Todd: Thanks for your response, and I agree with you on the additional water required due to the minimum discharge criteria, but I think my confusion comes from the assumption that the same square feet area is protected by 2x the number of sprinklers and since sometimes small areas such as closets are not included in the calculations, this duplication on the pattern would not necessitate the re-calc. However I'm following your advice and will recalculate. By the way the remote area is in fact at the third floor level, this condition arose at the basement level. Thanks again for your help.
Eladio Alvarado Fire Protection Systems Inc. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Hydraulic Calculations Eladio, This should be calculated. For one thing, the new arrangement may now be the most hydraulically remote. Assuming that the protection requirements will not change, with 12x14 spacing and 0.1 density, you will be flowing 16.8 gpm per sprinkler. However, with the 6x14 spacing, the minimum 7 psi requirement will kick in and you will need to flow 14.8 gpm per sprinkler. Before you had X sprinklers calculated flowing 16.8 gpm each (min), now you will have 2X sprinklers flowing at 14.8 gpm each. A whole lot more water. Do the math. At 04:27 AM 11/19/2008, you wrote: >Forum: > I would appreciate insight into the following questions. If I have a Light >Hazard room where the original design set sprinklers in a pattern of 12 x 14 >ft, now they have introduced book racks taller than the original proposed >thus requiring that this pattern and already installed pipe be altered to >accommodate more sprinklers within the shelving units, sprinklers will now >be located 6 x 14 ft pattern. The basic change will be achieved by >installing 2 sprinklers from each of the originally installed outlets. The >AHJ (A/E) is now requiring hydraulic calculations to justify the additional >sprinklers. This area is not the most remote area of the project, so the >question is; Aside from the fact that the changes do not affect the >hydraulically calculated area, we argue that hydraulic calculations are >based on area or room coverage and not in number of sprinklers, so since we >have proved that we meet the required density with sprinklers that cover 168 >Sq. Ft., it is not necessary that we revise these calculations to show >density on sprinklers now covering 84 Sq. Ft. instead. >Am I right? > >Eladio Alvarado >Fire Protection Systems Inc. > > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >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 http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
