|
|
I have a project with a workshop space that has a ceiling height of 70-feet from floor level.
How do I approach sprinkler selection & system type for this height? Does NFPA 13 have a ceiling height limitation? I see a couple of tables in FM Data Sheets, but is this the only source for protection at these heights? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
8 Comments
NFPA 13 does not allow ESFR protection for shelf or bin box storage. I can see the logic, and this has been in the code for years.
However, FM Data Sheet 8-9 does allow ESFR protection for shelf and bin box. I can protect shelving up to 15-feet with 0.85 over 2,500 sqft but I can't protect it with K25 at 70 psi. Any insights on the logic here? Has testing been done that supports this one way or another? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have a high-piled storage project that falls under both the International Fire Code and FM Global. We are using FM Storage Sprinklers.
Are smoke and heat vents required? Under the International Fire Code Chapter 32, I am directed to Section 910 for smoke and heat vents. Section 910 states that if ESFR sprinklers are used then smoke and heat vents are not required. I have read several definitions for ESFR, and they appear to be essentially the same as FM Storage Sprinklers. My problem is that per the interpretation, if I follow FM Global Data Sheet 8-0 and use Storage Sprinklers, then per IFC Section 910.3 I must have the architect add smoke and heat vents for every 50,000 sqft of the buliding. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I recently investigated some fire doors at one of our older buildings and saw they have an FM Approved label on them instead of a common UL Listing. I'm used to the UL listing label which clearly states the fire rating in minutes or hours. The FM label I saw gives some outdated ASTM standards and references a CABO report but doesn't clearly state the fire rating.
Does anyone have experience with the FM Approved fire door labels? Based on my research, FM stopped approving fire doors a while ago. Thanks in advance. Submitted anonymously and posted for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I am interested if anyone is aware of any research or article that provides guidance on the lowest water velocity that is acceptable for performing a C-factor calculation for a 6” pipe?
I am curious if there is a lower flow velocity where the Hazen-Williams equation may not be valid. Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe NFPA 13 has the hydraulic remote area reduction for use of Quick-Response sprinklers for wet, light/ordinary hazard, low(er) ceilings without pockets.
Does FM Global recognize anything similar for the use of quick-response sprinklers, or is their HC-1, HC-2, and HC-3 categorization the minimum remote area size regardless of sprinkler RTI? I've checked FM Global Data Sheet 2-0 and 3-26, but have yet to find anything similar in nature. Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I had always thought that couplings didn't need to be calculated under NFPA 13, but I'm reviewing a set of calculations which show 1-foot of schedule 40 equivalent for each coupling. This is for a 4-inch main with roll-groove couplings. Any ideas?
Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Have a project where the client is wanting fully-concealed sprinklers, but the project is insured under FM Global. FM does not approve any fully-concealed sprinklers as quick response.
However, under NFPA 13, light hazard spaces are required to have quick response sprinklers. How do you normally address this conflict? Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe For a flight simulator inside a larger building, what sprinkler density do you feel would be appropriate for this hazard?
The simulator will be its own contained unit, so the top will likely shield water spray from sprinklers above and prevent water penetration to the inside, much like a vehicle fire would in a parking garage. NFPA 13 does not address simulators, nor does UFC 3-600-01 or FM Data Sheets (as far as I can tell). In my opinion the closest hazard I can gather would be vehicles in a parking garage which carry an Ordinary Hazard Group 1 designation under NFPA 13 (2016) 5.3.1 and A.5.3.1. Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss this | Submit a Question | Subscribe |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop August '22 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
September 2022
PE PREP SERIES
|
RSS Feed
