Go back to those old examples of fixed cutting tables that accompany that rule. Meat--It's the fat that accumulates under the table to be swept up and rendered later. Textiles--lots of cloth kindling. Etcetera. Then we're typically talking about industrial production level stuff, not conference tables. Go back to Mark Sornsin's comments. We need to get this image of a floor gridded off in one foot sections getting an exact and even distribution of 0.15 gallons per minute out of our heads. If I can keep the conference table on fire confined to 1500 sqft (that's a big table) until the FD arrives then I suspect whatever stray scrap paper may have fallen under it won't be a big contributor to extended growth. Now a day's accumulation of cotton scraps and thread fibers.... That's adifferent story altogether.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > Good thought, but you could end up with a shielded fire which the > sprinklers at the ceiling may not be able to contain. EH2 addresses this > type of fire to certain degree as does the 3000 sqft remote area > requirement for adjacent areas > > I don't think the idle pallet comparison is viable because you don't have > a solid top. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 > www.fpdc.com > > > > On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, "Brad Casterline" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Todd, > > > > In thinking more about this, just a couple thoughts to throw out-- > > > > 1)The combustible concealed spaces that pose a challenge are usually > 'finish > > work' for architectural reasons up off the floor and hiding the > structure. > > If a fire gets inside it can grow unnoticed and cause structural damage > and > > pose a huge threat. A Table is not like that. > > 2) Imagine a stack of idle pallets as the fuel load, and the 1st one > starts > > 16" off the floor somehow; we would not sprinkler under the 1st pallet- > we > > would plan a water flow rate to control the fuel load. In the same way I > see > > the combustible table itself as the fuel load, and not what very small > > ignition source might be under it. > > > > Of course, I cannot not cite any code sections other that the one that > says > > something about providing "...a reasonable degree of protection...". > > > > Brad > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Todd - Work [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:29 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. > > > > Probably require concealed space sprinklers > > > > Todd G Williams, PE > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > Stonington, CT > > www.fpdc.com > > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > > > >>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:27 PM, "Brad Casterline" < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> WoW! If they are fixed in place and you have to sprinkler under you will > >> need about what, (12) heads/table, and baffles; with 6 or 8 inches from > >> bottom of framing to floor the floor is an obstruction to the pattern > >> developing for uniform density, unless the spacing is very close ;) . > >> Maybe some day the book will say unless the depth of the space exceeds > max > >> deflector distance, heads are not required. You cold def use QR > Reduction > >> though (if you use QR heads and wet pipe, but the fuel load itself will > > also > >> be an obstruction! > >> > >> never mind me though as usual-- i'm just geeking here > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:04 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: obstruction vs concealed space. > >> > >> 8.5.5.3.2 Sprinklers shall not be required under obstructions that are > not > >> fixed in place, such as conference tables. > >> > >> Duane Johnson, PE > >> Program Manager > >> Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) > >> Office of Research Services > >> National Institutes of Health > >> 301-496-0487 > >> > >> "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Todd - Work [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:02 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. > >> > >> NFPA 13 (2002) section 8.5.5.3.1 and equivalent sections of subsequent > >> editions. > >> > >> Todd G Williams, PE > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
