I aware of the data and experience out there on the European front. But unfortunately that is of no help here in the good old US of A.
FM has approved some systems for very limited applications, but generally, inspectors and AHJ's alike have little to no experience with the systems or the technology. >From the testing videos I saw and information gathered, these system >replicated a gaseous based type of extinguishing methodology moreso than the >typical water based sprinkler system. But their fuel loading was a bit light >in comparison to a real life application and I wondered if a one shot type of >system would be adequate in something like an office or light mfg. >environment. I didn't see any type testing of those environments. A wooden >pallet in a concrete bunker doesn't really represent the typical kind of >hazard I'm designing for. 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 Stewart Kidd Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: high pressure water mist vs NFPA 13: 175:psig systems Craig There's plenty of data and experience out there if you look beyond the US. Not all mist systems need pumps - I have been responsible for a number where all that was needed was two cylinders of water and one of nitrogen. There is a draft EN (European Standard) 14972 for mist systems. We are developing our own in the UK draft BS (British Standards) for both residential (BS 8458) and industrial/commercial (BS 8459) being well advanced. Don't overlook the work and publications produced by FM. Sadly, I find NFPA 750 of little use in writing specifications. While mist will never be a replacement for sprinklers in wide area applications we cannot ignore the fact that in some occupancies they do offer significant advantages providing you can live with the fact that each system has to be specifically engineered for the risk and that it is not just a matter of applying NFPA 13 or EN 12845 and following well established principles. It's worth noting that US conglomerate UTC (which owns many fire protection names) recently purchased Marioff OY of Finland who are the world's largest specialist mist company. Happy New Year to all Stewart >I dealt with some water mist on a couple of European projects last >year. After doing some research into the system it appears that for LH >and OH it beat standard spray type sprinklers in the time to extinguish >a fire hands down. The systems had not been tested for anything above >OH. > >No one wants to be the guinea pig and these systems have not been with >any great regularity or acceptance in the States. The other issue is >we always seem to be chasing water supply issues and a water mist >delivers it's discharge at a much higher pressure than most LH and OH >systems would require. So, you would end up needing a pump on systems >that may normally not require one otherwise. Added cost. Other issue >is limited experience with the systems on the part of designers and >contractor's alike. > >There's virtually nothing in the building codes referencing water mist >systems, not that they couldn't be submitted as a substitute system >but someone would have to have a really good reason to go that route >instead of standard NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. > > > >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 å... .... >Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:11 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: high pressure water mist vs NFPA 13: 175:psig systems > >Why does it seem I don´t hear what seems like a >lot about water mist installation questions in >the US? > >Is water mist too expensive versus NFPA 13? > >Is it that water mist is not as familiar to contractors (likely)? > >Is it that water mist is not as widely endorsed by the Building Codes? > > >My perception is that water mist will take >longer to control a fire than a NFPA 13 system >would, for fire hazards in the LH to OH-1 >sprinkler classification. I have been corrected >on this perception by several people. > >I am wondering about peoples perceptions and >experiences with installing water mist systems >in OH-1 fire occupancies: > > successes, drawbacks, comparisons... > > >scot deal >excelsior fire engineering >_______________________________________________ >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) >_______________________________________________ >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) _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
