Special Sprinklers

[stookeyfpe]

This is a question to the design professionals:

Excluding storage designs, what percentage of your designs are using special sprinklers as defined in either the 2002 or 2007 editions of NFPA 13?

The second question is what percentage of your designs for storage use special sprinklers?

My reason for asking is I am delivering a new seminar on the 06 International Fire Code requirements for fire protection systems in October. I am spending a fair amount of time on NFPA 13, 2002 because it has a lot of new options, especially in Chapter 12.

Before I took this job I spent a 1/3rd of my work time performing plan reviews on storage occupancies and was witnessing an increasing use of special sprinklers in Storage occupancies. I am wondering if the same trend is occurring in other designs for Light and Ordinary hazard occupancies (as defined in NFPA 13).

I look forward to learning from all of you.

 

[TravisMack]

Scott:

I have done a couple of storage jobs with the Tyco Ultra K17 sprinkler. It was sometime last year, and I honestly don't remember the name of the project, but I do remember we put in Ultra K17 sprinklers at the roof. It was a storage project.

I am not sure if you would qualify them as special, but I do a lot of projects with Tyco Attic sprinklers. I would say that probably 25% of the attics I do have Tyco Attic Sprinklers. I am also seeing several instances where the Tyco CC1 or CC2 or the Viking COIN sprinklers are being required. When the contractor learns about this requirement, it typically throws a monkey wrench into the program.

Good luck!

T

 

[cdafd]

kinda of same question what are you including under special

I looked at 3.6.2.11 2002 and does not say much

 

[stookeyfpe]

When I look at the requirements in 8.4.9.1 I am starting to learn (correctly or incorrectly) that so long as the sprinkler has been evaluated as prescribed by the indicated section, it can be installed in accordance with its listing and the limits of its listing.

My reason for this exercise is I am becoming more nervous over the rules for the installation of the available sprinklers in the marketplace. I just spent four hours looking at the Tyco, Viking and Reliable data sheets for various ordinary hazard and storage occupancy sprinklers and there are some pretty detailed rules for installation and clearances, especially for K= 11.2 or larger.

The 2002 edition of NFPA 13 has a mechanism to convey this information to communities where fire companies are doing inspections but I'm pretty sure that most jurisdictions lack the sophistication to understand this.

Plus, the general rules regarding FD permitting of tenant sprinkler improvements (i.e., no plans for < 20 sprinklers) is no longer valid when one only needs to calculate a hydraulic demand for five sprinklers.

This is the reason for my question. I'm trying to get an idea of the percentage of designs where design professionals using these sprinklers to reduce installation costs. I am trying to raise the level of awareness as to the design flexibility allowed by the 2002 and 2007 editions of NFPA 13.

 

[cdafd]

I have several big box coming in all using ceiling level and no in racks.

Not sure if you include extended coverage, which is about 25% of installations.

My gripe is that the annual inspection done by the sprinkler companies does not address or the tech does not have the knowledge to know that the sprinkler protection provided is not good for the storage in the building.

I do agree some ahj's do not have the knowledge to evaluate special set ups, and do know that all the requirements of the testing have to be met.


Maybe the hydraulic calc plate needs to be changed to include all the rules of storage for the head used. That way at least it is posted somewhere so the design can be comapred to what is there.

 

[cdafd]

The other thing about ahj's is the big boys throw testing data at them and some do not question it.

 

[stookeyfpe]

CDA

The 2007 edition of NFPA 13 has made a darn good attempt of getting the information about the system posted at the riser. See NFPA 13 Section 24.6.

Your statements confirm your experiencing the same issues I have encountered.

I see the IFC hopefully adding a section or a Chapter on Special Inspections to assist fire code officials with these systems. I worry about the code official in Horse Hiney, Texas getting some warehouse because the city fathers & mothers want the tax base and don't really care that the minimum fire protection is not provided. All they see is the sales tax $$.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

A most interesting topic.

I would guess 25% of my projects dealt with special sprinklers but if you include residential sprinklers I would boost that figure to 50% or better. If you want to include special sprinklers for storage then boost the figure to 75% or better.

As far as inspections the sufficiency of design shouldn't be dealt with less the inspecting company get themselves into legal troubles.

