I guess all you can do is come up with the best solution with the
situation given and move to a country that doesn't have an
extradition treaty with the US.
At 03:02 PM 5/25/2008, you wrote:
If intervention is what we're waiting for, call a FPE, and hope they'll seal
what the put on paper. Yeah it will cost ya, but it sure does spread the
blame latter.
Or you could just pray that a tornado blows the building down before fire
get's to it.
Or to fall back on my favorite! Have the AHJ approve your drawings after
specifically noting that the application is outside the standard, and
requires his approval, right on the drawings. Then at least your standing on
that tite rope with one foot, as some lawyer hits it with a bat, trying to
knock you off.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 11:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: steep pitch roofs
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)
_______________________________________________
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)
