I’m well aware of the dichotomy between building owner shell requirements and tenant requirements, and that in most cases the owner just wants the least expensive shell and for the tenant to pick up the T.I. costs. That’s partially why I’m asking the question if the intent of that code section is to require a minimum 1” outlet size in shell spaces. I guess it all hinges on how you interpret “expected to supply sprinklers below a ceiling”, but I think that a shell space could reasonably be considered to fall into that description.
My question about the bushing/tee in the calculation can be considered on its own, but it kind of goes along with this requirement so I figured I would ask them together. -Kyle M From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 4:00 PM To: [email protected] Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets If it were not a shell space and had the same design would you have used 3/4” outlets? How much of the future could the Standard reasonably expect to predict? The bigger question is should a shell space design be favorable for sprinkler adaptation or should it be sacrificial. This question is sometimes answered in many ways. Some developers want to spend the least and their Architect client, if there is one, want the spending to go into the non shell space architecture. What the tenant has to do is not their concern if that aspect of the space sale is not of importance. Standard spray shell sprinklers spaced on 15 foot centers do not work well with a future 2 foot module ceiling packed with other devices. Who knows how the future HVAC distribution system wants to occupy the above ceiling cavity if the shell HVAC system is essentially non existent. Spring the shell space design question on the next opportunity to see if you get a firm answer. Sometimes the answer lies in knowing who might be doing the tenant work. Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Esteemed members of the fire sprinkler community, NFPA 13 (2016 Edition) section 8.15.20 is basically telling us to provide bushed 1” outlets for sprinklers in shell spaces, right? Section 23.4.4.8.1(9) tells us that friction loss can be excluded for the fitting directly connected to a sprinkler. In your opinion(s), is it the intent of the standard that you have to add the friction loss for a tee into your hydraulic calculation if using bushings, since the sprinkler is no longer directly connected to the tee? Or is it acceptable to consider a tee with a bushing as one fitting for the purpose of hydraulic calculations. Kyle Montgomery <image002.png> Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co. 21605 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85024 Direct: 623.580.7820 Cell: 602.763.4736 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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=xONAci0UC7sPTASVpdOk7mh350ELRPoYKgI2eKmRMr4&s=Qr69bFNTqNZekzRajGBaJMz67TLQ7IczfX4FgFDqWoo&e=>
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
