Good call-- easier when it converts back to storage in a couple years :) On Aug 31, 2016 4:18 PM, "Gregg Fontes" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses. However I spoke to the Fire Sprinkler Guru and > yes at this time you must follow the obstruction rule for the ESFR > sprinkler. Hopefully in the future there will be some adjustment in the > standard for the light & ordinary use, but not as of yet. So for now, if > the tenant puts in a 25” duct or 2’ x 4’ light fixture, you either drop an > ESFR sprinkler underneath or remove the ESFR system and install > conventional. I think almost everyone agrees that the ESFR system would > control the light or ordinary hazard, but the book is the book at this > time. > > > > Thanks, > > Gregg Fontes > > Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. > > 209-334-9119 > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org] *On Behalf Of *[email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 1:47 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: ESFR - Ordinary Hazard > > > > I don’t think Gregg is worried about the first 36” below sprinkler for > spray pattern development. I think he is probably more concerned with the > rules stating obstructions X wide need to be located Y distance > horizontally from sprinkler. When a new tenant comes in, they like to run > their new lights and ducts all over the place without a care in the world > and a box checker comes in and says an ESFR sprinkler is obstructed even > though the new light/duct is more than 10ft below the sprinkler and is only > 30” wide (not a problem for CMDA sprinklers). > > > > My personal opinion is if you follow the obstruction rules so the pattern > can fully develop (aka first 36”). Then the other obstruction rules for > ESFR shouldn’t apply in a light/ordinary hazard occupancy. With the > exception that if the obstruction is over 4ft wide then sprinklers need to > be under them. However, I do not believe this stance is explicitly stated > in NFPA 13. > > > > But can any sane person really argue that a sprinkler that will dump more > than 100gpm can’t “control” an OH fire where the CMDA sprinklers that max > out at 23gpm can. I’ve heard the naysayers argument, “ESFR is 12 > sprinklers over 1200sq.ft which is a fast response sprinkler over a smaller > area to quickly extinguish a fire”. Okay then, my argument is I am > installing large K-factor sprinklers 25K@7psi. I will calculate 5 per > line (50ft > 46.5ft) over 3 lines (1500 sq.ft.). I will still flow less > water than the original ESFR system was designed for and have a remote area > equal to what is now required by LH/OH CMDA sprinkler design. Plus I am > also putting at least 4x the amount of water on a fire to “control” it. > That 30” duct doesn’t seem to be much of an issue to me anymore. > > > > Like I said before, my opinion only. I am only on the committee for “NFPA > ? - Wondering Why This Wasn’t Implemented When The Allowance For The Other > Associated Issue Was”. > > > > Thanks, > > Sean VG > > > > > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Matthew > J Willis > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:17 AM > *To:* 321; [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: ESFR - Ordinary Hazard > > > > Especially since Chapter 8 and rules are divided by the Sprinkler Type, > not hazard. > > > > R/ > > Matt > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org] *On Behalf Of *321 > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:14 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: ESFR - Ordinary Hazard > > > > I would think that the obstruction rules of NFPA 13 Ch 8 would apply to > the ESFR (i.e. 36" clear below deflector) regardless of the hazard. ESFR's > were developed and listed by U.L. with additional room below the head to > allow for the "Discharge Umbrella" to develop. > > > > Just my opinion... > > > > John W. Farabee, > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 1:37 PM, Gregg Fontes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 2016 NFPA 13 – 8.4.6.6 Occupancy and Hazard. (Handbook) In an existing > warehouse building being converted to a non-storage use, the existing ESFR > sprinklers can remain in place provided the new use is either light or > ordinary hazard. My questions is if it is ordinary hazard occupancy, do > the ESFR obstruction rule apply or due the obstruction rules for standard > systems apply (i.e. conventional)? As an example, would 30” x 48” lights > be allowed to hang below the ESFR sprinkler and not be considered an > obstruction? Same with new duct work greater than 24”? Etc. > > Thanks, > > Gregg Fontes > > Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. > > 209-334-9119 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
