|
UL does large scale testing reports conducted under paid private clients, and has commissioned some pretty large tests on certain fire sprinklers with a specific protected target and issue report.
How many AHJs would accept a performance-based design or something submitted in compliance with the old Chapter 21 on Alternative Fire Protection? Do you have recommendations or concerns with these alternative approaches that you wish to have addressed? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
9 Comments
Pete H
8/18/2023 07:30:46 am
If you get the full testing report from a large scale laboratory and discuss this with your AHJ beforehand (beforehand is extremely important here), most will (provided their input on laboratory selection is respected if they have any) be willing to accept lab reports as long as they are in regards to a grey area of NFPA 13 (or applicable standard) and not something that the NFPA or UL has already presented a conflicting report on.
Glenn Berger
8/18/2023 08:08:43 am
Concur with Pete - Talk to the AHJ as early as possible and obtain their buy-in in writing.
Dan Wilder
8/18/2023 08:10:39 am
Most of our AHJ's require an appeal be submitted for approval that is reviewed by a committee. The process is fairly simple, just identify the issue, any applicable codes/standards, proposed modification, how that proposal meets or exceeds the current code/standard, and why the appeal is being submitted. Many times, the process is much easier with a FPE on board but not a requirement.
Pete D.
8/18/2023 12:47:53 pm
I've done this before, as a licensed engineer. I spoke to AHJ first. Submitted a request under the equivalency subsection of the administrative chapter, was chapter 1 until 2016. Probably still chapter 1. You need to do this any time you specify Quell for frozen warehouse, etc. I've also gotten extra K extinguishers and pull stations approved in lieu of wet chem systems in cooking operations.
SChoi
8/20/2023 03:02:50 pm
I will appreciate anyone either AHJ or contractor or FPE or UL Engineers to share their experience if they ran across the submittal.
Jay
8/21/2023 11:02:06 am
As AHJ....was submitted to our jurisdiction and I was told the testing was performed in accordance with Chapter 21, but it was not, and UL confirmed that it was not. Engineering company that submitted continued to insist the testing met chapter 21 even though the sprinklers used are not listed, the data sheet for the sprinklers does not include all of the end use limitations requires by ch21, not all ignition scenarios were performed annex a), etc, etc. Funny thing is that this company has 2 members on the technical committee responsible for this chapter. I have letters from them that the sprinklers are tested to UL 199-they are not, that 4 adjacent sprinklers flowing 0.1 gpm/sqft equals a density of 0.4 gom/sqft-it does not, and that exposed group A plastics are a lower hazard than cartoned group A plastics-they are not.
Chad
8/23/2023 10:33:05 am
Pete- totally off topic, not looking to derail this but am wondering what the scenario was where eliminating a wet Chem system in a kitchen for those items was used?
sean
8/20/2023 09:46:50 pm
Early conversation helps but may not make or break the project. Leave a Reply. |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop November '24 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
January 2025
PE PREP SERIES |
RSS Feed
