MeyerFire
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • THE TOOLKIT
    • SUBMIT AN IDEA
    • BACKFLOW DATABASE*
    • CLEAN AGENT ESTIMATOR*
    • CLOUD CEILING CALCULATOR
    • DOMESTIC DEMAND*
    • FIRE FLOW CALCULATOR*
    • FIRE PUMP ANALYZER*
    • FIRE PUMP DATABASE*
    • FRICTION LOSS CALCULATOR
    • HANGER SPACER*
    • IBC TRANSLATOR*
    • K-FACTOR SELECTOR*
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('19 ONLY)
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('99-'22)*
    • LIQUIDS ANALYZER*
    • OBSTRUCTION CALCULATOR
    • OBSTRUCTIONS AGAINST WALL*
    • PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNTS
    • QUICK RESPONSE AREA REDUCTION
    • REMOTE AREA ANALYZER*
    • SPRINKLER DATABASE*
    • SPRINKLER FLOW*
    • SYSTEM ESTIMATOR*
    • TEST & DRAIN CALCULATOR
    • THRUST BLOCK CALCULATOR
    • TRAPEZE CALCULATOR
    • UNIT CONVERTER
    • VOLUME & COMPRESSOR CALCULATOR
    • WATER STORAGE*
    • WATER SUPPLY (US)
    • WATER SUPPLY (METRIC)
  • UNIVERSITY
    • ABOUT
    • CATALOG
    • CONTENT LIBRARY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE Prep Series
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • THE CAUSE
    • ABOUT US
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

Use QR Instead of 30% Remote Area Increase?

6/20/2022

5 Comments

 
NFPA 13 Chapter 19 indicates that for sloped ceilings over 16.7 percent or 9.5 degrees, the system area shall be increased by 30 percent.

My understanding is that the test facility used had this limitation.

We further do recognize that highly sloped ceilings will cause heat to move fast towards the apex and will result in a delayed response of sprinklers, or worse, heads operate over areas not affected by fire.

With a ceiling of 10 degrees which is 0.5 degrees over the limit, will the affect on sprinkler operation really be affected to the extent where the 30% corrective is considered essential?

Without running a full CFD model, the three means of calculating response times of sprinklers we have do not consider ceiling pitch adequately. Looking at calculated results it simply would be more effective to just have lower sprinkler temperature ratings and use quick-response. 

Would use of quick response sprinklers be enough to mitigate the concern in CMSA design instead of high temperature sprinklers (K11.2 or more)?

Thinking a little outside the box here, thanks in advance for the advice/input. 

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
5 Comments
Alex
6/20/2022 06:16:38 am

Hi,

I believe you are right when saying that the test facility had limitations. This opens the floor for performance based design. Sadly, I haven't looked into this issue and cant really advise on design alternatives.

At some point, the committee needs to make a final decision to add items into the standard. For example, with rack storage there are countless ways to store products on racks, with countless rack configurations. This causes open ends within the standard for engineers to work through.

Sorry I'm no help this morning!
Alex

Reply
Glenn Berger
6/20/2022 08:08:06 am

Lots of items contained within this question:

1) NFPA 13 does not indicate an allowance to use QR in lieu of the 30% rule.

2) The use of CFD modelling to prove alternative design is a risky adventure as you will still need authorities buy-in.

3) K11.2 refers to the orifice size and not to temperature rating.

Reply
Dan Wilder
6/20/2022 08:19:16 am

If you can provide and substantiate alternative means and methods proving either equivalency/superior performance AND the AHJ accepts the alternative, then there is no issue. This is one of the first things in NFPA 13 described - "Section 1.5 Equivalency".

Not so much a limitation on the testing (other than time and money), just a common construction angle (2:12 vs 2⅛:12) and corresponding test to prove a design approach and simulations. Providing several calculations showing similar results may be enough to allow that ½° of slope additional to what NFPA says and be enough to validate your approach, or the AHJ may reject it.

Using QR and a lower temp may put water on the fire earlier proving your hypothesis, or it may cause more sprinklers to open, especially if those sprinklers "skip" causing a larger demand on your system and put water in areas that the fire isn't....

