A FORUM FOR FIRE PROTECTION QUESTIONS & PE EXAM PROBLEMS | SUBSCRIBE NOW
|
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 The FM label I saw gives some outdated ASTM standards and references a CABO report but doesn't clearly state the fire rating.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
2 Comments
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 |
Free SignupSubscribe and learn something new each day:
CommunityThank You to Our Top
August 2020 Contributors!
Your PostThe ToolkitSprinkler Designer or Engineer?
Get all of our tools, including the Sprinkler Database, Friction Loss Calculator, Fire Pump Analyzer and more: 
Filters
All
Archives
September 2020
Daily
Daily discussions are open-ended fire protection, fire alarm, and life safety questions submitted anonymously for the benefit of sharing expertise and learning from other perspectives. Anyone can submit a question here:
Exam Prep
2020 PE Prep Guide
(Available Now!) 
PE Prep Series
(Available Now!) 2020 PE Prep Series
Current Leaderboard (Click to enlarge) 
PE Problems
Visit July-October for daily Fire Protection PE Exam sample questions.
Solutions are posted the day after posting. Comment with your solutions, questions or clarifications. Please note that questions posted are unofficial and in accordance with NCEES rules are intended to be similar to actual exam questions, not actual exam questions themselves. |
RSS Feed
