Well that is interesting Todd. There is some ambiguity here for sure. I guess at the end of the day what I am looking at with this issue is that although the word "only" doesn't appear it is only the standard response head that is addressed with those two exceptions and in many cases with our standards they can't rule out every scenario but rather spell out how to perform and then give exceptions to those rules. This addresses Ed's comments on the fast response also. True that it doesn't say that you can't but I would submit that it doesn't say that you can and I believe that the intent is to NOT mix heads with the same thermal sensitivity within the same compartment. Interesting that I looked at 101 and the same wording is there; except that it refers to the same smoke compartment. This would be even more restricting in life safety applications where a smoke compartment would likely entail many rooms rather than just this one room that we are talking about. Interesting thread for sure.
Rod DiBona Rapid Fire -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers That was my first thought. The building was built in 1993, so I went back to the 1991 edition of NFPA 13 to look this up. The reference to quick response sprinklers in that edition was little more than a definition. I did not see anything that said they could not be mixed. If you look at the wording of 8.3.3.1 with the sub-section: "Sprinklers in light hazard occupancies shall be one of the following (3) Standard response sprinklers used for modifications or additions to systems equipped with standard response sprinklers". The word 'only' does not appear. Since 80% of this system is standard response sprinklers, including 50% of the sprinklers in the compartment in question, I thought that this would apply. (I'm just floating out my thought process, if I'm missing something, let me know) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rod Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:40 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Matt Batie Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers Todd, In my opinion the existing condition is not and has never been allowed. I believe that at this point you would have to replace both with qr heads in order to comply 8.3.3 in it's entirety. How did this one compartment ever get a standard and a quick response head in the same compartment? If they were both standard response I would agree that you could replace either or both with another standard response and not have to upgrade to qr; but in this case I think that you would be required to "correct" the incorrect installation in order to comply with 8.3.3.2. Both the option #3 and #4 are dealing only with situations where only standard response sprinklers exist. Rod DiBona Rapid Fire Protection -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers Good point, However, in the 2002 version (which is CT code), section 8.3.3 addresses the same issue. The problem is that we have a room with one SR and one QR sprinkler and the QR has to be replaced. Section 8.3.3.1(3) seems to indicate that SR sprinklers can be used in addition or modification to existing LH systems that have existing SR sprinklers, which I interpret as being the case here. So could a sprinkler that is listed for both SR and QR be installed in a system with SR sprinklers, or would that violate 8.3.3.2? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Cyr Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers Todd, Check out 5-3.1.5.2, 99 ed. When existing LH systems are converted to use quick response or residential sprinklers, all sprinklers within that compartment shall be changed. Hope this helps. Ed Alpha Fire Sprinkler Corp. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers George, Actually, according to the Tyco price book, the list price of the replacement for the existing 1/2" sidewalls is $43.00. I know there are significant discounts, but I doubt if it would be 97.6% to make your "buck a head" The issue is that one sprinkler in the room is scheduled to be replaced. The GB-LO. The existing sprinkler that is scheduled to remain is an SR. The proposed replacement sprinkler is listed for both SR and QR. My question was can an SR sprinkler be in the same room as a sprinkler listed for both SR and QR, per NFPA. The building was built in 1993 and I don't believe the QR requirement was in effect. There are 72 rooms that are impacted by this and another 72 rooms that are not. The other rooms were designed for and most likely remain with SR sprinklers. To make this even more complex, this job has dueling consultants and the other guy didn't even address this issue. My final recommendations will probably include replacing both sprinklers in that room with QR, but who knows if the owner will choose to follow that. Remember the famous quote "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers Or for a buck a head, it should be an easy sell to the Owner. If it isn't, then maybe you don't want this guy as a customer..... Seriously, if you're putting new heads in a hotel room, why would you consider anything but QR ? Even if you have the AHJ buy in, imagine the fun a widow's lawyer will have with you when there's a fire death. "Oh, so you didn't meet current standards when you were replacing the sprinkler heads because it was another $2 per room." If you value your retirement assets, you'll put it in your fee and not even ask the Owner. glc _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
