I've always considered that originally we protected factory buildings from burning down from the contents (hazard). We chose a plan that would fight the largest threat. Later we moved them into warehouses where they would again save the building from the contents and as a bonus limited the damage to the contents outside of the immediate threat area. That covers about the first 75 years of the industry. The life safety became an issue. And now life safety is predominant. The point is we are protecting the building and where we have unprotected columns as major structural components they need protection. We can encase them in concrete or multiple layers of sheetrock or use a strategy that keeps them cool. We aren't worrying about pattern development and floor coverage. That is handled by the overhead system. We are just maintains the structural integrity of the columns by keeping them cool. Same with the duct. Most of the airborne combustibles should be trapped in the filter media and the duct shouldn't be a problem but stuff happens. So dump a whole lot of water in it. I'd say even a sidewall listed for light hazard only would do the trick but that would be guessing. EH pendant (just for Leyton) on the other hand is proper the hazard and since there is not enough room for pattern development of any head what's it matter? Maybe we ought to use nozzles but then there's that annoying little frail of needing to use a deluge system. Remember the you have to use pendents in the upright position under a wooden dock and you can never use old style sprinklers at all except you have I use them in s fur vault.
On Thursday, August 11, 2016, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > Sprinklers water my garden (at 3am when no one is looking). We install > pipes but people smoke things in pipes. > > I've always used pendent sprinklers in duct applications, in spite of > their actual orientation, because they would give the best water > distribution. > > Sent using CloudMagic Email > <https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=pi&cv=7.4.8&pv=9.2.1&source=email_footer_2> > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:35 AM, [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> < > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > You forgot that buildings are sprinklered not sprinkled. > > > > BTW, NFPA 13 uses the term “head” quite often when speaking of sprinklers. > > > *Craig L. Prahl* > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > *CH2M* > 200 Verdae Blvd. > Greenville, SC 29607 > Direct - 864.920.7540 > > Fax - 864.920.7129 > > CH2MHILL Extension 77540 > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] > *On Behalf Of *Steve Leyton > *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:00 AM > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* RE: Paint spray application [EXTERNAL] > > > > Pendents. A pendant is a piece of jewelry. We use hangers. Airplanes are > stored in hangars. There is no such thing as a sprinkler head. That is all > for today. > > > > Steve > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Brad Casterline <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > > Date: 8/11/16 4:28 AM (GMT-08:00) > > To: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > Subject: Re: Paint spray application > > > > Don, > > I just wanted to add that I have seen sidewalls and pendants for column > protection accepted also. I suppose the reasoning is that the columns are > not the building contents determining the hazard classification. And > sprinklers are just one of a few methods for protecting the columns. > > good catch by the way with your clip, > > Brad > > On Aug 10, 2016 2:13 PM, "IPA" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > There we go... the justification for the horizontally mounted pendants. > Thank you! > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Don Casey <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > > > Heads get used in ways they haven’t been listed in multiple scenarios. > > > > One easy one is for protecting steel columns when working with NFPA 15. > I’ve used both pens and sidewalls depending on the configuration. > > > > In a duct, we’re typically looking to dump a certain amount of water into > the duct which can be achieved using a sidewall or a pendant. > > > > Side note: a pen in a vertical duct would not be installed per it’s > listing and in a horizontal duct, it won’t meet the obstruction rules > unless the duct diameter was greater than 18inches. > > > > As long as you can calculate the head(s) to deliver/operate at the > flows/pressures stated by the applicable Standard (13 or 33 in this case) > and is designed to operate at the minimum pressure as specified by the > head’s listing (okay….not likely to come into play unless you wanted to use > a K25 head and even then). > > > > Lastly, if you’re a stamping professional, you can come up with any design > you think will work (which you’ve presumably based on data, experience, > calculations, etc.). > > > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] > *On Behalf Of *[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent:* 2016/08/10 1:46 PM > > > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* RE: Paint spray application > > > > Ductwork is like protecting specialty equipment, there isn’t necessarily a > box you can put it in when it comes to NFPA 13 occupancies. You have to be > able to analyze the process and determine the hazard before you can assign > a protection scheme for things such as this. > > > > One additional tool in the designer’s toolbox is the FM Global data > sheets. NFPA 13 doesn’t always address every single possible protection > scheme where a water based sprinkler would be beneficial. If you have > questions about a particular application you can refer to other recognized > industry Standards for additional information and insight. > > > > The owner doesn’t have to be FM insured to be able to use this data to > defend or establish a design criteria for unique applications that NFPA may > not address. I have yet to run across an AHJ that rejected the use of FM > Global criteria when NFPA didn’t address the situation. > > > > > *Craig L. Prahl* > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > *CH2M* > 200 Verdae Blvd. > Greenville, SC 29607 > Direct - 864.920.7540 > > Fax - 864.920.7129 > > CH2MHILL Extension 77540 > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] > *On Behalf Of *Brad Casterline > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 1:03 PM > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* RE: Paint spray application [EXTERNAL] > > > > Well, it's all I got. > > > > I think there is a little wiggle room regarding occupancy classification. > For example, in the duct we can be max 12'-0" whilst outside the duct it is > 10' max. > > That's a little weak, but, seeing as how I am a NICET certified > engineering technician I see no wiggle room in using a sprinkler outside > it's listing. I believe like you that deflector orientation in a duct is a > non-issue due to deflectors determine the pattern at the floor, butt.... > > > > see "Ken's well known aversion to courtrooms" for details :) > > > > Brad > > > > ps, thank you, and you too Bob, for helping me out of the doldrums > yesterday > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] > *On Behalf Of *[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 7:44 AM > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* RE: Paint spray application > > > > How do you know the quantity of combustibles? > > > > Typically the issues with ductwork is based on a hazardous environment > (transporting flammable or combustible vapors or combustible particulate) > that’s the whole reason behind the requirement of protection of the > ductwork. The other condition is that there is accumulation of the same > material on the interior of the duct over time creating a hazardous > environment. > > > > So in either case there is no way to call it an ordinary hazard > environment. > > > > > *Craig L. Prahl* > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > *CH2M* > 200 Verdae Blvd. > Greenville, SC 29607 > Direct - 864.920.7540 > > Fax - 864.920.7129 > > CH2MHILL Extension 77540 > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] > *On Behalf Of *Brad Casterline > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:40 AM > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* RE: Paint spray application [EXTERNAL] > > > > To be completely formal, is it possible to consider the duct to be an OH > portion of the EH Classification? Not much quantity of combustible there. > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org > > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
