|
When are standard response sprinkler heads a better choice than quick or fast response heads (5mm vs. 3mm bulb)?
Are there applications where it would be preferable to have a slower response time? As far as I know, quick and standard response heads cost the same, come with the same k-factors, and the same temperature ratings. Why would the slower one be chosen? When would you choose a Tyco TY-B instead of a TY-FRB? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
10 Comments
Pete
6/30/2021 06:49:52 am
NFPA 13 Chapter 11 I believe says quick response sprinklers shall not be used for extra hazard occupancies or other occupancies with flammable liquids or combustible dusts.
Chris Nelson
5/31/2022 06:03:57 pm
NFPA 13 2016 12.6.6 allows QR where the QR sprinklers are listed for storage applications.
MattC
6/30/2021 08:17:14 am
Any application where you may have many sprinklers activating simultaneously, or in quick succession typically warrants the use of standard response sprinklers.
franck
6/30/2021 08:30:59 am
As indicated by Pete, quick response sprinklers are normally recommended by NFPA for Light and Ordinary hazard occupancy, with a possible reduction of the desihn area (25 to 40%).
Salvatore Izzo
6/30/2021 09:17:02 am
The use between standard response and sprinklers that contain fast response thermal elements (ESFR, residential, quick response, CMSA) is dictated by the standards, the type of design criteria chosen, as well as the listing of the sprinklers themselves. It is really not a subjective choice of installation. For example, as mentioned by others, where life safety is a concern, residential or quick response sprinklers will be required by the standards. Where design criteria is based on water quickly being applied to the fire in its early stages, design area adjustments by the standard are permitted. Extended coverage sprinklers require a fast response thermal element to be able to operate quickly to enable coverage and fire control over a larger area, etc.
Brad K
6/30/2021 09:45:44 am
An additional note to consider. Please check your local adopted building codes when considering QR vs SR sprinklers. For example, several instances in IBC require quick response sprinklers. Specifically one example is 2015 IBC 903.3.2 where sprinklers are required in light hazard occupancies (among others) as defined by NFPA 13. This is important when selecting sprinklers.
Daniel
6/30/2021 09:48:08 am
The maintenance requirement is also a big consideration. Standard response heads need to be tested every 50 years vs. 20 years for quick responses. For my work we had several work trailers that had quick-response heads which were replaced with standard response heads as quick response heads are not required for an office trailer.
DL
6/30/2021 11:51:08 am
Along with the excellent explanations above, generally, there IS a price difference that can quickly add up, and pricing is something designers also need to be aware of. For example, the TY-FRB you mention costs significantly more than the TY-B.
Mike
6/30/2021 12:49:59 pm
In Light hazard when you want to take an area reduction.
Jesse
7/1/2021 08:33:06 am
The advantage in standard response has to do with flash fire events such as combustible dust, flammable liquids, etc. The concern being that the flash heat from the ignition would open too many sprinklers, thus overwhelming the available water supply. With protection being overwhelmed, the resultant fire takes the building. Leave a Reply. |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop November '24 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
December 2024
PE PREP SERIES |
RSS Feed
