Todd, And you can see where my rant came from: How the hell are you supposed to do it? Best practice or best guess? Prescription? Doesn't exist. Performance? Based on what? My advice is grab both cheeks real tight, pray to Allah, Jesus, Bozo, or wherever you place your face that there's no fire, you're dead before there's a fire or that it works. Good luck. And remeber you're getting Bill Gates bucks for this. Riiight as Cosby said :-)
On 5/24/08, Todd Williams - FPDC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > -- 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)
