| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 工學院產業安全與防災學程 === 99 === Many difficult executions or inconsistencies between the sprinkler approval standard and the standard for installation of fire safety equipments based on use and occupancy have been in existence since sprinkler approval standard was published in 2001. Moreover, the sales for sprinklers and installations have been seriously affected by the application of it. The purpose of this research is to compare the national and international installations and inspection standards for sprinklers, and analyze the data of water distribution test. Accordingly, the recommendations and strategies could be made for the articles of sprinkler approval standard. In addition, to National Fire Agency (NFA) and related industry, these may be the references for amendments and improvement of sprinklers.
The sprinkler approval standard in Taiwan is similar to the one in Japan through analysis. On the contrary, the related tests, including material test, corrosion test, glass-bulb test, incorporating polymeric gasket test and water distribution test, in the UL 199 （Automatic Sprinklers for Fire-Protection Service）have considerable discrepancies to the standards in Taiwan. When 10 pan and 16 pan distribution tests are done respectively, the result shows that the sprinklers produced in Taiwan, Japan and as UL listed products are acceptable. Nevertheless, the when the water distribution test in accordance with Japan’s standard （the effective sprinkler radius is 2.3 meters and the test pressure is 1 kgf/cm2） is conducted, the UL listed products are unable to meet with the standard. Obviously, this water distribution test in sprinkler approval standard is not feasible to the UL listed products.
|
|---|