Let me explain that one. Say an inspector pokes above a suspended ceiling, notices a combustible space withoutt sprinklers and writes it up in his report. The owner gets the report, authorizes sprinklers be added to the space, the inspectors company gets a purchase order for the work and everyone is happy.

The danger lies in the scope of work involved in an inspection. An inspection is a visual walk through, ringing the bells and performing a main drain test. That is it, nothing in NFPA #25 directs an inspector to get on a ladder to poke his head above a ceiling and if he does so he is taking on a burden that shouldn't be his. By finding one non-sprinkled area, he got on a ladder to poke his head above a ceiling, it could be implied this was within the scope of his job and it would be reasonable to assume he poked his head up above all the ceilings checking for non-sprinkled areas.

If there is a fire in a different area of the building and let's assume it starts in an area above a suspended ceiling with combustible construction. If the loss is big enough look out for lawyers because the inspector implied on a previous report he checked above suspended ceilings as part of the contract.

I know, sounds foolish but we are talking about lots of money and lawyers.

Don't allow your inspectors to pass judgement on the sufficiency of a system. They should know NFPA #25 inside and out and their inspection should cover exactly what is contained in NFPA #25. Nothing more, nothing less. Make sure your inspectors know it and follow it exactly.

Suffiency of design. The inspector doesn't know the history of the building. Some time ago I did a job per NFPA #13R using dry pendent sprinklers which you are allowed to do as long as the dry pendent sprinklers are quick response and no more then four sprinklers are within a dwelling unit.

This is known as the "Motel Rule".

Problem I had is I needed to use five sprinklers; there was a mechanical closet that was normally locked but located within the dwellign unit. I submitted drawings with five sprinklers writing a letter to the local authority having jurisdiction advising him to reject the plans. I went so far as to tell him what to write so I could appeal tot he Board of Standards and Appeals comprised of members appointed by the governor having the legal authority, by statute passed by the state legislature, to waive anything they wanted.

The board was comprised of five members; a lawyer, a school teacher, a registered architect and two professional engineers. Knowing one of the engineers I was fairly certain I would receive a legal waiver but I had to make sure to do everything I had to do to cover my rear end.

If an inspector examines the system for compliance, and he shouldn't because that is not in the scope of NFPA #25, he is going to list a design descrepancy that doesn't exist.

I always urge designers to take care not to blindside an examiner or inspector. In many areas of the country those charged with reviewing sprinkler plans and inspecting the installation can not possibly know everything you know. If you run into something like I did be foreward about it, don't try to talk "him" into approving something he should not without at least providing something he should hang his hat on. What you might want to think about, in terms of an acceptable alternate, is contact a PFE like stookey, explain the situation, see if he will write a letter for a small fee (maybe a couple hundred bucks) so everyone involved, including the local fire chief, has some cover should something happen.

"The 2007 edition of NFPA 13 has made a darn good attempt of getting the information about the system posted at the riser. See NFPA 13 Section 24.6." Very much needed and long overdue.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Stookey,

I've been thinking about the changes in sprinkler technology and the changes boogles my mind.

I started laying out sprinkler systems in 1976 when NFPA #13 was a little red book containing slightly over 100 pages. We had upright, pendent and sidewall sprinklers 90% of the jobs were pipe schedule even extra hazard occupancies. 90 sq. ft. per sprinkler stuff.

Most all the pipe was schedule 40 with threaded fittings even 6" and 8" sizes.

I hired in, went on a few surveys, visited a few jobs in progress and inside of four weeks I was actually laying out some sprinkler systems. Inside of three months I figure I was paying for myself, six months after starting I was sent to one of Jack Woods hydraulic calculation seminars in Hastings, MI and in seven months I was producing hand calcs on tree and loop systems.

After learning calcs I was introduced to the biggest innovation in the sprinkler industry since the introduction of the spray sprinkler and that was the large orifice 17/32" head.

The rest of the changes came over 32 years in chunks; some large and some small. The handbook isn't 100 pages anymore.

Where we used to have three basic sprinklers; upright, pendent and sidewall, we now have hundreds if not thousands and most of these would be classified as "special" sprinklers.

I feel the day is coming when a "standard sprinkler" won't exist.

Does everyone agree this forum would be an appropriate place to have a discussion on the role of the professional fire protection engineer and sprinkler layout technicians in the real world?