And before we go off on a "that's crazy" line of postings regarding my previous post: I know. It's crazy thinking. But it complies with the rules.
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 Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d have to agree. Putting sprinklers between layers of general HVAC > ducts serves no purpose. Provide sprinklers at the roof above the ducts > and below the lower most level and be done. I see no hazard > justification nor any code language that would require the extra sprinklers > in between. > > > > > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – 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 *Sean.VanGaal > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 1:52 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Multi-Level Ducts > > > > I want to switch this thread to Multi-level ducts. > > > > Why would you provide sprinklers at the intermediate levels? There is no > hazard to protect at these levels. Obviously I am going under the > assumption there is not a mid-level mezzanine/catwalk/etc. So with no > combustibles and no occupancy, there is just open air and nothing > specifically to protect. > > > > You already have sprinklers at the roof level protecting everything in the > space except the floor area obstructed by the ducts over 4ft wide. > Sprinklers should be located under the lowest level of ducts to protect the > hazard that the ceiling sprinklers are obstructed from. In my opinion, > anything beyond this is excessive even if the standard doesn’t specifically > exclude it, because the same can be said in reverse that the standard > doesn’t explicitly require it. > > > > Thanks, > > Sean VG > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [ > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Travis > Mack > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:48 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Multi-Level Conveyors > > > > We’ve done the same for multiple layers of ductwork. I just don’t see in > the standards where I can eliminate because they are multiple levels. I > don’t calc all levels. > > > > > > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > > 480-505-9271 > > MFP Design, LLC > > www.mfpdesign,com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign-2Ccom&d=DwMGaQ&c=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk&r=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag&m=0NxwrLm2hhmPFwIzyQzJ6VD-lluYDVF4VIpCSxRVkxA&s=d_lbbhczalPQMQ5RrnXDPkybXj8DsfKnXbtHKLnh49A&e=> > > Send large files to MFP Design via: > > https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg&m=ingy4PBqYPOuUwDLQ4lfaaXSkWsABUV4vTdnAfCdBvU&s=h2a6Ll_6WFL8YiL2bzr5wrZoU1jKivF5Vyu0mMUVaSc&e=> > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jul 2, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Kyle.Montgomery <[email protected]> > wrote: > > What if it was two levels of ductwork rather than conveyors? Would you > protect in between the upper and lower ducts, based on that logic? > > > > I’m not saying I disagree with protecting under the upper conveyors in > this case. I’m just saying that there are always going to be gray areas in > the code, and that automatically defaulting to the most conservative > scenario is generally bad for the consumer. > > > > *-Kyle M* > > > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [ > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Travis > Mack > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:21 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: Multi-Level Conveyors > > > > As I read NFPA 13, it states to place sprinklers under obstructions >48” > in width. I don’t see anywhere that is states states to place sprinklers > only under the lowest level of obstructions. > > > > We just finished an addition to a similar facility. It is an FM property. > We had to do under all of the conveyors (greater than 24” AFF), not just > the lowest ones. > > > > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > > 480-505-9271 > > MFP Design, LLC > > www.mfpdesign,com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign-2Ccom&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg&m=ingy4PBqYPOuUwDLQ4lfaaXSkWsABUV4vTdnAfCdBvU&s=hbawIux7nF3YFtPXdh7S0lfpkJYIZqa82FcCkQChGFQ&e=> > > Send large files to MFP Design via: > > https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=4oFxlHzjd2d3tMHDTTqbhV7X4Ph3N-I-mON3NVEwxxw&s=xXObiCohsTy-0eYfuDyWmaha2rXEf_XXC0K2ReK2KHs&e=> > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jul 2, 2019, at 5:00 AM, John Irwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > We’re protecting a UPS transfer facility and has multi-level conveyors in > some areas. We have sprinklers under all of the lower level belts but we > have a questions as to whether we need sprinklers in between the upper > levels of conveyors. Some UPS facilities have them, some don’t. They don’t > have an insurance requirement that they are protected. They are all 48” > wide. > > > > What say ye? > > > > John Irwin > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=4oFxlHzjd2d3tMHDTTqbhV7X4Ph3N-I-mON3NVEwxxw&s=HPT67TOWfc2Lo54PmXvGsuuG0KcehTJgBzgNCgYAOhw&e=> > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg&m=ingy4PBqYPOuUwDLQ4lfaaXSkWsABUV4vTdnAfCdBvU&s=nN6XSjh6hwEHN7MtdhmKjIsaR_WrKMf9GjKdN3vi2kc&e=> > > > ------------------------------ > > 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
