Agreed. For the sprinkler to activate, the ceiling needs to be there for both fuel sources: debris or hydraulic fluid.
John, now as to your contention that most times the car rests at the terminal floor, I guess your luck with elevators is better than mine. Seems whenever I go into to a multi-story building, the elevators are all near the top of the building!! I would still love to hear from contractors as to how many of those sidewalls they have changed due to a fire in the pit. And, George, I know about that form in the back of the book, so if I get the data I will submit the proposal to 13. -- David de Vries, P.E., CSP Firetech Engineering Incorporated [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- Original message -------------- From: "John Drucker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > David, > > The same "no ceiling" situation would hold true for fires involving > combustible hydraulic fluids. But consider that most times an elevator car > "rests" at the terminal floor at or a floor above the pit creating the > requisite thermal barrier. > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official > New Jersey > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David de > Vries/Firetech > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: hydraulic elevators > > Bill: > > You raise a good point -- what is the fire loss experience in elevator > shafts? > > Do we have a history of such fires? (Probably do, with debris then cigarets > dropped down the gap between the cab and the floor.) > How often does a sidewall sprinkler activate when there is such a fire? > Was the elevator cab at its lowest position such that heat from the fire > could activate the sprinkler? (If we have no "ceiling" to direct the heat > to the sprinkler, unless the fire is directly below the sprinkler, it will > probably not activate.) > > If no contractor on this forum has ever been called out to restore a system > (change out the one sidewall sprinkler) after a fire in the pit of an > elevator, hydraulic or traction, then the 13 committee needs to know. Maybe > we can do without one there. > > -- > David de Vries, P.E., CSP > Firetech Engineering Incorporated > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: "Brooks, Bill" > > > Nothing the committee does is contradictory (by definition)! It only > > appears contradictory until there is an explanation that makes the > apparent > > contradiction plausible. > > > > So... > > > > It appears the committee is saying: > > > > 1. Debris - combustible fluid = no hazard > > 2. Debris + combustible fluid = hazard > > > > By itself, any quantity of accumulated debris is not a hazard. Wouldn't > > this be borne out by past experience? Does this remove the contradiction? > > > > Bill Brooks > > Pittsburgh, PA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John > > Drucker > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 1:42 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: hydraulic elevators > > > > > > The NFPA-13 hoistway pit suppression requirement is contradictory. The > > explanatory material states; " The sprinklers in the pit are intended to > > protect against fires caused by debris, which can accumulate over time." > > The exception permits the omission of sprinklers in hoistway pits that > > are enclosed, of non combustible construction and that do not contain > > combustible hydraulic fluids. So what happened to the debris ?. The > > removal of combustible hydraulic fluids does not alleviate the debris > > issue. A hazard still exists. > > > > Additionally the non combustible fluid issue is not addressing hydraulic > > elevators but rather traction elevators that don't utilize hydraulics as > > their means of locomotion. > > > > John Drucker > > Fire Protection Subcode Official > > New Jersey > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland > > Huggins > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 1:17 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: hydraulic elevators > > > > the problem with hydraulic oil is not how well it burns in standard > > liquid form (ie flash point). It's when a small leak occurs under > > pressure and you get atomized oil spraying out. As a comparison, > > grain dust laying on the ground is not that big a deal but when > > floating in the air, can go boom. > > > > Roland > > > > On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Loren Johnson wrote: > > > > > In my dealings with FM Global, their Approval Guide > > > does list manufacturers who have a less hazardous type > > > of hydraulic fluid, which has a higher flash point > > > than normal hydraulic fluids. FM indicates that these > > > too will burn under certain conditions, but the fire > > > risk has been reduced to an acceptable degree. > > > > > > Loren Johnson - CFPS, CET > > > Fire Protection Systems Consultant > > > The Hitchcock Company > > > Peoria, IL > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >> I had been told by one elevator inspector that there > > >> was an FM approved > > >> hydraulic media that was non-combustible and if that > > >> was being used the > > >> sprinkler in the pit could be deleted. > > >> > > >> On the other hand in another jurisdiction I was told > > >> that regardless of > > >> the hydraulic media used that we were to provide a > > >> sprinkler in the pit > > >> due to the possible accumulation of miscellaneous > > >> debris which could > > >> catch fire. > > >> > > >> > > >> Isn't it wonderful to be in an industry where > > >> everything is so black and > > >> white? ;) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Craig L. Prahl, CET > > >> Fire Protection Group > > >> Mechanical Department > > >> CH2MHILL > > >> Lockwood Greene > > >> 1500 International Drive > > >> PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > > >> Direct - 864.599.4102 > > >> Fax - 864.599.8439 > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> http://www.lg.com > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > >> Behalf Of George > > >> Church > > >> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:41 AM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: RE: hydraulic elevators > > >> > > >> Perhaps everyone else in the area installs to #13R ? > > >> Perhaps a call to the local AHJ(s) would clear up > > >> whether you're the > > >> only one doing it correctly, in which case maybe > > >> your competitors will > > >> be a little dismayed to find themselves going back > > >> and retrofitting > > >> their bottoms. The call to the AHJ(s) could be > > >> two-fold: ask them if > > >> they believe it should be required; and ask WHY it > > >> is not- you may find > > >> in the near future you're no longer alone in the > > >> shaft. > > >> > > >> George Church > > >> Rowe Sprinkler > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > >> Behalf Of David de > > >> Vries/Firetech > > >> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:30 AM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: hydraulic elevators > > >> > > >> Pat on the back to the only contractor in the area > > >> complying with this > > >> provision of 13. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> David de Vries, P.E., CSP > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> -------------- Original message -------------- > > >> From: "Greg McGahan" > > >> > > >>> > > >>> We are receiving mixed reviews from AHJ's > > >> regarding this issue: Are > > >>> sprinklers required in the bottom of hydraulic > > >> elevator shafts? > > >>> > > >>> I know what the code says but we have never been > > >> able to document that > > >> > > >>> ANY > > >> > > >>> hydraulic elev fluid is non-combustible by > > >> definition. I was informed > > >>> this > > >> > > >>> morning that we are the only contractor in the > > >> area putting sprinklers > > >> > > >>> in the bottom of these shafts. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Greg McGahan > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > >> > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
