
860-553-3553 (fax)
 
860-608-4559 (cell)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Sep 20, 2017 at 9:29 AM,  <Matt Grise (mailto:[email protected])>  wrote:
>  
>  
>        
>  
>
>  What is in the simulators? Could there be a shielded fire in there?    
>
>  
>
>    
>
>  
>  
>
>  Matt    
>
>  
>
>    
>
>  
>  
>
>    
>
>  
>  
>  
>
>  From:    Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:[email protected]]  On Behalf Of  Prahl, 
> Craig/GVL
>   Sent:  Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:27 AM
>   To:  [email protected]
>   Subject:  RE: Flight Simulator Bldg
>
>  
>  
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  Are these servo motor articulated or use hydraulic fluids?
>
>  
>
>    
>
>  
>
>  If there are no hydraulic fluids or other contributing hazards, the building 
> may be able to classified as an F-2 occupancy and no sprinklers required.
>
>  
>
>    
>
>  
>
>  You might also investigate the possibility of a water mist or hybrid water 
> mist system in lieu of sprinklers for such an occupancy but that will take 
> some analysis and engineering work to determine suitability or viability of 
> the option.
>
>  
>
>    
>
>  
>  
>
>  
> 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
>   [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
>  
>
>
>  
>  
>
>    
>
>  
>  
>  
>
>  From:    Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:[email protected]]  On Behalf Of  TIM 
> STONE
>   Sent:  Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:23 AM
>   To:   [email protected] 
> (mailto:[email protected])
>   Subject:  Fwd: Flight Simulator Bldg [EXTERNAL]
>
>  
>  
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>  
>
> What occupancy should be considered?
>
>  
>
> Steel building, 25' high with Flight Simulators inside. Engineer has asked 
> that no sprinklers be installed directly over simulators which are about 22' 
> in diameter. I need to use extended coverage. Occupancy not specified. I am 
> leaning toward Ordinary Hazard 1 as minimum.
>
>  
>
> Am I on the right track or could I consider Light Hazard?
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
>  
>
>  G. Tim Stone
>
>  
>
>  G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC
>
>  
>
> 117 Old Stage Rd.
>
>  
>
> Essex Junction, VT. 05452
>
>  
>
> Cell:  (802) 373-0638
>
>  
>
> [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
>
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
> [email protected] 
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>  
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to