SprinklerDesigner2
Mechanical
- Nov 30, 2006
- 1,251
Currently Georgia has adopted the 2002 edition of NFPA #13 but all indications are we Georgia will be adopting the 2012 edition effective first of the year. I say all indications because this was supposed to change before now but never has... it isn't written in stone yet.
I have a storage building with some Class A exposed non-expanded plastic stored to a maximum height of 5'-0". The building offers OH2 with 250 gpm hose but not 500 gpm hose.
NFPA #13 2002 Edition
Referring to Table 12.1.10.1.1 Miscellaneous Group A Plastic Storage it appears the minimum hose stream allowance is 500 gpm even for storage < 5' high.
But if we go to NFPA #13 2010 Edition
Referring to Figure 13.2.1 (page 556 of the handbook) the design would be for an OH2 (Ordinary Hazard Group II Occupancy) with 250 gpm hose stream.
At first glance it appears the more stringent would be the 2002 edition with the 500 gpm hose stream but what if, as appears may very well be the case, additional testing was conducted which led to the conclusion 250 gpm was a more appropriate level of protection?
I remember sitting in a class given by Ken Isman of the NFSA and alternate to Russ Fleming on the NFPA #13 committee, and he underscored to us that any later edition of any NFPA standard would never offer a less level of protection.
Does anyone know of anything that might have lowered the 500 gpm hose to 250 gpm hose?
I have a storage building with some Class A exposed non-expanded plastic stored to a maximum height of 5'-0". The building offers OH2 with 250 gpm hose but not 500 gpm hose.
NFPA #13 2002 Edition
Referring to Table 12.1.10.1.1 Miscellaneous Group A Plastic Storage it appears the minimum hose stream allowance is 500 gpm even for storage < 5' high.
But if we go to NFPA #13 2010 Edition
Referring to Figure 13.2.1 (page 556 of the handbook) the design would be for an OH2 (Ordinary Hazard Group II Occupancy) with 250 gpm hose stream.
At first glance it appears the more stringent would be the 2002 edition with the 500 gpm hose stream but what if, as appears may very well be the case, additional testing was conducted which led to the conclusion 250 gpm was a more appropriate level of protection?
I remember sitting in a class given by Ken Isman of the NFSA and alternate to Russ Fleming on the NFPA #13 committee, and he underscored to us that any later edition of any NFPA standard would never offer a less level of protection.
Does anyone know of anything that might have lowered the 500 gpm hose to 250 gpm hose?