y do now."
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Original message
From: David Sornsin
Date:03/12/2014 10:54 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
I worked for Rapid Fire last year and
ginal Message-
> > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Sornsin
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:54 PM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Subject: Re: o
denha...@stricklandfire.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:14 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
And that is reality. Usually there is no time to ask questions.
-Original Message-
From: spri
@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
It's nice if you have time to ask questions prior to bid. Just finishing up a
quote today. 425,000 sq. ft. ESFR. Pump size is specified 2500 @ 65, the
specifications also call for ESFR-25's.
Based on the avail
org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David
> Sornsin
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:54 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
>
> I worked for Rapid Fire last year
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
I worked for Rapid Fire last year and when putting together a bid, I found it
interesting that the spec for an elementary school had verbiage that I had
written 9 years prior while doing the FPE
AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
Dave -
I find when submitting pre-bid RFIs regarding non-applicable requirements in
the bid packages, most are not addressed, and some engineers (will not name
them) got "offended" a
nt: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:54 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
I worked for Rapid Fire last year and when putting together a bid, I found it
interesting that the spec for an elementary school had verbiage that I had
w
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
I worked for Rapid Fire last year and when putting together a bid, I found it
interesting that the spec for an elementary school had verbiage that I had
written 9 years prior while doing the FPE thing with Mark Sornsin. An
engineering firm
inkler.org] On Behalf Of
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:10 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
>
> When you have to specify a non-standard design criteria it's best to
> provide so
-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A.
Sornsin, P.E.
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:41 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
Agreed
-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
When you
g] On Behalf Of Mark A.
Sornsin, P.E.
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:49 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
My comparable story relates to a small town community wellness center. It
included Gymnasium spaces, swimming, etc. We
ailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Curtis
Tower
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
It seems that semantics are everything in this industry; however, certa
resprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
It seems that semantics are everything in this industry; however, certain terms
tend to be used interchangeably by certain people. Code vs. Standard, hazard
occupancy vs. IFC occupancy group, etc. I've had very heated di
pply a conservative
approach by implementing an ordinary hazard II density.
Curtis Tower
-Original Message-
From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:48 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupan
, 2014 11:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
I am close to letting it go, but only because I have a spreadsheet (that only I
could love ;) ) you have it too Roland- the one I sent you about a week after
you said Let's take
I am close to letting it go, but only because I have a spreadsheet (that only I
could love ;) ) you have it too Roland- the one I sent you about a week after
you said Let's take this off forum-- you know- the whole new can of curiosity
you opened for me with your " a more meaningful reference fo
We all love to define things in a quantified and fixed manner but if only it
where as simple as balancing the volume water discharged and the quantity of
fuel available. This is accurate in a very broad and general sense but the
devil is in the details. The PhD’s at NIST have been beating on t
you seemed to have missed the point. You were questioning the intent of the
two sections and it isn’t about a quantification of discharge but simply the
fact that the terms of NFPA 13 do not correlate with the building codes and
that a building can have portions that are different hazard classi
better. So classifying occupancies is not
>>>> simple as some take it to be.
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Duane Johnson (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]"
>>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprin
now claims that I am the expert and
>>> should have known better. So classifying occupancies is not simple as some
>>> take it to be.
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -
>>> From: "Duane Johnson (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]"
etter. So classifying occupancies is not simple as some
>> take it to be.
>> Tony
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Duane Johnson (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]"
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 7:33
; "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time"
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com [mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 8:44 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs o
ler.org
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 7:33:25 AM
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
I don't know what is worse, a sprinkler technician assigning classification of
occupancies playing the EOR role, an architect assigning classification of
occupancies playing the EOR role,
I'm all ears Roland. What is the diff between .1 and .15? Is it not the diff
between "relatively low" and "moderate"?
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Roland Huggins
> wrote:
>
> Not sure I would jump to EH (though the definitions would take you there). I
> say this because the bloody things
Not sure I would jump to EH (though the definitions would take you there). I
say this because the bloody things burn so slowly. I think one of the fire
tests, it took like 30 minutes for the first sprinkler to activate. The amount
of air for combustion is very low. The morale of the story is
nt: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:40 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
Another good example is having an "H" occupancy as defined by the building
code. There are different categories within that section, each representi
ed in: MN
Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim
Davidson
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:00 AM
To: sprinkl
firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Roland Huggins
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:15 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
I would encourage not embracing the defining examples t
Humble enough, Sir Roland.
I will have to think quite a bit more about everything else you said, however.
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Roland Huggins
> wrote:
>
> I would encourage not embracing the defining examples that residential is
> life safety and storage is property protection and e
aig Prahl
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs
I would encourage not embracing the defining examples that residential is life
safety and storage is property protection and everything else is mushy
in-between ground. It’s the system type that dictates the objective. All NFPA
13 systems for all sprinkler types and for all occupancies and use
From: Todd Williams [mailto:t...@fpdc.com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
You forgot Fire Marshal playing EoR
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080
ww
nday, March 10, 2014 8:44 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
>
> Understanding the hazards present is probably one of our biggest
challenges. One of the biggest errors I deal with is incorrectly
classified occupancies.
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 8:44 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
>
> Understanding the hazards present is probably one of our biggest challenges.
> One of the biggest errors I deal with is incorre
e
>
> John Drucker
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:33 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@list
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
I don't know what is worse, a sprinkler technician assigning
classification of occupancies playing the EOR role, an architect
assigning classification of occupancies playing the EOR role, or an
underqualified EOR assigning classificati
h 10, 2014 8:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
Understanding the hazards present is probably one of our biggest challenges.
One of the biggest errors I deal with is incorrectly classified occupancies.
People will look
firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
BTW, there are (4) reasons why I posted this:
1) it is in the Body of 13
2) it comes with a Shall Not
3) it feels like it has 'over-all importance'
4) i am NICET certified, so I should thoroughly understand what I am
resp
ists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf of Brad Casterline
> [bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:16 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
>
> Galen,
> I am rather ashamed to admit I cannot rem
g] on behalf of Brad Casterline
[bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 9:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
Galen,
I am rather ashamed to admit I cannot remember having read A.5.1, and even if I
had it might not
t
>> Fire Prevention Engineering
>> 323-890-4339
>> galen.tay...@fire.lacounty.gov
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad
>>
:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad
> Casterline
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 4:25 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
>
>
>
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Brad Cast
: Friday, March 07, 2014 4:25 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Brad Casterline wrote:
>
> NFPA 13, 5.1.2 (i'm looking at 2007):
> "Occupancy classifications shall not be intended to be
BTW, there are (4) reasons why I posted this:
1) it is in the Body of 13
2) it comes with a Shall Not
3) it feels like it has 'over-all importance'
4) i am NICET certified, so I should thoroughly understand what I am
responsible for applying
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Brad Casterline wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Brad Casterline wrote:
>
> NFPA 13, 5.1.2 (i'm looking at 2007):
> "Occupancy classifications shall not be intended to be a general
> classification of occupancy hazards".
>
> I have finally said "well, uh, ok" to 5.1.1, but am still saying "huh?" to
> 5.1.2.
>
47 matches
Mail list logo
