For the AHJ types skulking out there, I would back up Scot’s comments, and add the late Joe Hankins to list of highly respected FM P.E.’s.
The one comment I do have is that’s #13 is intended to be used as a standard, and 8-9 et al as guidance to FM’s engineers and insured. It much more expects good intent, and is not to be applied for those who go looking for what-if loopholes. We accepted 8-9 all the time, while still applying the seismic etc standards from #13. Best. Bruce Verhei > On 05/18/2023 3:34 PM PDT å... .... <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If the client resticts their bin-box (open-top) containers to only the lowest > level of storage, there are onerous work-arounds. > > I would take my design directions from FM, as most of their high-piled > plastic storage advice becomes NFPA 13. Simply FM Global has been leader sin > qua non, in sprinkler protection of industrial rack storage for > scores-and-more of years. > > FM Global invokes the Bayesian far more often and far faster than NFPA 13 > (i.e. FM Global changes their mind to update their guess when presented with > new evidence). While it would appear that FM Global procurement of evidence > is biased, because they literally record their own fire test data, I have > found the integrity and the personal effort offered by their personnel as a > paramount case study in information sharing for the fire safety community. > At the risk of tainting their reputations by association with this writer, I > can not recommend enough the personal contributions Prateep Chatterjee and > Weston Baker of FM Global, have made to our industry. > > Section 2.2.4.3 of FM Global's Data Sheet 8-9 talks to us on your subject. > You are in good care with their share. > > Collusion exposure statement: Scot Deal has no financial links to FM Global > either through payments or client procurement collaborations. Scot Deal is > financially linked to NFPA through subscription fees. > > Scot Deal > Excelsior Risk and Fire Engineering > gms: +420 606 872 129 tel:+420606872129 > > Si vis pacem, para vinum > > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:47 PM Steve Leyton <[email protected] > mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I want to be sure that I’ve got this right: A client is moving into a > > brand-new ESFR protected warehouse space and they want to build a two level > > bin-box system. I explained that they would have to fire protect below > > the walkways and they’ve come back to me asking whether or not building > > just the lower level of the system would alleviate the need to make > > sprinkler system improvements. The CMSA and ESFR protection tables in > > Chapter 14 (2016 edition) don’t include bin-box or plastics in the > > application range, Only palletized and solid pile, Classes 1-4. If they > > want to use a bin-box system, do they have to change roof sprinklers out > > for CMDA? Or can the ESFR remain and CMDA sprinklers would be installed > > under walkways when they’re built? > > > > > > > > I miss the little bitty book and pipe scheduled systems… > > > > > > > > Steve Leyton, President > > T | 619.255.8964 tel:619.255.8964 x 102 | www.protectiondesign.com > > http://www.protectiondesign.com/ > > 2851 Camino Del Rio South | Suite 210 | San Diego, CA 92108 > > Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > SprinklerForum mailing list: > > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to > > [email protected] > > mailto:[email protected] > > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
