That is exactly the situation I'm working with Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2009, at 7:42 AM, "Damien Shannon" <qedsprinkl...@usa.com> wrote: > I think it had more to do with the approval on residential > sprinklers for > use with beams rather than increasing the number of sprinklers to be > installed. Actually I think 3'-4" is the magic number in this > situation > (George mentioned 3'-6"). > > My concept was based on the premise that due to the beam arrangement > was > preventing using residential sprinklers (which they allow for use > with beam > spacing 3'-4 to 6' spacing). The being the case, was needing to use > non > residential sprinklers, and therefore use non residential > calculation method > (using standard sprinklers using obstructed construction criteria). > > Damien Shannon. > QED Sprinkler Designs. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron > Greenman > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 9:21 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Room design method - Technical information > > I can't see the advantage of 13 room design over 13D unless you're > looking for the better system. If it's the few extra heads because of > the beams I don't see how that can increase costs enough to warrant > the effort of trying to get around the rules. He chose the > architecture. If that requires more sprinklers and he doesn't want to > change the "look" then certain rules of the road apply. Now if he > wants the added protection of a 13 system that's another story but if, > as you say, it's still residential then you apply the residential > rules of 13, not the room design rules. Am I missing something here? > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:07 AM, George Medina<fireg...@aol.com> > wrote: >> We are talking about a residential occupancy still. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 17, 2009, at 5:27 AM, <lamarvau...@charter.net> wrote: >> >>> Are we still talking about a residential occupancy? >>> >>> Lamar Vaughn >>> Vaughn & Company >>> >>> ---- Damien Shannon <qedsprinkl...@usa.com> wrote: >>>> My understanding would be: >>>> NFPA 13, 2007, 11.2.3.3.5 (2) would allow 8' wide with a 8" lintel >>>> for light >>>> hazard Room design to be considered an unprotected opening. i.e. >>>> you could >>>> still use room design but would have to calc your 'design room' >>>> and 2 >>>> sprinklers in each of the communicating spaces (that have >>>> unprotected >>>> openings). If the door into the other room on the 3rd floor could >>>> be >>>> considered 'Non-rated automatic or self closing doors' as stated in >>>> NFPA 13, >>>> 2007 section 11.2.3.3.5 (1), had your 8" lintel opening (opening >>>> restricted >>>> to 8' wide), you could calc the sprinklers in the design room and 2 >>>> sprinklers from the floor below floor. >>>> Alternatively, since it seems you have water supply to be >>>> considering the >>>> additional sprinklers required for the communicating spaces with >>>> the room >>>> design, if you were doing .1/1500 design, would the required area >>>> of >>>> operation not be limited to a given floor and would that extra room >>>> on the >>>> 3rd floor have more than 2 sprinklers? If the 2nd room on the 3rd >>>> floor has >>>> only 2 sprinklers (depending on spacing/flow requirements), it >>>> may be >>>> comparitable to the room design you may be able to justify the calc >>>> without >>>> your friend installing auto closing doors, lintel and reducing the >>>> 12' >>>> opening. >>>> A lot of ifs for you. >>>> >>>> Damien Shannon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org >>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >>>> George Medina >>>> Jr >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:26 PM >>>> To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org >>>> Cc: msingletonf...@sbcglobal.net >>>> Subject: Room design method - Technical information >>>> >>>> ?I am trying to help a contractor friend with a residential fire >>>> sprinkler >>>> system originally designed per NFPA-13D using Tyco 'LF-II' 4.9K. >>>> His client has areas where the beams are spaced less than 3'-6" and >>>> are 8" >>>> in Depth . He can not ( or does not) want to change the beam >>>> depth or >>>> spacing if possible so I inquired with the local AHJ about changing >>>> it to a >>>> regular NFPA-13 system and using the room design method (so as to >>>> use quick >>>> response heads near the bottom of the beams). I got the ok for that >>>> part, >>>> but the room configuration doesn't quite fit the code >>>> configuration. The >>>> most remote and demanding area is a third floor room (loft?) which >>>> has two >>>> compartments one being opened to the 2nd floor below. By reading >>>> the section >>>> on 'Room Design Method' it appears the main concern is keeping the >>>> heat in 1 >>>> room long enough to activate all the heads in it and possibly 1 or >>>> 2 heads >>>> near the unprotected opening. It appears that it would meet all >>>> other >>>> aspects of the code but the only difference being that the high >>>> room area >>>> has a 12' wide opening on the 2nd floor to an adjoin room (10' >>>> below the >>>> high ceiling). Is there a >>>> ny research data on the 'Room Design Method' where the mathematics >>>> and >>>> science required the 8" lintel and/or 8' maximum width of >>>> unprotected >>>> opening? Any suggestions? (besides walking away from it). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> George Medina Jr. >>>> Sr. Fire Sprinkler Designer >>>> 95-1015 Ka'apeha Pl. >>>> Mililani, HI 96819 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>>> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > techsupp...@firesprinkler.org >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >>>> requ...@firesprinkler.org >>>> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >>>> signature >>>> database 4252 (20090717) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >>>> signature >>>> database 4252 (20090717) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >>>> signature >>>> database 4252 (20090717) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>>> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > techsupp...@firesprinkler.org >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >>>> requ...@firesprinkler.org >>>> (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: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org >>> >>> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >>> requ...@firesprinkler.org >>> (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: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >> requ...@firesprinkler.org >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering > Bates Technical College > Tacoma, WA > > Member: > SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > requ...@firesprinkler.org > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature > database 4254 (20090717) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature > database 4254 (20090717) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature > database 4254 (20090717) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > requ...@firesprinkler.org > (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: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
