The last spray booth I did was 10’ x 10’ x 10’, not including  the  exhaust 
plenum and the exhaust duct.   I sold the job for $4,800.00.  Last quote I got 
on a sprinkler system, $5,000.00 just to dig a ditch in the street to the 
booth.  Breaking the concrete was more, I do not remember the amount.  The NFPA 
Standard is 17, the UL standard is 1254., my installation manual does not list 
the ULC Standard.

My supplier will design the system for me.   He will also answer stupid 
questions at no charge.  I suspect my stupid questions keep  he and guys at the 
factory rolling on the floor.  Similar to some of the questions I ask the board 
members here.
From: 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

Reply via email to