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
