But to answer your original post, Brad, YES, the 30% increase is for the anticipated fire growth due to the delay in water delivery.
I won't argue that an engineered solution as Scott F suggests isn't a great idea, but for those of us not entitled to an opinion, we look to #13 and we see how many sprinklers on how many levels at an end head pressure, and we flow em, balance to the roof with its 30% increase, and run with the minimum consensus prescriptive answer already there. Our building code, IBC as adopted by PA, doesn't require us to read into the standard and GUESS if the TC contemplated the situation or didn't-. That's what we do here, throwing the combined brainpower of ideas synergistically propelling us toward bs or the right answer, depending on the day, until those who either KNOW the TC intent (and might have membership on Stds Council?) tell us some background, or what's in the works. But for those of us with CET rather than PE or FPE, what's written in 13 is what we follow. If it says flow 6 sprinklers on each of two levels, that's twelve sprinklers, not eight and eight. BTW, has anyone noticed a dramatic difference in the ignorance level of some of the Linked-In Group questions (compared to our little forum here)? I need to stay off them- if you've worked with FM Global, for example, would you agree with the guy who said he wondered how FM could get away with strong-arming American businesses with whatever was good for FM without a care about how much it cost the insured, and he hoped for the pendulum of intelligent design to swing the other way? Jeez, if you know anything about FM, they DO know a little about proper fire protection, they DO actually test things and develop valid criteria, I'll stop here since I'll assume I'm preaching to the choir. I'm not saying I agree with everything FM does, but I sure don't think their typical customer is strong-armed like a bunch of cowering small shopkeepers with the mob selling protection in their neighborhood, there are some reasonably intelligent people in risk management looking at the dollars invested into protecting their assets. Rant <OFF> George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: dry-pipe with in-rack/ceiling protection of Class IV to > 25 ft in open racks Apples and oranges. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: dry-pipe with in-rack/ceiling protection of Class IV to > 25 ft in open racks we have an example of increasing number of heads with attic heads: 5 for wet and 7 for dry -----Original Message----- From: Brad Casterline [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:26 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: dry-pipe with in-rack/ceiling protection of Class IV to > 25 ft in open racks 30% more sprinkler water required due to the fire being 30% bigger due to time delay? -----Original Message----- From: ParsleyConsulting [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: dry-pipe with in-rack/ceiling protection of Class IV to > 25 ft in open racks Scott, I think Scot Deal raised an interesting question. He's correct in the increase in area of 30%, per 12.5.1, but the question remains, if we have in-rack sprinklers, do we increase the number of them flowing in a dry system calculation? If so, why? If not, why not? The table Scot referenced doesn't allow the use of CMDA sprinklers without in-racks as well, so what do we do about the number flowing in the calc? Anyone have input on the answer? 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 On 5/31/2012 10:13 AM, Scott A Futrell wrote: > Scot, > > I don't see anything that sends you back to 11.2.3.2.5 to increase the in-rack design requirement by 30%. 11.2.3.2.5 is an area of sprinkler operation increase, not a number of design sprinklers increase. Intuitively, yes. Prescriptive, no. > > Scott Futrell > > (763) 425-1001 x 12 Office > (612) 759-5556 Cell > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of å... .... > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: dry-pipe with in-rack/ceiling protection of Class IV to> 25 ft in open racks > > 2010 NFPA 13 > > When one uses dry-pipe with combination in-rack/ceiling sprinklers to protect Class IV to greater than 25 ft per Table 16.3.1.1, the 30% increase applies to both in-rack and overhead sprinklers, yes? > > scot deal > excelsior fire > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL:<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120601/1810b32c/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
