Just a reminder, Bill, that dwgs are reviewed for compliance with the Standard, not for what the Standard shoulda woulda coulda said :)
Your pal, glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brooks, Bill Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:35 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Burning Ring of Fire (and the Flames Shot Higher) I laid out a 11.4 x 11.4 pattern (130 sq ft) and drew three rings. 1st ring included 4 sprinklers (520 sq ft). 2nd ring included 12 sprinklers (1520 sq ft). 3rd ring included 24 sprinklers (3120 sq ft). The numbers are comparable to NFPA ~1500 sq ft and the DoD ~ 3000 sq ft. The ring theory makes sense in this context. NFPA is looking for a two ring design and DoD is looking for a three ring design? Was this purposeful? If so it provides the basis for the 1500 sq ft minimum design area. Using this approach, the 900 sq ft design looks like it has a very small margin of error. If we have this two ring NFPA design, what led to the development of the area/density curves where density is decreased as design area is increased? Bill Brooks Pittsburgh, PA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Hankins Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Burning Ring of Fire (and the Flames Shot Higher) Bill, You are correct. Sometimes politics prevails. Joe Brooks, Bill wrote: >Joe, > >I thought I understood your train of thought until I started considering the >area reduction for quick response sprinklers. How many rings are there with >a 10 ft ceiling height QR design? 900 sq ft or 5 heads. > >Can I conclude the ring theory falls apart when this design approach is >used? It looks like you don't have your 1 ring cushion in this case. > >Bill Brooks >Pittsburgh, PA _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
