We did end up going to EH1 in order to avoid trying to fight with the plan reviewer. I was thinking along the same lines as Ken - NFPA 12 (2016) 23.4.4.2.4 is specifically in the area/density section when it comes to adding flow for heads that are not present.
I had just never encountered a comment like this before. On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 11:58 AM Anthony Carrizosa < [email protected]> wrote: > Can you use the Room Design method? Look at NFPA 13 – 2016 – section > 11.2.3.3.4 and then 11.2.3.1.4 (2) looks like if the room is smaller than > the required area of an EH1 @2500 sqft then use the size of the room @ the > required density for the 2500 sqft. ( .30/2500) or .30/300 for your room. > > > > *Anthony Carrizosa * > > Project Manager *| *Fire Protection > > 7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032 > > Cell: *206-679-5283* | Office Dir: *253-341-4593* > > https://archerconstruction.com > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2farcherconstruction.com%2f&c=E,1,Wdb65AWzMgSBzW3HDw91SfcRQCtxDUQKoJf-UowQ-WnB_WMosgG-8W7eLePJ42PwWQvLiQx16Pls052VqwHO7tKm-_u5AnWly0ewkNiMkxn-AjQb1JI,&typo=1> > > > > *From:* Matt Grise <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2024 8:54 AM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Small ESFR system > > > > We are looking at an auto repair facility that has a very small tire > storage room (apx 300sf). The tire storage space is open on one side to the > misc parts storage area (short-shelf OH2). Our thought was to protect the > tire storage space with a small ESFR system that extends 15' into the misc > parts storage area. The other 3 sides of the tire storage room are CMU and > extend to the deck. > > > > Even with the 15' extension into the lesser hazard area, there are only 6 > ESFR sprinklers needed. (2 heads on 3 lines) = 540sf. > > > > Based on the annex commentary in NFPA 13 2016 A11.1.2, our plan was to > calc the 6 esfr heads (the full higher-hazard area plus 15' = 540sf) along > with 960sf at .2gpm/sf to round out the larger of the two operating areas. > > > > > > We received some pushback because there is no ESFR design criteria that > only uses 6 heads, so the plan reviewer was concerned that we were not > following the 12-head design for an ESFR system. > > > > There was a suggestion that we should pretend there were 12 heads and calc > a 12 head area (even though 6 would never be installed).I figured that > since we were calculating ALL of the ESFR heads in the building, that would > be ok. > > > > Has anyone seen anything like this before? Any thoughts? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Matt Grise > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > 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]
