And we can add a full blown coordination process (meetings and a
sign-off) on a 50 head Light Hazard job...
At 04:37 PM 1/15/2007, you wrote:
Can you substantiate a single incident where 130 sq. ft. sprinkler
spacing in lieu of 225 or greater saved a courthouse? (I know you
likely can't, it was in fact a rhetorical question). I notice that
you say "I" a lot in your posting - "I don't allow ..." "I specify ..."
Are you a policy-making officer or an enforcement officer?
AHJ's normally work with an adopted code set, which in turn references
certain standards. That is what we're charged with delivering under a
contract usually - a design and/or installation that is in accordance
with the adopted codes and standards. And those documents are
developed by committees comprised of experts who rely on technical and
empirical data to formulate and maintain minimum standards of care for
the specific code or standard-based issue that is being addressed. This
is the consensus process at its best when it works smoothly, which in
spite of a certain amount of parochial bitching is most of the time.
I have a darned good idea where a lot of the money goes on public
projects - it gets WASTED. Spent on too many levels of review and not
enough straightforward plan check and inspection of the referenced codes
and standards and whatever other provisions are enforced, such as the
Navy UFC's for example. And ridiculous submittal requirements like
the 13 hard-copy sets we just submitted on a 50% review for a 15,000
s.f. aircraft service building at a MCAS that's equipped with fire
sprinklers only. And the NAVFAC engineer that rejected our flow test
that was witnessed by the base fire marshal, the GC's project engineer
and superintendent, the sprinkler contractor's foreman and yours truly
but NOT witnessed by the project FPE who's only real deliverable product
is a code analysis.
I've been doing Federal, State and Local public works projects for 25+
years Rahe and I'm telling you that even with a much higher standard of
care than the minimum NFPA prescriptive standards, we could deliver fire
sprinkler work to Uncle Sam for 65 cents on-the-dollar if these "rump
rules" were relaxed and/or eliminated.
Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Beyond code (was max velocity)
Thanks to everyone for the input.
To explain further about what I do to try to insure the greatest amount
of longevity and reliability for a system within some reason, I also
specify that all light hazard sprinkler coverage is 130 square feet
rather than 225 square feet. This helps when walls are moved and
sprinklers are not.
Happens a lot. I don't allow extended coverage sprinklers. I don't
allow any piping with a CRR less than 1. All threaded pipe must be
Schedule 40 and all roll groove pipe must be Schedule 10 minimum.
Threadable lightwall piping is not allowed. The calculated design area
must be the hydraulically most remote and must be calculated at 1500
square feet, not 900 no matter what the conditions. No mechanical "Ts"
are allowed. No flexheads allowed. No adjustable drop nipples allowed.
If I have a fire pump for elevation loss, then all calculations must be
through the bypass loop until the point of the need for the pump for
elevation; usually the 4th or 5th floor. Just call me old fashioned,
but once I sign the Certificate of Occupancy, all changes are out of my
hands. Remember sprinklers may be moved, added, subtracted, changed,
etc. all without any calculation of any kind. You would not believe the
systems in some of our buildings.
All of this, and more, is on the drawings and in the specifications so
that
the playing field is level. If you only knew where most of your tax
dollars go in the government, you would gladly pay for the beefed up
sprinkler system. Across the nation, our Federal Courthouses will cost
from $80 million up to $400 million. Sprinkler systems at twice the
usual cost are extremely cheap insurance.
Thank You
Rahe Loftin, P.E.
Region 7 - GSA
Office - 817-978-7299
Fax - 817-978-8644
Cell - 817-371-3102
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
