Here is the quandary. Figure 8.6.4.1.3.1(b) defines S as the distance
along the slope over the peak. Section 8.6.3.4.1 says sprinklers
shall not be spaced less that 6 ft. It does not define how the 6 ft
shall be defined. If you follow the slope, it would be OK, but if it
is in a horizontal line, it wouldn't. The argument could be made that
I am meeting the criteria by measuring the slope over the peak as
specified in the standard. However, will there be a potential
interference by one sprinkler on another? When sprinklers are
installed along a slope this steep and they operate at 7 psi, how
skewed is the umbrella pattern? Is it distorted enough so this is not
an issue? What's a poor engineer to do on a Friday afternoon before
an alleged holiday weekend whthis?en the contractor is screaming for
drawings and a cut list? Am I over thinking
At 03:04 PM 5/23/2008, you wrote:
Then that's very new. It was only a few months ago I last called Tyco on
this. They absolutely say only attics. No actual occupancy below. And
they quit at 12/12. I couldn't get the why out of them. Either they didn't
do parts of the UL199 test like the pans or they tried it and it didn't
work. My bet is they tried it in their lab and something wouldn't pass the
test like density minimums in each pan. But I speculate.
We've run perpendicular to the ridge line down the truss and used sidewalls
spraying parallel to the ridge line. But I don't think that helps you. Do
you have a peak line and then start the spacing down the slopes or do you
have 2 lines at the same elevation at the high point and those are your
problem. If so can you get a peak line in to substitute for the 2 lines.
Probably a place where a picture does good.
In a round about way I also think you expose a flaw in the UL199. They test
for closeness at the same elevation but in reality adjacent basic heads
could be 11" different. Often wondered if that was a problem. And 28/12
certainly creates a mess. And there is no testing on slopes that I know of.
Chris Cahill, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Sentry Fire Protection, Inc.
763-658-4483
763-658-4921 fax
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: P.O. Box 69
Waverly, MN 55390
Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW
Waverly, MN 55390
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: steep pitch roofs
Could you use Attic sprinklers at the peak? They accomplish the same
intent as sidewalls at the peak, and have actually been tested in that
configuration.
Joe
Todd Williams - FPDC wrote:
> I am working on a historic church sanctuary with a pitch of
> approximately 28/12. The arrangement calls for branch lines to be
> symmetrical on each side, similar to NFPA 13 (2002) figure
> 8.6.4.1.3.1(b). I can meet the requirements for the steeply pitched
> roof section 8.6.4.1.3.3 and my "S" distance over the peak is good,
> but my straight line distance between sprinklers would be less than 6
> ft and the deflectors would be effectively pointing the discharge
> towards the sprinkler on the opposite side. I think I have a problem
> here, but I am not sure how to address it. Any thoughts?
>
> Todd G. Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, Connecticut
> www.fpdc.com
> 860.535.2080 _______________________________________________
> 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)
Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
www.fpdc.com
860.535.2080
_______________________________________________
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)