Reply
Jesse
6/20/2022 09:31:32 am

I can see some risk in using QR sprinklers in this scenario, and doing so won't absolve you of the need to modify the design area due to slope. QR reductions aren't permitted for anything beyond OH2. And of course, not all K=11.2 sprinklers are created equal. Many aren't listed for storage protection at all.

Reply
Franck
6/20/2022 11:06:10 am

Back to the basic...
All initial tests with sprinkler systems were done with no slope at the ceiling level.
Then somebody realized that it could be problematic as with a slope, sprinklers may open at the edged, quite fire away from the fire. And they were right. They made some tests and they activated much more sprinklers.
So they have to set up a slope when some penalty need to be provided. And it ended up with 2:12. Why 2:12 and not 2:10? Because you're in the US and you like the 12, rather than the 10 (12 in. for one foot, for example). If it was in Europe, it would have probably be a 15% or 20% slope (not a 16.7% slope).
And the penalty was set up at 30%. Again, why 30% and not 25% or 50% ? The answer is... why not ? It is conservative enough and not too demanding... And it was already 30% for dry systems...
And there was a time when this 30% slope rule was also applicable for storage occupancies. Until they realized that it was really problematic for some commodities and with very technical sprinklers being developed at that time on the market (large drop, now designated as CMSA, and ESFR)
So it ended up with: if slope at ceiling (more than 2:12), you can't protect storage ! Sic ! Hopefully there are some possible acceptable alternative, such as providing in-rack sprinklers up to the last level. Or not considering a sloped ceiling with sawtooth type ceilings as the length for the slope is quite limited and the number of operating sprinklers along the slope would remain limited... This is clearly stated in NFPA handbook.
But this is a case by case analysis and need to be discussed and agreed with the AHJ.

Now, to come back to the question, the reduction with QR only applies for Light and Ordinary hazards only, and for building heights below 20 ft (reduction% varies from 25 to 40% depending on the height).
But this is covered with "multiple adjustment" section (11.2.3.2.7 in 2019 edition) where the 30% increase due to slope ceiling may be compensated by the 30% decrease with the use of QR sprinklers.
But be careful, when you add 30% and then remove 30%, the final result is not the same design area as the initial one !
Take the example of 2000 sq ft
2000 + 30% = 2600 sq ft
2600 sq ft - 30% = 1820 sq ft
Note that it doesn't matter if you add first and remove, or remove first and add after.
2000 - 30% = 1400 sq ft
1400 + 30% = 1820 sq ft

On the other hand, the change in temperature rating could be more problematic. Lower temperature sprinklers would activate far from the fire with a slope as they will activate with a lower temperature and you will activate more sprinklers away...
It is for the same reason that high temperature sprinklers are more effective for Extra Hazard and storage occupancies (to avoid activating more sprinklers away from the fire at the initial stage).
Thus a reduction proposed for Extra Hazard and storage occupancies when using high temperature sprinklers.

In your question, you also mentioned the use of CMSA. In that case the asnwer is simple: CMSA are not allowed if the slope is greater than 2:12.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Why Sponsor?

    ALL-ACCESS

    Picture
    GET ALL OUR TOOLS

    SUBSCRIBE

    Subscribe and learn something new each day:
    I'm Interested In:

    COMMUNITY

    Top ​Feb 2023 Contributors
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    SEE LEADERBOARD

    YOUR POST

    SUBMIT A QUESTION

    PE EXAM

    Get 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
    SIGN ME UP!

