|
I have a situation in a locker room in which the lockers themselves were built too high resulting in only a 12" clearance instead of having 18". It's a B Occupancy (IBC), light-hazard with standard-coverage QR heads (12'x12' grid).
Could we feasibly swap the heads out for extended-coverage QR heads (16'x16') and meet the intent of NFPA 8.5.6 for clearance? Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
5 Comments
Mike L
6/5/2020 07:58:43 am
If the lockers are located along the walls (sprinkler heads in the aiselways) then the lockers are permitted to be closer to the heads (less than 18") per section 8.6.6.2.
Jesse
6/5/2020 10:15:31 am
8.6.6.2 might help, but it applies to clearance to storage. This is a fixed object, and while 8.6.6.2 applies to shelves arranged vertically against a wall, I presume you'll have rows of lockers on the floor not against a wall. Extended Coverage may indeed help you help as long as A) you can hydraulically prove you can support the higher pressures / volumes needed by the EC sprinklers, and B) you meet Table 8.6.5.2.2
Jerry Clark
6/5/2020 11:14:12 am
If the K factor were the same for the EC heads, is there any affect on the system demand?
Jonathan Joseph
6/5/2020 01:55:07 pm
23.4.4.11.2 2016 Where a higher minimum operating pressure for the desired application is specified in the listing of the sprinkler, this higher pressure shall be required.
Jonathan Joseph
6/5/2020 11:07:42 am
I would determine ho far apart are the rows of lockers. Treat the lockers as walls and then determine which sprinkler would be best and just like Jesse said above EC sprinklers are more hydraulically demanding. Leave a Reply. |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop September '24 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
October 2024
PE PREP SERIES |
RSS Feed
