The way this issue works in Seattle is that if the renovation is "significant" (subjective determination by building official, but typically the building is being gutted to trigger this) then the project is indeed subject to the requirement for an automatic standpipe, among other things. However, if the building is shorter than about 15 - 20 stories we typically waive the pump requirement (assuming sprinklers don't need it) and accept manual standpipes. However, we would probably require the 4 in. standpie to be replaced with 6 in.
These projects always brings up all sorts of operational discussions about the use of manual standpipes in the old unsprinklered high rise buildings when using modern standpipe pressures against hose valves that are not high pressure rated, nor behind PRV's. Bottom line, meet with the AHJ. Rich Richardson Seattle Fire Department >>> "art" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/31/07 6:43 AM >>> We have a 100 ft high rise residential bldg. with major renovations. There are two existing 4" standpipes. The building will be retrofitted with a sprinkler system per NFPA 13. From NFPA 14 2003,can 5.4.1.3 be used to not require a fire pump to supply the standpipe 100 psi pressure since this existing 80 year old bldg is being sprinklered? Is the fire pump required to supply 750 gpm with 500 gpm at 100psi at the most remote standpipe? Art Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Roland Huggins wrote excellent question. I put my money on Steve's answer. The NFPA committees that I am on (or familiar with) are aggressively moving away from encouraging occupants to use a hose (which correlates nicely with OSHA requirements). Roland On Jan 30, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Steve Leyton wrote: > I think that the sections I referenced are quite clear: > > "For Class III systems installed without hose, the water supply > requirements shall be as specified for Class I systems." > > That would be ALL of the water supply design criteria, including > both maximum and minimum pressures. > > Steve Leyton > Protection Design & Consulting > > The foregoing is the opinion of the writer alone, and does not > necessarily represent the intent of the NFPA 14 Technical > Committee, nor constitute a formal or informal interpretation of > the standard. > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
