There is no "architect of the remodel" or FPE or anything else. There
is a church building committee and a sprinkler contractor. That is
it. There was no thought or preplanning involved. Somebody in the
church said sprinklers would be a good idea and they called a
contractor. The AHJ doesn't care about it because sprinklers are not
required by Code. This is how things are done in the land of nutmeg.
I also have two chemical plants that are being handled the same way.
Sell them a Butler Building and hire a contractor to put sprinklers
in it. And the contractors go along with this and leave it to the
designers to sort out the details. Maybe you see where my rant of
yesterday came from. The someone who has to sort this out is me. By Tuesday.
At 11:59 AM 5/24/2008, you wrote:
Joe,
And your last line sums it all up. You have a building code that
references a standard that says sprinklered throughout. You have a
prescription supposedly based on testing or standard practices
developed from years of observation. (Remember that the Wright's big
accomplishment wasn't so much powered flight but the realization that
control in the air was in three axis instead of two, determined by
observation of the successes (birds) and the failures (Lillenthal, et.
al.) that came before them.) And the prescription doesn't address all
situations. We encounter these steep pitches all the time but not
often enough (I'm guessing) for a manufacturer to pay for full fire
tests to list a head for these applications. In fact we see this kind
of stuff all the time but not often enough to justify developing
product for it. Throw it back to the architect/engineer? This doesn't
accomplish good fire protection, it merely shifts burden and
liability, albeit to the guy that should have it and been concerned
and knowledgeable about it in the beginning. Not in this particular
case of course since the original design pre-dates sprinklers, but
certainly the architect of the remodel should have addressed this
question. Oh, but I forgot, the engineering is usually left to the
layout tech. And even if the architect hired an FPE is there anyone
out there reading this right now that would state that a certain
arrangement will definitively work in this case. Doesn't sound like it
so far. I'd even guess it would be easier to find a PE specializing in
plumbing to do that before you'd find a hungry enough FPE. Since the
dawn of building things we've had failures. So much so that the first
building code is Hammurabi's, and it has nothing about how to build,
but just the punishments for building poorly. Over the millennia we've
developed mathematics that allow us to predict how materials will work
under certain conditions and so we can throw $800M at a bridge over
the Tacoma Narrows and feel 99.9% sure that all will be well. We're
not that far with fire modeling yet. And yet someone has to decide
where these sprinklers are going to be located and what type based on
extrapolation of language developed for a different situation and an
educated guess or two (or maybe just a guess),
On 5/24/08, Joe Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There has been very, very little testing with sloped roofs. The
problem with
> your idea is that simply flowing water from a sprinkler and seeing if it
> hits an adjacent one doesn't answer the skipping question. It has
to be done
> under actual fire conditions. It is the combination of the fire plume and
> discharge (and the resulting cooling at adjacent sprinklers) that
> determines if skipping will occur. (the 6 ft distance has not been
> determined to work. it was chosen years ago more or less arbitrarily. In
> fact, in actual fire tests, severe skipping has occurred many times with
> spacing greater than 6 ft, and baffles were of little help in those
> situations.)
>
> The dilemma with this application is not skipping due to discharge from
> adjacent sprinklers, but getting sprinklers to operate . Any approach that
> does not include a line of sprinklers at the roof peak is very unlikely to
> be effective.
> Sometimes you have to just accept that NFPA 13 doesn't address all
> situations you're going to see in the field and you have to kick it back to
> the architect/engineer to decide what they want.
>
>
> Joe
>
> Todd Williams - FPDC wrote:
>
> > I had another thought. How much testing has been done on pitched roofs?
> There has to be a point where sprinklers impact each other when the
> deflectors are not parallel and it is probably a function of angle and
> distance. When the deflectors area parallel, the 6 ft distance has been
> determined as an acceptable minimum. As the angle between deflectors
> increases and the spray starts to point towards adjacent heads, would the
> acceptable distance likewise increase? You have spray that is pointing at
> adjacent sprinklers and at some angle, interference is going to occur. This
> would occur with both arrangements in 8.6.4.1.3.1. Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 10:09 PM 5/23/2008, you wrote:
> >
> > > Todd,
> > >
> > > Nothing, to my knowledge, is approved for such a steep slope. I
> suggested the attic sprinklers in response to the suggestion for sidewall
> sprinklers at the peak. My only intent was to suggest that, if you're going
> to go beyond the defined limits of a type of sprinkler, you should at least
> start with a type that at least is intended to work in a similar
> application. I can't say that the attic sprinklers will work, but if they
> won't, sidewall sprinklers at the peak certainly won't work either.
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > Todd Williams - FPDC wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joe, Attic sprinklers aren't approved for slopes greater then 12:12
> and I have about 28:12. Also, I didn't think you could use attic sprinklers
> in occupied spaces.
> > > >
> > > > This is an occupied space (church sanctuary) not a concealed one.
> Also, this is a historic building (c. 1859) and is very architecturally
> sensitive. The pipe is exposed and soffits and baffles are not an option.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 02:27 PM 5/23/2008, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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)
> > >
> >
> > 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)
>
--
Ron Greenman
at home....
_______________________________________________
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)
