Kyle, You do raise an interesting (to sprinkler people) series of questions. If a 0.10 density is acceptable in one scenario, why not another? I would venture to guess with one standard sprinkler operating under an obstruction, you can achieve an ordinary hazard density without even trying. When you use EC sprinklers do you achieve that same density? If you go down the rabbit hole of allowing EC sprinklers will designers try to then use one head to cover under two doors?
Let’s go back to one standard sprinkler spraying under a 14’x14’ door in an OH occupancy. Q,P, and K tell us we need just under 30 psi to get that sprinkler to cover 196 sqft at 0.15 density. I believe we would get there in most cases. What is our goal? I believe it is to control the spread of fire until the people in the big red trucks arrive and put the fire out. If we set off a roof sprinkler or two in process, are we happy we retained control, or have we set off too many sprinklers? I imagine open doors on a windy day can have all kinds of unforeseen results. Would it cause skipping and an unpredictable amount of sprinklers operating in odd locations? If a door is open, is it for ventilation or loading and unloading of a truck? If a truck is there, wind is probably not a factor. If a truck is not there, is there storage of material? There are some smart people on this forum, I would find the exchange of ideas interesting. Nick Maneen, SET c 704.791.7789 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 12:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Kyle.Montgomery; Roland Huggins Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Ex cov under OH Door In the original post, I believe the area was classified as ordinary hazard, not necessarily storage. So does that change things? I agree with the previous posts that it seems odd to say we can call the area under the door light hazard when using a standard spray head but can’t do so when using and extended coverage head. Any thoughts on that? Also, has there been any actual testing done for this scenario? Aside from the obstruction issue, I’m kind of curious to see what the impact is from having a fire adjacent to a large open door. Is it helpful because it release heat/smoke from the building? Is it hurtful because it feeds fresh air (oxygen) to the fire? If it’s windy, would that have a large impact on fire spread? -Kyle M From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 8:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Ex cov under OH Door I concur with your approach. I believe we say under doors in storage is a OH RH <https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4h8r7hdtsr6154/AFSA_L.png?raw=1> Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__firesprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=dZD4xsterQU9_hWT2n4KM4WEZNVrzeD_6zBhscZw_Wc&s=rQWaqxdT_FiVerKVXuipuaN27JcsatXexZDohwn4kFg&e=> firesprinkler.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_firesprinkler.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=dZD4xsterQU9_hWT2n4KM4WEZNVrzeD_6zBhscZw_Wc&s=7vWJcIV7VOElHvZQVo--Qd6Du9y6kZTiKMa3V0eLLFg&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_afsa_status_1039528345367732224&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=dZD4xsterQU9_hWT2n4KM4WEZNVrzeD_6zBhscZw_Wc&s=v_DnJR_XW5D6nuO7IGJXt-q592hr4yvzpmACdNhxgIQ&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_american-2Dfire-2Dsprinkler-2Dassociation-2Dafsa-2D_&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=dZD4xsterQU9_hWT2n4KM4WEZNVrzeD_6zBhscZw_Wc&s=vapiG_1_cSFnjGmUtsaHOMGwP4I9S88Fc4rxy4EvQ7k&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_firesprinklerorg_&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=dZD4xsterQU9_hWT2n4KM4WEZNVrzeD_6zBhscZw_Wc&s=sSdLgSrWz57cMUN6e58wzs3r3iktZMvq7taNyuxKkTo&e=> Inspect. Test. Maintain. AFSA’s ITM Inspector Development Program provides OJT guidance, web and in-person instruction, hands-on learning, and more. Enroll now for October launch. Be NICET I ready by this Spring, with the goal of NICET II in just 20 months. Learn more. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.firesprinkler.org_itm&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=dZD4xsterQU9_hWT2n4KM4WEZNVrzeD_6zBhscZw_Wc&s=yzt_62CGMmzJ9ah_lkEbdnY56Vonca2_7JrMLVv5JvE&e=> On Aug 23, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: I agree with everything. This wasnt even my project. Was helping out a customer of a colleague. My initial reaction was of course a single EC sidewall for LH is acceptable. The installing contractor was pushing back saying you couldn’t do an EC HSW for light hazard under the door. That was when I started to dig further and noticed the missing wording in EC HSW. Installer was pushing back an ECOH HSW would cause the overhead to over discharge and no longer work. I suggested to stop spending so much time and $$ on this. Go with the ECOH HSW and pipe with same size as overhead branch piping. That way there can be no push back. Just another fun Friday at the office. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET 480-505-9271
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
