>From The Technical Committee Report for the 1982 edition of NFPA 13:
13- P107 - (5-5.6 and Figure 5-5.6 (New): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Ron Cote', Factory Mutual Research Corp.
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section to read:
5-5.6 Small loading docks, covered platforms, ducts or similar
small unheated areas may be protected by dry pendent sprinklers
extending through the wall from wet sprinkler piping in an
adjacent heated area, as shown in Figure 5-5.6.
Where possible, the dry pendent sprinkler shall extend down at a
45° angle. The width of the area to be protected shall not
Exceed 7 1/2 ft (2.3 m). Sprinklers shall be spaced not over
12 ft (3.7 m) apart.
Add a new Figure 5-5.6
...
SUBSTANTIATION: The above proposed alternative provides a
workable solution where antifreeze systems are prohibited.
Other than later being moved to the Appendix (Annex), it has remained virtually
unchanged since that time.
As I remember it, horizontal sidewall sprinklers had only been on the market
for a few years prior to this and dry horizontal sprinklers did not become
available until many years afterwards.
Larry Keeping, P.Eng.
Professional Loss Control
3413 Wolfedale Road, Suite 6
Mississauga, Ontario
L5C 1V8
Phone: 905-949-2755, ext. 204
Fax: 905-949-1752
E-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve
Leyton
Sent: April-10-14 4:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fig. A.8.15.7
Anyone out there, committee members or clairvoyants, who can say why this
illustration shows a dry-pendent sprinkler in what appears to be a
non-conforming orientation?
Thanks,
SML
_______________________________________________
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
