Absolutely Allen, all four of them! I haven't figured out how to do that with my phone yet though, so I'll put them on my thumb drive and take it to the office in the morning and make a Dropbox folder and put them in that and make a link and post it here and we can take this off-Forum!
Dude! Just give me a few hours! On Oct 11, 2016 10:11 PM, "AKS-Gmail-IMAP" <[email protected]> wrote: > Would you post the .fds file? > > Allan Seidel > St. Louis, MO > > On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> > wrote: > > A Quick Response sprinkler does not necessarily activate sooner than a > standard response sprinkler! > For example, 155 SRs at 120 S.F. spacing might activate sooner than 155 > QRs at 225 S.F., be they regular pendent or concealers. > > We are allowed to use design area reduction when the RTI is 50 (m-s)^2 or > less and it is listed as quick response, and three other conditions are > met. The RTI is the physical, non site specific property of the sprinkler, > and the 'listed as quick response' is the various spacings, ceiling > heights, etc. tested, with some kind of pass/fail citeria, which i assume > includes a range of minimum 'real' activation times. > > I used 50 and 80 RTI for the QR and SR in the four activation times I > showed. In more detailed scenarios I have used 38 and 90 based on glass > bulb manufactures published data. I kind of winged the concealer cover > plate, but not totally-- I input specific heat, conductivity, and density > for a dab of solder, and made the plate disappear when the dab reached 135F. > > I have been using FDS-SMV for 10 years. For sprinkler activation it is for > personal curiosity and to try to get a little more insight than I can get > from NFPA alone. > I don't try to predict anything, I like looking at 'differences', based on > RTI, Temp rating, ceiling height, and spacing. > Fascinating stuff, and I'm glad you brought the 'concealer twist' to my > activation curiosity Pete! > > thanks, > > Brad > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Larrimer, > Peter A > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:18 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: FM and Concealed Sprinklers > > I can’t say I know what you are using for your model, nor how you model > RTI’s for concealed heads and cover plates, but it sort of begs the > question. Why is there a NFPA 13 reduction in design areas for LH and OH > when the QR concealed head might be slower than a standard response; > assuming your model results are close to accurate regarding response times. > > > Considering that most fires are controlled with the first one or two > sprinklers in LH and OH facility fires, maybe the QR vs SR isn’t a big deal > when it comes to required design areas? > > Thanks > Pete > _______________________________________________ > 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
