>From a modeling point in attempting to reflect reality, we can only address >activation of the first sprinkler. As such drop reducing the spacing. We >should add reducing the distance between the deflector and the ceiling. A >more meaningful reference for activation is in regard to the same RHR point >for the different fire curves.
I believe, as Ron F said, it's all about activation. A big variance does exist without a change in design criteria such as between unobstructed construction with a sprinkler 2" down from the ceiling verses obstructed construction and a sprinkler 22" below the ceiling. Nonetheless, regardless of what we think since none of us were there when the TC concocted these particular rules, it will be a challenge to arrive at a solid, defendable conclusion. That's never stopped us before so damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Oct 2, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > I see a paradox when thought about together, from a modeling standpoint-- if > I want to make a head activate faster I can; 1) make the fire bigger, 2) > move the head closer to the fire (lower the ceiling), or 3) put the head > closer to other heads (reduce the spacing). Since OH fires are hotter than > LH fires the head activation takes longer for LH, so I should space LH heads > closer together and OH heads could be spaced farther apart, but this is > backwards as far as coverage in terms of density goes! _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
