A FORUM FOR FIRE PROTECTION QUESTIONS & PE EXAM PROBLEMS | SUBSCRIBE NOW
|
This project is a residential occupancy (dormitory) with a sprinkler system designed under NFPA 13. The contractor is using residential-style sprinklers within each unit, but standard-spray sprinklers in the corridor.
The corridor has these standard spray sprinklers just off the main which runs down the corridor. The contractor has provided calculations for the four most demanding adjacent residential style sprinklers, which is fine. He's also provided a calculation for the corridor using five sprinklers. NFPA 13-2016 11.2.3.4.2 states: 11.2.3.4.2 Where an area is to be protected by a single line of sprinklers, the design area shall include all sprinklers on the line up to a maximum of seven. Since the corridor's sprinklers are not residential, how many sprinklers should be calculated in the corridor? Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
4 Comments
Cameron
10/16/2019 10:25:44 am
It sounds like the designer is using the room design method (11.2.3.3.6 in NFPA 13 2013). This would allow the designer to calculate a maximum of five sprinklers permitted the corridor has protected openings in accordance with 11.2.3.3.5.
Bruce Seiler
10/16/2019 11:17:47 am
Section 11.2.3.3.7 does not have the requirement to have protected openings when the area is light hazard. I believe Section 11.2.3.4.2 is intended to be used for larger rooms which aren't corridors but still protected by a single row of sprinkler heads. The previous sections are specific to corridors. So based on Section 11.2.3.3.7, five sprinklers are permitted to be calculated.
Anon.
11/14/2019 12:17:53 pm
I just got one in to review where the designer used the Room Design method for am NFPA #13 retirement home corridor, but did not use the Corridor 5-sprinkler provision. He was considering the corridor the "room", but really didn't even include the entire corridor. I think I can help him out by directing him to the 5-sprinkler corridor methods (opening protection doesn't even come into play). It is a corridor protected by a single row, BUT another corridor tees off it at 90-degrees. Do these "tee" intersections negate the "single row" provision? Each leg IS protected by a single row so I'm thinking this does not negate the intent. Thoughts?
MODERATOR
11/19/2019 08:04:16 am
Great question ANON. Just posted this as a new daily question today here: https://www.meyerfire.com/daily/room-design-5-sprinkler-apply-to-teed-corridor Leave a Reply. |
Free SignupSubscribe and learn something new each day:
CommunityThank You to Our Top
October '20 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
January 2021
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
