While I realize the CONTRACTUAL differences -and cost impact that should be, from what was presented here, recoverable as a change (increase) in scope post-bid, I certainly think that FM's requirements on ESFR are probably the most accurate, being based on test data, field experience, and they are not muddied by the process required of the minimum concensus standard that can change pure engineering data and recommendations based upon it.
Certainly there is a diffference between code and FM Global recommendations, but when it comes to ESFR, I think FM wrote the book and I'd be careful when deviating from their bible. Sure, cost impacts need to be included, but an intelligent Owner should agree to the extras, or at least consider them. George Church Rowe Sprinkler -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: ESFR heads at airflow openings Ok, so do you have roof or sidewall exhaust fans? Any intake plenums with diffusers, or just an open intake? What are the sizes of the fan intakes? If the fans are roof mounted is the opening level with the underside of the roof (no plenum), and what relative distance is there (vertically) between the sprinkler and intake? Some AHJ's and others think that meeting FM is required just like it's another Code. 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
