As I understand, the comments imply that buildings protected under NFPA 13R are classified as partially protected, which raises some doubts.
If buildings installed following NFPA 13R systems are indeed deemed partially protected and require a total flow rate of 1,250 GPM by NFPA 14, the analysis doesn't end there. According to Section 10.6.1.3.3 of NPFA 14, partial automatic sprinkler protection requires an additional 150 GPM or 500 GPM, based on the specific hazard level. This adjustment could potentially bring the total required flow rate, including the sprinkler system and the standpipe system, to reach an elevated GPM threshold. This appears problematic, as it seems to conflict with Section 10.6.1.3.1. This section mandates selecting the higher demand between two systems, but not their cumulative total. It might even suggest that compliance with NFPA 13R might not categorize the system as partially protected, contrary to the initial assumption. Thanks. On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 12:24 PM Steve Leyton <[email protected]> wrote: > It’s the committee’s intent that the 1,000 gpm threshold is applicable > only to buildings sprinklered per NFPA 13. There have been numerous fires > in 13R-protected buildings where the structure became involved, many of > which were roof burn-offs. Fire service is acutely aware of this > nationwide, and any member of the residential sprinkler committee will > affirm that every cycle, there is at least one but usually multiple inputs > that propose to add sprinklers in attics if not all combustible concealed > spaces. So the language in 14 is based on fire incident reporting and > other empirical data that inform us that it’s not prudent to limit hose > stream capacity in 13R-protected buildings, so than an added measure (one > additional attack stream) of hydraulic capability is backed into the > standpipe system. > > > > > > The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA > 14 Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the > standard. > > > > *Protection Design and Consulting* > > Steve Leyton, President > > T *|* 619.255.8964 x 102 *| * > *www.protectiondesign.com <http://www.protectiondesign.com/> *2851 Camino > Del Rio South *|* Suite 210 *|* San Diego, CA 92108 > Fire Protection System Design *|* Consulting *|* Planning *|* Training > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Ken Wagoner <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2024 10:10 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations > > > > I disagree, Jose. > > I'm not terribly confused by the omission of a direct reference to 13R in > that section. As the text reads "...for buildings that are not sprinklered > throughout in accordance with NFPA 13." > > Wouldn't you agree that 13R is *other* than NFPA 13? > > sincerely, > > *Ken Wagoner, SET* > *Parsley Consulting* > > * 500 West Mechanic Street Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235* > *Phone: (760) 745-6181 * > *Visit the website > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.parsleyconsulting.com%2f&c=E,1,Y5zKJKPEh1mBEBqSR-VE9cUKl5y-eyP8BpvmE_5j9ZqW2eJbNphYzrCMBZ-2YuX6d-RRkHI4gQ1FV-cvOeCfRC58uZS9NiToZv2mx7909oCqLvCW_n5hDHeK&typo=1>* > > > > On 4/4/2024 10:28 AM, Jose Anibal Castillo wrote: > > It appears there's a conflict in understanding, as section 10.6.1.1.6 > outlines a requirement for a flow rate of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) > for buildings lacking sprinkler coverage, in line with NFPA 13 standards. > Yet, 10.6.1.1.6 omits any mention of NFPA 13R, leading to confusion about > the necessity of meeting the 1,250 gpm requirement in scenarios where NFPA > 13 standards might not be mandated by the building code but NFPA 13R. > Furthermore, NFPA 14 does not discuss provisions for buildings with partial > sprinkler protection according to NFPA 13R. > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:07 AM John Denhardt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Correct - for standpipe calculations purposes, buildings protected with > NFPA 13R systems do not meet the requirements to limit the flow to 1,250 > GPM > > > > 10.6.1.1.6 in NFPA 14 - 2024 > > > > John August Denhardt, P.E. > > Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services > > American Fire Sprinkler Association > > 301-343-1457 > > > > On Apr 3, 2024, at 09:49, Fpdcdesign <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered. > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, <Shawn Foor <[email protected]>> wrote: > > Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building? > > Shawn Foor, SET > > > > *FOOR DESIGN, LLC* > > *10208 E 98TH ST* > > *TULSA, OK 74133* > > *P:918-237-1400* > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired) > > > > We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance > with NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes > are connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L > shaped building and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a > 2-hour separation wall with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor. > > The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be > treated as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of > the 4th floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the > at the connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm. > > Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. > Available water is the issue. > > > > > > Richard L. Mote CET > > Rimrock Design Services, LLC > > Middleburg, PA 17842 > > Mobile 570-541-2685 > > EMAIL [email protected] > > WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] > > _________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum > mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] > > > > -- > > > > José Anibal Castillo M.S. (FP UMD) > > Ingeniero Electromecánico > > Especialista en Sistemas Contra Incendio > > Cel:+(507) 6349.6217 > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > SprinklerForum mailing list: > > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] > -- José Anibal Castillo M.S. (FP UMD) Ingeniero Electromecánico Especialista en Sistemas Contra Incendio Cel:+(507) 6349.6217
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
