I thought about writing a code change proposing fast response heads for spray booths. I was expressly interested in sprinklered booths in unsprinklered buildings. .
A friend at FM forwarded several fire reports. Systems varied from several heads to the 50-60. Consistent was that all heads in space, and exhaust operated. And, except for remote supplied paint, fire was successfully contained to booth. In addition someone at FM had done a report that stated that due to small, confined area, ceiling temps rose fast enough that the faster response heads would only operate something near ten seconds faster. I don't remember the model fire. This was specifically considering paper bag covered heads. Quick response heads at the time were still a considerable margin over standard response. Given that they also tend to be a little more fragile, think changing covers, with minimal benefit, I walked away from pursuing it further. Two things of note. This was before downdraft or semi-downdraft booths were common. Booths with bulk tank or 55-gallon drum supplied, production spray operations did have failures. Fire caused failure of hose in booth. Pressure sensor commanded pump to supply more paint. Entire volume pumps into space. Not clear if this was flowing, or spraying, atomized faults. The two examples they had were in sprinklered buildings. A bunch of ceiling sprinklers in the shell buildings operated and controlled the fires. Best Bruce Verhei > On Aug 8, 2016, at 17:17, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > > Shakey ground is all i have ever known Ken. > I am no more a professional than you are. > THINK MAN! > small spaces with fast fires need the fastest acting sprinklers we can muster. > I've been in court myself a couple times- neither one over sprinklers though-- > please stop being so stodgy! > >> On Aug 8, 2016 7:05 PM, "Parsley Consulting" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> I don't know, Brad. You're standing on pretty shaky ground there. >> >> The decision to use QR sprinklers in an extra hazard occpuancy is a direct >> contradiction to 8.4.1.1.2 of NFPA 13, including the 2016 edition, or a >> similar section number, at least as far back as the 1999 edition. If you >> install QR sprinklers in a space that is legitimately classed as an extra >> hazard occupancy, aren't you directly contradicting this particular section >> of NFPA 13? The handbook provides the following explanatory text on the >> topic: >> Extra hazard occupancies are characterized by the probability of >> fast-developing fires with high heat release rates that have the potential >> to open a large number of quick-response sprinklers before the sprinklers >> have time to control the fire. The operation of a large number of sprinklers >> in a relatively short time period has the potential to overtax the system. >> For this reason, quick-response sprinklers using the area >> design method of Chapter 11 are not permitted for the protection of extra >> hazard occupancies. Additional perspective on this can be found in the >> discussion of safety margin found in B.2.1. >> Further, I'm not aware of any QR sprinkler which has been tested and listed >> by an NRTL for use in protecting extra hazard occupancies. Barring that, to >> follow the guidance you're suggesting the contractor/designer/installer has >> to violate both NFPA 13 AND the listing of the sprinkler. I'm not >> suggesting the gloom and doom drama of "people could die", however it does >> concern me greatly when I read suggestions to ignore both texts. >> >> My thought about that is to make sure your insurance is paid up, and have a >> good lawyer on retainer. I don't know of a good defense while sitting in >> the witness chair to a question similar to, "Are you telling me you ignored >> the applicable law and the manufacturer's recommendations for the >> installation of that sprinkler?" >> >> When I have nightmares I think about having to answer questions similar to >> that. >> Ken Wagoner, SET >> Parsley Consulting >> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >> Escondido, California 92025 >> Phone 760-745-6181 >> Visit our website >> >>> On 08/08/2016 4:17 PM, Brad Casterline wrote: >>> We're not suppose to use QR in EH either but I say balderdash. >>> That is for big open spaces beacase you could have a bunch of heads going >>> off way over there when the emergency is way over here. Small spaces with >>> fast fires are better off if you use low temp qr and calc every head >>> possible going off >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
