Isn't an issue of 5 psi really a non issue? I mean, you generally have an AHJ
mandated safety factor (or should) of 5-10%, a hose allowance that may or may
not be used, plus calculations that are based upon Hazen-Williams which in
itself is not as accurate as other methods and provides an additional safety
margin.
Not only that but there are usually design options as well. Perhaps the remote
area could be re-evaluated - maybe there's that head in the closet that really
doesn't need to be included in the calcs, maybe looping a few of the
branchlines in the most demanding area would solve things, changing BFP to a
more friendly friction loss model, did the hydraulics program use the modified
equivalent lengths based upon NFPA #13 or were these considerably rounded up by
default (I've seen that)? Could changing sprinklers to larger / smaller orifice
help, sliding up and down the design density curve to meet actual calculated
sq. ft'g (if no reductions are taken) etc..
Even without consideration of the above it would seem that 5 psi is not lawsuit
material - at least to me. As long as this is not storage or extra hazard I
don't see what the big deal is.
-Ralphy
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.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)
