And the myth of 52K is OK, but 60K is too big, but two levels of 52K aren't too big so the myth persists. I'd agree that what we've done in the past has worked and that's a decent criterion for making a determination but it's also akin to saying I don't need sprinklers because I've never had a fire before. If the limitations are tied to the limitation of the pipe schedule then it stands to reason that with the near-universal use of hydraulic instead of pipe scheduling any numbers that are tied to that schedule may or may not be efficacious and new criteria may be appropriate.
Ron Greenman [email protected] 253.576.9700 The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-) On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:47 AM Larry Keeping <[email protected]> wrote: > You might be interested to know that the NFPA 13 Installation TC > considered a proposal 13-122 for larger system sizes in the ROP meeting for > the development of NFPA 13-2010. The TC rejected that proposal and issued a > committee statement: > > > > “System size limits have a long and successful history that the committee > is reluctant to change. The potential for much larger systems to be out of > service during testing, inspections and maintenance events speaks against > increasing system sizes.” > > > > Larry Keeping > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Matt Grise > *Sent:* August-14-18 5:20 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* maximum sprinkler system sizes > > > > I was recently discussing the max system size issue with a building > official. In this specific application we are requesting that the AHJ allow > us to use a 60,000 square foot maximum size for ESFR systems in a big box > warehouse. > > > > I have commentary directly from FM (in addition to FM2-0) that says “The > size of the sprinkler system is not expected to affect the effectiveness of > the sprinkler system as long as the system is designed properly for the > occupancy.” > > > > The AHJ’s response was: “The system will work as well when the system is > in operation, but when you turn it off for maintenance, there is a greater > risk of fire since there is more area out of service.” > > > > I had assumed that the greater system sizes result in equal system > effectiveness on the whole – in the sense that there is no evidence that > the greater system area causes more fire losses even when maintenance > downtime is factored into the equation. I had even thought that perhaps > system performance on the whole would be improved since there are fewer > control valves in the building that could be left closed (when they should > be open). > > > > But, I have heard that “assuming” things can have negative consequences… > > > > On that note, I wanted to reach out and see what insight anyone might > offer on system performance related to system size. Do large sprinkler > systems perform equally only when they are operating properly – or do they > operate properly (and perform equally) just as well, historically, as > smaller systems? Has larger system size ever been faulted as the cause of a > loss? > > > > Any insight/research/documentation would be great! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Matt > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
