I think Ed is right on the intent of code application.  The heads on the LH
side even if they fuse don't need as much water to control the lesser fuel
hazard that is below them.    

Right or wrong the code is clear as written. Put a wall up and you can
change design schemes, but you still have to calc a full RA.  It's the room
design that let's you go with a reduced RA when applicable.  Really that is
the only purpose of the room design to give an exception to a full RA which
is usually a holy grail of design.  

Room design deal with RA, 11.1.2 deals with density and spacing might be a
way to look at it.

Now I'll get you thinking even more...  

Note the requirement is to delay...fusing sprinklers not prevent.  The room
design method could be argued to prevent fusing sprinklers?  IDK?  

Also note 11.1.2 applies to all hazards not just LH and OH as in the room
design.  Arguably, a 3/8" plywood wall will DELAY the LH heads in the office
from fusing given a fire on the other side of ethyl methyl super combustible
flammables stored in infinitely light weight paper containers in multi row
racks infinitely high.  And even further it never even says wall it uses
"barrier" suggesting something other than a wall could be used.  How about a
good stiff breeze?  Could this be a barrier that DELAYS the heads from
fusing?  I'll have to go down to engineering and ask if the shuttle bay
force field also slows heat in addition to stopping air from rushing into
space.  

I'll even stretch it a little further.  I'm not sure 11.1.2 even presumes
both sides are even sprinklered or if so sprinklered correctly.  Remember
4.2 provides there, in theory, could be limited sprinklers.  Could use it in
a partiaially sprinklered area where you extend the LH into the
unsprinklered area or put up a wall to delay the unsprinklered fire from
fusing the LH heads. 

About all you can do as AHJ is argue to the judge the barrier will not DELAY
and if there is a wall of any sort you will have a tough time with that.  

The above is my code interpretation opinion which may or may not conflict
with my engineering opinion....   

Chris Cahill, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Sentry Fire Protection, Inc.
 
763-658-4483
763-658-4921 fax
 
Email: [email protected]
 
Mail: P.O. Box 69
        Waverly, MN 55390
 
Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW
              Waverly, MN 55390
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richardson, R
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Room Design vs. Adjacent Hazards

How could there be any confusion, kidding.  

In any case, that is not how we read this section, the section uses the term
""required sprinkler protection" that does not have to be extended to the
other side of the wall.  We interpret the term "required sprinkler
protection" to be all design considerations. 

IF the wall does not allow sprinklers on the other side to open, why would
you design them to be open?  If you did not trust the wall to meet this
criteria, you should not be using section 11.1.2 in the first place.

Thanks,

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:55
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Room Design vs. Adjacent Hazards

Rich, I think there is confusion as to what 11.1.2 is calling for.  I see
that section as telling us when to extend the more-demanding sprinkler
protection (spacing, density, etc) into adjacent areas that would otherwise
have less-demanding sprinkler protection - but not what sprinks to include
in our design area (be it room design method or otherwise).  Subtle but
major difference. 

Example 1: 600 sf OH room surrounded by light hazard.  The walls are not
rated and are built (in some odd way) so they don't prevent heat from a fire
in the OH room from activating sprinks beyond the OH room.  Per 11.2.3.3.3,
room design method can't be used.  So you end up calcing 1500 sf (+_).  The
sprinkler protection (spacing, density, etc) within the OH room AND 15'
BEYOND is .20 gpm/sf.  The sprinkler protection (spacing, density, etc) in
the remainder of the 1500 is .10 gpm/sf.

Example 2: 600 sf OH room surrounded by light hazard.  The walls are not
rated but are built so they don't allow heat from a fire in the OH room from
activating sprinks beyond the OH room.  Per 11.2.3.3.3, room design method
can't be used.  So you end up calcing 1500 sf (+_).  The sprinkler
protection (spacing, density, etc) within the OH room is .20 gpm/sf.  The
sprinkler protection (spacing, density, etc) in the remainder of the 1500 is
.10 gpm/sf.

Again, I don't think it's about what sprinks to calc, it about what
spacing/density etc are applicable.  Other sections tell us what sprinks to
calc.

On the other hand, I've yet to be told today that I'm wrong, so maybe I'm
due.

Ed Kramer
Littleton, CO 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Richardson, R
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Room Design vs. Adjacent Hazards
> 
> Unless you invoke section 11.1.2, in which case none of those features
> are required.
> 
> Rich Richardson
> Seattle Fire Department
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Tysinger
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:00
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Room Design vs. Adjacent Hazards
> 
> I would say you are correct. Additional heads flowing outside the
> "design room" are only applicable in light hazard where the doors are
> not automatic or self-closing (no rating required). In ordinary hazard
> rooms, there is no option, the doors must be rated and automatic or
> self-closing. In either hazard the walls must be rated to the duration
> of the water supply required.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric Tysinger CET
> NICET III - 108988
> Designer
> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
> 4370 Motorsport Drive
> Concord, NC 28027
> p: (704)782-3032 x1751
> f: (704)795-6838
> C: (239)633-9703
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of ParsleyConsulting
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Room Design vs. Adjacent Hazards
> 
> Rich,
> 
> Isn't that requirement in the room design method for additional head(s)
> flowing outside the room design area only applicable to Light Hazard?
> 
> I'm probably not understanding the issue, but that seems relevant to me
> from what I read in the room design paragraphs of -13.
> 
> --
> PARSLEY CONSULTING
> Ken Wagoner, SET
> 760.745.6181 voice
> 760.745.0537 fax
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail
> www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richardson, R wrote:
> > It does meet 11.1.2 (subject to a massive interpretation as to what
> constitutes adequate separation), but does not meet room design because
> the wall is not fire rated, the doors in the wall are not self-closing
> and they are not including two heads outside the OH area as required by
> room design.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:42
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Room Design vs. Adjacent Hazards
> >
> > Rich:
> >
> > How does your 600 Sf OH space not meet the requirements of 11.1.2(2)?
> And
> > still qualify for room design?
> >
> > Thom McMahon, SET
> > Firetech, Inc.
> > 2560 Copper Ridge Dr
> > P.O. Box 882136
> > Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
> > Tel:  970-879-7952
> > Fax: 970-879-7926
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Richardson, R
> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:33 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Room Design vs. Adjacent Hazards
> >
> > In reference to 2007 NFPA 13 section 11.1.2 Adjacent Hazards, is this
> > considered a stand-alone code section or does one still have to meet
> all of
> > the room design criteria.
> >
> > The question is relevant to a situation where a small ordinary hazard
> space
> > is app. 600 sq.ft. adjacent to a light hazard space and they are using
> > 11.1.2.
> >
> > It seems that section 11.1.2. essentially makes the room design
> irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rich Richardson
> > Seattle Fire Department
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:Sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]
> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:Sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]
> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:Sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]
> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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:Sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
> _______________________________________________
> 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:Sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
> _______________________________________________
> 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:Sprinklerforum-
> [email protected]
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

_______________________________________________
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)
_______________________________________________
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)

_______________________________________________
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)

Reply via email to