I have done lots of wood TJI 3 story buildings per NFPA 13 where the residential wings are calced 4 heads under the residential rules and the corridor per the corridor rules, usually 5 heads. Is there a epidemic across the US where sprinklered buildings are burning down under these circumstances? What is the justification to implement the 3,00 s.f. rules to residential design rules? I think we try too hard sometimes to cover every possible situation under god green earth.
Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS Burtell Fire Protection, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.burtellfire.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: residential heads in a 13 system I've given up on trying to predict what the TC would do. Unless a hook can be found to LOOSELY attach it to a proposal, only the TIA route is open for this cycle. This cycle being the 2010 edition. Since this is an explicit KNOWN allowance in the standard, it would be challenging to legitimately claim that it is an emergency. It can still move forward without that part passing but it's harder. No one called it a flaw. Some of the things said were: It defies logic (guess who -lol) and apparently the magical residential sprinkler doesn't have the same problem. I am not claiming anything here but some things inadvertently happen. For instance, we took a sprinkler that was developed for regular residential dwellings and then allowed it to be applied in a high rise building. This was when the fire test for its listing stopped at 10 minutes. This remained the case until another test lab raised questions about rooms flashing over during lab tests at the 0.035 densities levels. This lead to changes to the allowed foams used for the test. Additionally a minimum discharge of 0.05 was imposed (just like when we once allowed less than 7 psi for residential sprinklers) as well as having to calculate it at 0.1 using the SXL method. Some time later the test was also extended to 30 minutes but that didn't really impact things like the other changes. BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. The 3,000 sf has been part of 13 a long time under the occupancy hazard approach. Back when we had NFPA 231C etc, it was questionable whether it applied even to storage. That was resolved in the 2007 edition when it was added to chap 12. Once residential was recognized as being acceptable for all residential dwelling including 13 systems, it was added as an alternate and equally acceptable approach to using spray sprinklers. The link to the 3000 sf issue was not part of the change so laid dormant. It IS a known issue and as identified in the Sprinkler Handbook, the 3000 sf does not apply. Having said that, I am going to be shocked if it doesn't change (though not necessarily this cycle). Truth be told, though, how many 13 systems using residential have non- protected concealed combustible spaces? Never say never but the lower height buildings get almost all the trade-up using a 13R so why do a 13 (yes there is always site driven issues in SoCal etc) and the high rises being Type I, how often is this an issue. I did start that as a rhetorical question but makes sense to ask the Forum for their experience. After all, during the recent ROP meeting when discussing Boat Storage I commented that Boat storage often uses the rack to support the roof whereas warehouses don't. Guess I should have said it didn't back when I was directly involved with them. Roland On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Thom McMahon wrote: > Roland: > If the Committee is considering changes to the Res. / 3000 Sf > application area, would that come as a TIA to the 2007, or wait for > the next full cycle? > I was talking to another committee member that thought it would > move pretty fast, to correct what they saw as a flaw. > Thom McMahon > Firetech, Inc. > _______________________________________________ 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)