    FILTERS

    All
    A117.1
    ABA
    ADA
    ASCE 7
    ASME A17.1
    ASTM E1354
    Daily Discussion
    Design Documents
    EN 12845
    Explosion Protection & Prevention
    Fire Detection And Alarm Systems
    Fire Dynamics
    Flammable & Combustible LIquids
    FM Global
    Human Behavior
    IBC
    ICC-500
    IFC
    IMC
    IPC
    IRC
    ISO
    Means Of Egress
    NBC
    NFPA 1
    NFPA 10
    NFPA 101
    NFPA 11
    NFPA 110
    NFPA 1142
    NFPA 1221
    NFPA 13
    NFPA 13D
    NFPA 13R
    NFPA 14
    NFPA 15
    NFPA 16
    NFPA 17A
    NFPA 20
    NFPA 2001
    NFPA 214
    NFPA 22
    NFPA 220
    NFPA 24
    NFPA 241
    NFPA 25
    NFPA 291
    NFPA 30
    NFPA 30B
    NFPA 33
    NFPA 400
    NFPA 409
    NFPA 415
    NFPA 495
    NFPA 497
    NFPA 5000
    NFPA 502
    NFPA 54
    NFPA 55
    NFPA 654
    NFPA 68
    NFPA 70
    NFPA 701
    NFPA 72
    NFPA 75
    NFPA 770
    NFPA 82
    NFPA 855
    NFPA 90A
    NFPA 92
    NFPA 96
    NICET
    OBC
    Passive Building Systems
    PE Prep Guide
    PE Prep Series
    PE Sample Problems
    Poll
    Smoke Management
    Special Hazard Systems
    UFC 3 600 01
    UFC 3-600-01
    UFC 4-021-01
    Updates
    Water Based Fire Suppression
    Weekly Exams


    ARCHIVES

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016


    PE PREP SERIES

    Fire Protection PE Exam Prep
    SEE LEADERBOARD

    RSS Feed

Picture
​Home
Our Cause
The Blog
The Forum
PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit

MeyerFire University
​Pricing
Login
​Support
Contact Us
Picture

MeyerFire.com is a startup community built to help fire protection professionals shine.
Our goal is to improve fire protection practices worldwide. We promote the industry by creating helpful tools and resources, and by bringing together industry professionals to share their expertise.

​MeyerFire, LLC is an International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.

All text, images, and media ​Copyright © 2023 MeyerFire, LLC

We respect your privacy and personal data. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. 
The views, opinions, and information found on this site represent solely the author and do not represent the opinions of any other party, nor does the presented material assume responsibility for its use. Fire protection and life safety systems constitute a critical component for public health and safety and you should consult with a licensed professional for proper design and code adherence.

Discussions are solely for the purpose of peer review and the exchange of ideas. All comments are reviewed. Comments which do not contribute, are not relevant, are spam, or are disrespectful in nature may be removed. Information presented and opinions expressed should not be relied upon as a replacement for consulting services. Some (not all) outbound links on this website, such as Amazon links, are affiliate-based where we receive a small commission for orders placed elsewhere.

  • Blog
  • Forum
  • THE TOOLKIT
    • SUBMIT AN IDEA
    • BACKFLOW DATABASE*
    • CLEAN AGENT ESTIMATOR*
    • CLOUD CEILING CALCULATOR
    • DOMESTIC DEMAND*
    • FIRE FLOW CALCULATOR*
    • FIRE PUMP ANALYZER*
    • FIRE PUMP DATABASE*
    • FRICTION LOSS CALCULATOR
    • HANGER SPACER*
    • IBC TRANSLATOR*
    • K-FACTOR SELECTOR*
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('19 ONLY)
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('99-'22)*
    • LIQUIDS ANALYZER*
    • OBSTRUCTION CALCULATOR
    • OBSTRUCTIONS AGAINST WALL*
    • PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNTS
    • QUICK RESPONSE AREA REDUCTION
    • REMOTE AREA ANALYZER*
    • SPRINKLER DATABASE*
    • SPRINKLER FLOW*
    • SYSTEM ESTIMATOR*
    • TEST & DRAIN CALCULATOR
    • THRUST BLOCK CALCULATOR
    • TRAPEZE CALCULATOR
    • UNIT CONVERTER
    • VOLUME & COMPRESSOR CALCULATOR
    • WATER STORAGE*
    • WATER SUPPLY (US)
    • WATER SUPPLY (METRIC)
  • UNIVERSITY
    • ABOUT
    • CATALOG
    • CONTENT LIBRARY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE Prep Series
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • THE CAUSE
    • ABOUT US
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT