Owen: Weren’t you the one complaining that a couple hundred dollar flow test was causing significant problems.
Now you want to make a detached garage in a 13D system to have NFPA 13 densities. Wouldn’t that require a full flow test there? That meter upsize is likely far more expensive than the flow test. 13D is about making the systems cost effective to get them into homes with less resistance. Pure 13D says no sprinklers in the garage when it is attached. By making it detached, there would be a more solid argument for not putting sprinklers in it. To the original question: If you have to protect the detached garage, I would follow the requirements of 13D as modified by the local fire code when applicable. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET 480-505-9271 x700 MFP Design, LLC www.mfpdesign,com Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 5, 2019, at 11:29 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Owen: > Because it could trigger a meter up-size that might cost $$thousands. > Because there's no statistical substantiation for over-protecting a > freestanding garage with dead attic space above, If it was a dwelling unit > above it would be a .05, so why would a "basic" garage require more? > According to NFPA, fewer than 3% of home fires started in the garage, nearly > all of those from hot work. > Because it's not required by the code and referenced standards. > The reason it's not required is that the intent of home fire sprinkler > protection is life-safety and not property protection. > Now, if you're willing to subsidize the cost impact of a higher density, I'm > sure both the contractor and owner of the subject property would love to hear > from you. But why stop there - if you look at it as a detached parking > structure, the correct density is .15. > > Steve L. > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> on > behalf of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 9:02 PM > To: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Detached Garage > > The thinking being why not spend a few extra bucks and protect the structure > and contents with greater density. Makes no sense to buy time for escape with > .05. > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On Dec 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> This issue was not clearly defined in the current 2016 California code set >> but if you look to the 2019, there is new material that very clearly states >> that this would be per 13D. Utility occupancies that are accessory to an >> SFD are to be protected by that standard. >> >> >> >> Steve Leyton >> >> (Sent from my phone; please excuse typos and voice text corruptions.) >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum >> <[email protected]> >> Date: 12/5/19 7:10 PM (GMT-08:00) >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Detached Garage >> >> I’m a little rusty on my 13D. >> >> I have a residence with a detached 3 car garage with a non-storage attic >> above about 860 sqft. If I’m to provide protect the structure would it still >> fall under 13d? >> >> Jerry Van Kolken >> Millennium Fire Protection Corp. >> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd. >> Oceanside, CA 92058 >> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
