I found the report fascinating. Table 1 (test matrix) shows only (2) scenarios with the 1.4 MW Heat Release Rate, the rest being 3.0 MW. 1.4 MW= 1,400 kW, 14,000 'one hundred watt' light bulbs, (3) big dry Christmas trees. And the test were not meant to apply to non-residential! Any way I need to re-read it but, Jerry, it was almost as if everyone got to the point where they were saying "for crying out loud, how big we gotta make this fire to burn some antifreeze here"? Seriously though, the things Cecil and Top mentioned all sort of works together for RISK, I just wish that out of the (15) test scenarios, (2) were the 3 meg and (13) were the 1.4 meg instead of the other way around.
Brad Casterline -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA 25 & Antifreeze Comment(s) Good morning to All: I have read much about anti-freeze and appreciate having received very valuable info (and advice) from this Forum. After nearly 40 years in this 'biz', I have come to respect the opinions and shared knowledge of my sprinkler colleagues. That said... We continue to design anti-freeze systems, typically with CPVC/glycerin applications. Why? Well, for one, some of our Clients require it, to wit: We have a current Client - I have mentioned him before in this Forum - who refuses to have dry-pipe systems installed in his buildings. This is a well-informed billionaire who knows what he wants, and he is going to get what he demands. Other Clients have similar reservations and, after much dialogue, we proceed with the glycerin systems. I/we fully recognize that no amount of written agreements and/or 'understandings' mean much once it goes in to a court of law. I do rely heavily on the early results Russ Fleming gave us at an NFSA/ Puget Sound meeting a few years back: the anti-freeze flash/explosion scenario could not be replicated in laboratory settings when one of three items were removed from the test protocol: high system pressures (100+ psi?), small orifice/2.8 K, elevated levels of glycerin/glycol. I believe there is a reason these "mishaps" with anti-freeze are so rare - and I believe the aforementioned test results play a major part in the equation. Proceeding with caution is always advisable in our business/profession. I have been designing anti- freeze systems (primarily in homes/13'D') and have yet to experience problems beyond thread leaks. Call me foolish, lucky, naive, reckless - our Clients are fully informed before the decision is made to go with anti-freeze and we get it in writing and submit the forms to our attorneys. This is how we do it and will continue as long as the AHJ and our FPE's 'endorse' it. Okay - I'm ready for the "feedback" (blow-back??) And, yes, Cecil/Top: I have 50/50 "field-mixed" glycerin in my CPVC sprinkler system in the home we built 10+ years ago here in Santa Fe - and we do not have commercial-type cooking equipment in our kitchen... Gracias from Nuevo Mejico!! Jerry [email protected] Jerry D. Watts, SFPE President & Co-Founder ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd. Santa Fe, New Mexico USA (800) 503.1961 -----Original Message----- From: Top Myers <[email protected]> To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2014 6:52 pm Subject: RE: NFPA 25 & Antifreeze I would recommend to everyone the website www.nfpa.org/antifreeze. There is a lot of good information and a video by Matt Klaus that discusses the antifreeze story should be helpful. This leads me to the risk assessment. There were some very interesting test results from the various tests of sprinklers in various scenarios with different heights, pressures, orifice size etc. A risk assessment would allow you to take these results and apply them to a particular site. This of course would have to be approved by AHJ. A PE is not required but I would recommend an FPE who understands the tests results. Happy winter to all...... Top Myers RelMark Group 961 Pottstown Pike Chester Springs, PA 19425 610-321-2415 X-219 Cell 610-952-0965 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jay Stough Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 1:58 PM To: Sprinkler Forum Subject: NFPA 25 & Antifreeze I was just rereading NFPA 25 (2014) 5.3.4 and specifically 5.3.4.2.1 and if I am reading it correctly, if the antifreeze is a type that is not acceptable, it must be drained and replaced. But if you look at 5.3.4.2.1, there are three criteria that you have to meet in order to use the premixed antifreeze, including a risk assessment. Has anyone done this risk assessment as shown in the annex? -- *Jay Stough* SET, CFPS _______________________________________________ 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
