Does FM Global Recognize QR-Area Reduction?

3/27/2020

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

7 Comments

Thomas Jones III

3/27/2020 10:08:41 am

No, you have to use a minimum 1500 sq ft remote area. Also, keep in mind that not all QR sprinklers are listed for quick-response per FM.

Tommy Hintz

3/27/2020 10:14:31 am

No. FM does not allow area reduction due to quick response sprinklers. They also dont require a 30% increase for dry either.

Jesse

3/27/2020 10:31:00 am

No they don't. It's PML, and NLE driven (Probable Maximum Loss and Normal Loss Expectancy) for underwriting.

CJ Bonczyk

3/27/2020 10:44:10 am

No, you are required to calculate FM Global required minimums as outlined in their data sheets. Also be aware depending on the project some FM global boiler plate specifications require velocities shall not exceed 32 fps even though this was removed from FM Global guidelines and you may have to RFI that. Additionally its best to RFI any questions to the consulting engineer of record or FM Global themselves for any variances due to extenuating circumstances and sometimes they will allow it. I have had them bend their rules and guidelines many times because what they were requiring was just not feasible.

Mike

3/27/2020 01:49:17 pm

No.

Mike

3/27/2020 01:51:02 pm

Check your state or local amendments to NFPA. California allows for area reduction but then establishes a minimum number of heads.

Bruce Verhei

3/30/2020 04:00:59 pm

Back to the legends of this chart. It is not based on the august work of a PhD fire protection engineer pushing the boundaries of fire protection forward. It was a combination of a couple fire marshal types wanting water on the fire earlier and sprinkler manufacturer reps wanting to sell more of these new heads, and a couple others. I don’t remember if it was the official meeting of the #13 committee or an off to the side informal sub-group.

The fire marshals wanted water on the fire faster. Primary motive. Less smoke.

Sprinkler manufacturers’ reps. They wanted to sell more of these heads. No one was buying them. It might seem hard to believe now but they sold at ca 1.6-1.8 cost of same head with larger diameter bulb. No special packaging, no plastic protectors.

It was thought providing a trade off was necessary to obtain wide use. Everyone knew most light hazard fires were controlled by one or two heads anyway. So they bought someone’s proposal. And put some limits on it. Listening to the results I believe there had been no discussion of extended coverage heads.

FMGlobal has not revised design criteria for a couple generations without having test fires results they could point to. Some guys in a room with different motivations has so far not been adequate engineering justification for FMGlobal.

Best.

Also lost in time is the role government played in moving the sprinkler head industry off near stasis between the ‘50’s SSP & SSU and the ‘70’s The new National Fire Academy was who sought and supervised the grants that lead to development of the residential sprinkler head. There’s a direct line between the residential head, and development of ESFR, and QR heads.

bv

Does FM Global Recognize QR-Area Reduction?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES