Most excellent Steve. You have said it well but I feel it will fall on deaf ears. Remember, we are in the age of 2000 dollar toilet seats and 500 dollar hammers when it comes to the govt. Geoff Dyce
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Beyond code (was max velocity) As diplomatically as possible, I'd like to comment on your talking points: -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Beyond code (was max velocity) Well, not to increase the storm clouds further, the following needs to be explained. 1. Most of what I specify is part of the Facilities Standard that we build buildings under. (pipe types, design areas, densities, etc.) Most? Why not all? Amendments and enhancements are not enforcement issues, but policy issues that should be documented in writing at the time of submittal for the benefit of all parties on both sides of the counter, . 2. I am the AHJ and the owner's representative, just as it allows in the good book. Does that mean you subscribe to what we affectionately call "The God Clause"? The good book (by which I assume you mean the NFPA standard or the adopted code set, as opposed to the Bible or the Koran or Marvel Comics) says that the standard of care prescribed therein is a minimum, and that a building or fire official may amend or increase those minimum standards based on specific or geographical needs. Many AHJ's, particularly plan reviewers mistake that preamble for a license to just make stuff up or interpretively require whatever they want, regardless of the adopted codes and standards. 3. I have to try my darndest to insure that a system will last a minimum of 50 years, not just till the warranty runs out. Okay - but you haven't advocated anything that will do that with regard to velocity limits or the other talking points on this thread. I agree with that goal, BTW. 4 I am not in any way advocating the government requirements for the private sector. Good, because the cost of housing and commercial space would skyrocket if that were the case. 5. These buildings are not going to change ownership or occupancy ever. My point exactly in my reply to Mario. 6. My process is to insure that I have pipe that will remain large enough to provide at least some measure of protection after 50 years of everybody and their dog modifying and changing the sprinkler system in that period of time. Which is a function of maintenance and exercising the system, but not velocity limits or arbitrary increases to water supply requirements, head spacing, etc. 7. Walls will change in these buildings and preventing the sprinklers from covering more than 130 square feet with a light hazard density will help compensate for that. I cannot ever guarantee that sprinklers will accompany wall changes. In our buildings it seldom does, leaving areas unprotected. Last I checked there aren't walls going up all over the place on GSA jobs. In fact, you can't even get a surge suppressor without three sets of approvals and a competitive bid. And most folks will confirm that non-permitted walls will effectively block a sprinkler spaced at 130 sq. ft. just as it would a 225 sq. ft. area of coverage. 8. If you are ever on a federal jury, try to think about the fire protection systems in a highly secured building with really bad egress. I must admit that I do everything in my power to assure that I will not be on a federal jury any time soon. If I somehow fail at that effort and am sequestered with 11 other people ranging in age from 65-92, I will use my age advantage and deftly out-maneuver them, following signage to the nearest exit, since I never enter any building I'm not familiar with and not look immediately for sprinklers and exit signs. If I am in such a building and it's not sprinklered or there's no signage or alarm system, can I call you? {It's a joke ... :o) } 9. I seemed to noticed that some readers apparently feel that these systems should be competitively bid against minimum codes as interpreted by what they are familiar with on other projects. We simply cannot work that way. Too much gets by that shouldn't. You're gonna have to explain that one to me. These are, by your description courthouses and presumably other A and B occupancy buildings, correct? Chemical storage facilities, weapons labs, working aircraft hangars, special hazards in general - those are performance based systems where your expertise as an FPE and my expertise as a systems guy should, in theory, be in synchronicity toward the end goal of delivering a design that meets the unique challenges of such facilities. But observing velocity limits, arbitrarily adding sprinklers, etc. to Light and Ordinary Hazard occupancy groups is a waste of money in my opinion. 10. This is not a bad return on the taxpayer's money. In the private sector, the architectural and every other trade gets more attention than the fire protection systems. It seems that the fire protection systems are the red headed stepchildren to everything else. I am trying to make this trade better, not worse. And while I admire your intentions, the fact of the matter is that the public doesn't "get" fire protection yet although that is slowly starting to change. The number one impediment to homebuilder acceptance of unilateral residential fire sprinkler installations is what? (Tick, tick, tick - 5 seconds ....) Answer: COST Making systems more expensive, whether they are public or private sector projects, is counter-productive to your stated aim if there is no cost-benefit. 11. It also appears that many think that no one deserves more than just the bare minimum with various interpretations. There is nothing wrong with having something better. Does anyone think that they deserve only the cheapest truck or house or other things or is that reserved for the other guy? There is nothing wrong with having something better if it's free (or there is a customer willing to pay for it) and actually better. You continue to imply (without substantiation) that the talking points in this thread are better. I am saying there is NO benefit to arbitrarily increasing pipe size (what about the additional strain on the hangers and bracing, as well as the building structure?). There is no benefit to arbitrarily decreasing sprinkler coverage or increasing hydraulic design areas a la NAVFAC and their "double the area, double the hose stream allowance" approach. So it's not better and it's more expensive. How is there benefit to the juror or taxpayer? The reason there have been several critical comments regarding your approach is that you are clinging without apparent justification to your reasoning that more is better. I can tell you from the industry perspective that what's frustrating is that there is no underlying or compelling support that you have yet to offer. Please know that I'm just trying to find something in your practices that I can agree with - I really am. But I have had to donate too many hours of my time and too much of my and my clients' labor and materials over the course of many years because we prepared a bid or a proposal based on an established code set and found out through transactions with folks like yourself that we were going to be on the hook for something above and beyond that - at our own cost. It is an extremely maddening and expensive process and one in which there are no winners, and that includes your agency which is likely maintaining thousands of fire pumps it doesn't need and my kids are paying for it. Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
