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?
Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
Subscribe and learn something new each day:
Thank You to Our Top
August 2020 Contributors!
Sprinkler Designer or Engineer?
Get all of our tools, including the Sprinkler Database, Friction Loss Calculator, Fire Pump Analyzer and more:
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:
2020 PE Prep Guide
PE Prep Series
2020 PE Prep Series
(Click to enlarge)
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.