Yes. FM provided me some internal information maybe twenty years ago. Typical scenario is all heads operate. From building, mechanical, and fire code a paint spray booth is no a separate occupancy class, it is a piece of equipment for special purpose, with specific requirements. Among other things this is how you can have a simple layer of metal instead of a rated fire resistive wall, and too narrow for normal personnel doors.
Paint Rooms are different. There are put in a Hazardous Occupancy Class. Careful when you cross from model codes to sprinkler standard. Best. Bruce Verhei > On Apr 23, 2019, at 09:48, Matt Grise <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regarding the paint booth – It is listed as a specially occupancy and it > specifically says that the water supply shall be sufficient to supply all > sprinklers likely to open in one event (13-2016 22.4.1.3). Based on that, is > it required to add the extra gpm to the supply main for a small booth? In the > 6-head-booth instance, could you say that 6 heads are likely to open, > therefore supply water for 6 heads plus hose lines (not the full EH2 flow)? > > Matt > > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Roland Huggins > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 11:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 > > There is also the option to have a remote area with different hazard > classifications within it (and the size of it is predicated upon whether > there are walls around the smaller, higher hazard portion). Look at A.11.1.2. > > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE > Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services > American Fire Sprinkler Association > p: > 214-349-5965 ext121 > w: > firesprinkler.org > > 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. > AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's > largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in > beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. Priority booth selection > starts April 12. Get yours now. MORE INFO > > > On Apr 23, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’ve run into a few AHJs that have specifically thrown this section to us for > paint booths. We also had this thrown at us on a tire carousel storage. > This caused total havoc on the projects. > > The paint booth was in an existing facility designed to OH2. They paint > booth had 6 sprinklers. We had to run a 6” bulk across the facility to get > this paint booth. It seems like overkill, but following that section as it > is written, we had to flow 800 gpm for the area. > > <image002.jpg> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > [email protected] > www.mfpdesign.com > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Bruce Verhei > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 8:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 > > I read it as Ed notes. As well other example of paint spray booth I’d > question too. Paint spray booths can have sprinkler protection in an > otherwise unsprinklerd building. They’d all be dry chem total flood if we > drove an underground sized up that much. Just the cost of larger DDCVA would > be a big impact. > > Best. > > Bruce Verhei > > On Apr 23, 2019, at 08:01, Ed Kramer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve, you don’t mention the edition of 13 you’re working with, but I’m > looking in the ’16. > > 23.4.4.2.5 is a sub-section of 23.4.4.2 “Density/Area Method”. The section > above that is 23.4.4.1.1 “Room Design Method”. I don’t see any similar > requirement in that section. I’d argue that 23.4.4.2.5 doesn’t apply to the > room design method. But some days I just feel like arguing. J > > Ed K > Bamford Fire > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 7:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 > > I feel your pain. This additional flow rate added to a small room has never > made any sense and I’d love to understand the logic of being forced to flow > 1,950 gpm into a room that is only required to deliver 150 gpm. > > Is there any actual benefit to this exercise? > > It’s amazing how buildings were assumed adequately protected when all that > was used was the pipe schedule method. > > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > [email protected] | www.jacobs.com > 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Steve Leyton > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 6:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 > > We have a building with fire rated and secure compartments that are less than > the NFPA 13 minimum design areas so we have calculated those areas using the > room design method where the compartments comply. Two are fire protected > with preaction sprinklers and 23.4.4.2.5 seems to imply that where a design > area is flowing less than what the density would be across the minimum > required design area, then a “kicker” needs to be added to raise the flow > rate to that figure. Since we’re in Light Hazard and the design area is > only about 1,000 sq. ft., we’re flowing about 150 GPM. But they’re coming > after us for 1,500 x 1.3 = 1,950 saying the required flow rate is 195. If > it’s LH, we can downward adjust and the demand drops to 117 which we satisfy. > In all my years I’ve never had this section thrown at us so could use any > help or opinion regarding exactly how this section should be applied. > > <image001.jpg> > > > > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged > information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, > copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended > recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in > error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting > it from your computer. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
