Answer is you don't include them. Section 23.4.4.6.3 ('13 ed)with related
handbook commentary is what you want to look at.On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Steven Scandaliato <[email protected]>wrote: > Dwight y et al, > I was waiting for someone to finally bring up this section...everyone needs > to stop and read this section. How many of you actually knew this was in > here? That’s right....someone actually requested a formal interpretation > regarding the need for sprinklers under conference tables because why??? > They are over 48"! Are you kidding me? The first time I read that back in > the early 80's I thought long and hard about getting back into beach > bartending. I would LOVE to dive head first into this subject....but maybe > 6 people would care and the rest would lose interest after the first 6 > pages.....As ridiculous as 8.5.5.3.2 sounds, it originated as a response to > a formal interpretation back in the late 70's. How it found its way into > the actual body of the text is because it was a formal > interpretation...cause God knows none of us would ask such a > question....right? > > Actually is wasn’t the question that killed me, it was the answer. Instead > of saying something like, "no, let's not get carried away" or "no cause we > don’t think there will ever be enough trash or ignition sources under > conference tables" they (the committee) came back with "no because its not > fixed"! AAAAHHH! Are you kidding me? I haven’t seen to many conference > tables that need to be bolted to the floor to call them fixed, but > nevertheless there it is...meaning, we are going to start putting sprig-ups > under conference room tables if they are determined to be "fixed"! > > So is it an exception or just something that gives us a false sense of > understanding. For example, because a duct that is 49" wide and is > obviously considered "fixed" requires a sprinkler, the fact that it is > only > 24" off the floor in a mechanical room changes things? This rule is my > favorite rule...and I could pontificate for hours...I need to settle down > and go get a glass of red.... For now, I think the appendix for 8.5.5.3.1 > gets us out of this one (overhead doors) and we can move onto something > else....unless of course you'd like to read 25 pages (not including > illustrations) of Sicilian rhetoric regarding the "Obstruction Rules for > Sprinklers; Life With the 4 Foot Rule"....LOL! Surely we all have better > things to do...like read the new phone book! > Ciao, > > Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS > 520.971.2322 Cell > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Dwight > Havens > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Sprinklers Below Overhead Doors > > But wait...8.5.5.3.1 only applies to fixed obstructions over 4 foot > wide...8.5.5.3.2 provides an exemption for obstructions that are not fixed, > such as roll-up doors. > > Dwight > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Steven Scandaliato <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 1:30 PM > Subject: RE: Sprinklers Below Overhead Doors > > > Wow...just a second....so how big does an obstruction have to be before it > will affect the operation? There's only a handful of guys that I would > classify knowledgeable enough to speculate such a statement. That's a > pretty > bold statement to make especially given the number of factors in play > including and most importantly ceiling height above the opened door... > > Let's step back a minute...we have a 4ft rule that has been around since > parchment paper and we have all swallowed the idea that as long as > something > isn't greater than 48" we are all safe, but at 49" people may die and > buildings may burn down. Agree or disagree with this untested rule...it is > what it is. Now, unknown to many, we now have some modeling and testing > that is currently being worked over in this cycle to introduce guidance for > clouds and gaps. However, until such time as that gets worked over and > argued about in committee, let's just stick with the 48" rule and leave it > at that...anything beyond that is pure beer and peanuts. Let's just say > sprinklers are required under the doors and yes, you can omit them. > 23.4.4.6.3.1 and 2. Hopefully we will have better info next edition. > > Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS > 520.971.2322 Cell > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony > Silva > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 11:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Sprinklers Below Overhead Doors > > Your question leads me to believe that you think only one head will operate > if the door was up. I don't believe the door will act as a heat collector > to > prevent the head at the ceiling from operating. True, the door when raised > will be an obstruction but the door being up or down won't have much of an > effect on the operation of the sprinkler heads. So why make a difference in > the method of calculation? > > Tony > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Hill" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 10:32:47 AM > Subject: Sprinklers Below Overhead Doors > > Question: Are sprinklers below overhead doors required to be included in > hydraulic calculations? > > When I first started in the industry, I was told that heads below overhead > doors were required to be included in the hydraulic calculations. The > reason > being, it was a temporary obstruction. The door could be up or down if a > fire broke out, unlike a large duct which was a permanent obstruction. > > I was recently questioned by a FPE as to why I included heads below the > door > in a hydraulic calculation. I explained my reasoning to him and he accepted > it. In his eyes I had proven a more demanding situation than was needed so > it didn't affect his stamping the plans. Flash forward a few weeks and to a > different project. I now have a much larger operating area and removing > these (11) heads from the calculation would help it greatly. I am providing > protection for a firehouse expansion on a military base. This calculation > is > in the apparatus bay. UFC requirements are in effect, ceiling height over > 20'-0" and it is sloped enough to require the 30% increase. The majority of > the piping being calculated is existing and to remain as is (if at all > possible). > > Using 2007 Edition of NFPA-13 (only one I have handy at the moment). > 8.5.5.3.1 Specifically mentions overhead doors need protection below. No > problem here. > > 22.2.2.6.3 Does not mention overhead doors when providing situations where > sprinklers can be omitted from hydraulic calculations. > > The wording in these sections seems to support what my mentors instilled in > my soft pliable mind all those years ago. > > What says the forum? > > Mike Hill > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
