Thanks for the enlightenment, Roland. You certainly deserve a PhD (and we're glad you do!) I'm jealous, I'm still working on an MS (More of the Same)
Ed Kramer Littleton, CO > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 11:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: NFPA 13 Building with residential heads > > My turn on the box > > Allow me to suggest you broader your stance on why the residential > also requires 0.10. Your statement is mostly correct BUT that bit of > history was driven by a different cause. Remember way back to the > end of the last decade when we were down to a resultant density of > around 0.032 gpm/sf for residential sprinklers. A hoopla arouse > regarding labs performing repeat tests on listed sprinklers that did > not control the fire. This resulted in a change in the Expanded FOAM > used by the labs to simulate furniture as part of UL 1626 for listing > residential sprinklers. It turned out that the prior foam had heat > release rates that varied greatly. This also resulted in a change in > 13D/R that defined a minimum density of 0.05 gpm/sf. A secondary > realization was that the test duration in UL1626 was only 10 > minutes. This aligned perfectly with the goal of 13D but shall we > say is lacking for a high rise condo. Although we had NO loses > attributed to this issue we needed better correlation between the > testing of the sprinkler and it application. A reasonable and > immediate fix was to require a 0.1 gpm/sf to be applied concurrent to > the listing criteria and apply which ever produced the greater > demand. This provided assurance that we had adequate life safety AND > property protection. > > Since then UL 1626 has been expanded to a 30 minute duration fire > test but the hybrid spray-residential sprinkler approach is not going > anywhere. > > You can have your box back but wear boots since I sometimes pile it > kinda high. Can I be awarded a PhD (Pile it Higher & Deeper) > > Roland (happy with a BS - with not providing) > > On Apr 18, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Ed Kramer wrote: > >> > > Property protection is property protection, whether the sprinkler > > used is a SSP or residential. That's the exact reason why a .10 gpm/ > > sf density is required when using residential sprinklers. So even > > though I don't think the 3,000 sf DA is required, I think it should > > be. > > > > Exit soapbox, stage right. > > Ed Kramer > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > [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)
