But you were driving based on FM input/allowance/exceptions that did not comply with FM or 13 criteria.
The base criteria is: Member greater than 10 inches - every channel Still must meet the 8 ft spacing rule (no baffle allowance like the CMDA) Distance below ceiling measured to ceiling (not bottom of tee like CMDA) If we were playing baseball, that would be three strikes. Good thing you were playing rugby. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jul 21, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Mark Sornsin [FAR] <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Define 24” deep tees. > > I am aware of one instance where FM Global allowed ESFR/Storage sprinklers to > be allowed up to 30 in. below the ‘ceiling’ when the concrete tees were 24 in > deep (defined as 22” from bottom of tee to bottom of flange/exposed ceiling). > They indicated that it is preferred the sprinkler is located as close to the > plane of the bottom of the tee as possible. They also wanted spacing such > that no more than one channel is ‘unprotected’. I.e. 4’ between channels > required 8’ sprinkler spacing max. > > Once the tees exceeded 22” depth (exposed) they instructed us to put > sprinklers in every channel with the deflectors close to the ceiling (like > normal). We had 5’ wide channels so the sprinklers were spaced every 5’, but > were separated from each other by the flange of the tees. > > These weren’t K25 but I’m not certain the K-factor changes anything. > > > <image76bf3b.JPG> <http://www.summitcous.com/> Mark Sornsin > Sr. Fire Protection Engineer > Direct: 701-499-1391 > Cell: 701-526-8585 > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Mike > Hairfield > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:10 AM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: ESFR's in Buildings with Concrete Double Tee Construction > > Funny you should ask! > > Original installation was designed for conventional Rack storage of Class > I-IV Commodities using SR 17/32" heads without > in-rack sprinklers. > > The owner changed it to a Mobile Shelving System with only a space for the > retrieval vehicle to drive between the > aisles which move so they can get to the file being retrieved. There are a > total of 5 of these movable shelves so at > all times there is only one space that is open. Oh btw there are solid > shelves in each of the movable shelves. > > I think it was one of your fellow U of M grads but I'm not sure.....LOL > > Mike > > > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Roland > Huggins <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:38 AM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: ESFR's in Buildings with Concrete Double Tee Construction > > Houston - we have a problem. What criteria allowed placing ESFR sprinklers > below the tees? That allowance is in 8.6 thus applies only to spray > sprinklers > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > > On Jul 19, 2017, at 7:33 AM, Mike Hairfield <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Thanks Roland, > > This situation has 24" deep double tees that are 4'-0" o.c. and the heads are > spaced 8"-0" o.c. > with the lines installed below the bottom of the tees. > > Somebody has a major problem if ever catches on fire. > > Mike > > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Roland > Huggins <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:17 AM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: ESFR's in Buildings with Concrete Double Tee Construction > > The noncombustible construction is not an issue for ant of the ESFR’s. It’s > the solid channel greater than 12 inches deep that stop things. Well > actually it’s the must be installed in every channel requirement while > maintaining the min 8 ft separation that kills it. (See section 8.4.6.3.1 & > .2) > > Roland > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > > On Jul 19, 2017, at 6:47 AM, Mike Hairfield <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Have I missed something! > > Have K25.2 ESFR sprinklers been approved to protect buildings that are > constructed with > a concrete double tees roof construction? > > Thanks, > > Mike Hairfield > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org> > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > <http://www.symanteccloud.com/> > ______________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
