And I'll question the ability of most AHJs to make the call regarding suitability. Maybe I'll trust Chris, or the Chris that's the FPE for the City of Tacoma, but I know better about the guys in many local jurisdictions. People who the Wizard has given gold badges to. Bet this wouldn't have been allowed if the FM/AHJ was held liable if something went wrong. Like the Second Amendment there are two clauses in play. If I may add a qualifier or two:
"...either..." 1. "...the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated standards..." "...or..." 2. "...has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose." 1. Does it meet the standards? What QUALIFIED person said if it isn't listed by a nationally recognized lab? or 2. Has it been TESTED and and found suitable? And by whom? On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Damien Shannon <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree Chris that the wording you referenced is as strong a language on > the matter the seems to be in NFPA 13. > > It does however seem to lead to a 'grey' zone. While the suitability of the > device is question maybe black and white, the fact that NFPA 13 thereby > (Section 6.1) allows components that may be listed for a different > standard, seems to require someone (individual rather than lab), i.e. > either the contractor or the AHJ to be making the determination as to > whether it '...found suitable for a specified purpose. > > Learned something new today. I didn't think the system being described > would have met the requirements for an NFPA 13 installation without > requiring treating it as an 'equivalency' (section 1.5). > > Thank you. > > Best Regards. > > Damien Shannon. > > > > On 16 June 2015 at 15:57, Cahill, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > "states that either the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate > > designated standards or has been tested and found suitable for a > specified > > purpose." > > > > I take that to mean it's questionable to use a 5 psi head in an NFPA 13 > > system. However, the device suggested I think meets the part about > "found > > suitable for a specified purpose". > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > Associate Fire Protection Engineer > > Burns & McDonnell > > Phone: 952.656.3652 > > Fax: 952.229.2923 > > [email protected] > > www.burnsmcd.com > > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Damien > > Shannon > > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:27 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: > > > > I would have thought that if the contractor is to provide an NFPA 13 > > compliant system, then I would think the listing of a product would have > to > > specifically state that it is listed for use in an NFPA 13 system (maybe > it > > does, I haven't seen the datasheet on the valve in question); without > > getting into dealing with it as an 'Equivalency'. > > > > Most of the LPCB Approvals I have seen are for installation in accordance > > with EN12845, but maybe the product being discussed has LPCB Approval for > > NFPA 13 also. > > > > There are so many aspects that NFPA 13 & EN12845 (which is is the > > Installation Standard that LPCB usually seem to 'Approve' components for > > use), are so very different that it would seem strange to think you can > > just start using LPCB Approved parts in an NFPA 13 system. Example > > 'Conventional Sprinklers' (aka 'Old Style' sprinklers) are approved and > > common place in EN12845 in a lot of occupancies. The also only require 5 > > psi minimum sprinkler pressure rather than 7psi. They allow sprinklers at > > different distances from the ceiling... > > > > In the past I have not used parts that have not specifically mentioned on > > the product datasheet that the listing in for use in an NFPA 13 system > (or > > EN12845/FM 2-0 when working on those projects). Have I been incorrect in > > this regards? > > > > Regards. > > > > Damien Shannon. > > > > On 16 June 2015 at 13:46, Cahill, Christopher <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Just to be clear this is a Listed product, not a whole lot of debate > > here. > > > Nowhere does it say UL Listing. The only requirement really where the > > > AHJ comes in is "included in a list published by an organization that > > > is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction". The only debate > > > might be if LPCB is acceptable to the AHJ. I believe an AHJ (US Fire > > > Marshal or the > > > like) would lose every time if they tried to not accept. You need > > > approval of LPCB, not the application of this product. > > > > > > That said I agree with those questioning the need for anything but a > > > plain wet head. Whenever faced with this I ask the owner how they > > > were dealing with a power outage or roof leak as examples. With some > > > thinking they always back off and put their money toward protecting > > > their valuable information from ALL causes of loss not just an > > > irrational fear of sprinklers. > > > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > > Associate Fire Protection Engineer > > > Burns & McDonnell > > > Phone: 952.656.3652 > > > Fax: 952.229.2923 > > > [email protected] > > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > > > > Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work > > > For > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Pat > > > Thompson > > > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 11:40 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: > > > > > > We have used this set up for up to 3 sprinklers in 'computer rooms'. > > > Approval was given by local AHJ of the idea after some discussion as > > > it is not a listed application. > > > > > > A good idea is to install a small drain (1/2 inch) on the drop nipple > > > to the sprinklers to allow draining after testing or activation; after > > > all the idea is to keep water out of their precious room. Also, a > > > gauge downstream of the solenoid to allow visual indication of the > > > pipe being charged. Both these features are located above the drop tile > > ceiling. > > > > > > The AHJ asked for a UL listed 24VDC solenoid that is normally open - > > > power holds it closed. By doing so it is 'fail safe', that is to say > > > that in the case of panel failure or power loss the water will reach > > > the sprinklers. A small conventional control panel with smoke or heat > > > detection for automatic activation is all that is needed, the solenoid > > > circuit is on a relay that opens upon fire detection. > > > > > > One drawback is that 24 hours of standby is required in the battery > > > set in order to hold the solenoid. Because of the current draw of the > > > solenoid this results in the batteries being larger than what will fit > > > into the panel enclosure, requiring a separate battery cabinet to > > > house the batteries. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Pat Thompson > > > ATS Alaska > > > Direct: 907-375-4176 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > teemsprinkdave > > > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 7:09 AM > > > To: FORUM > > > Subject: > > > > > > Needing a little help, I have a customer wanting to make a small room > > > into a computer server room. One sprinkler in the room. Has anybody > > > used a solenoid valve, normally closed, and activated by a heat > > > detector? Trying to save the expense of a pre-action system. > > > DAVE GROVER > > > Teem Sprinkler Co. > > > Superintendent > > > NFPA 25 Level II Inspector > > > P 336-650-9005 > > > F 336-650-9007 > > > C 336-399-9006 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > > er.org _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > > er.org _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Damien Shannon* > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > *Damien Shannon* > _______________________________________________ > 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
