Thanks to all for the enlightened comments. The 100 ft height is the key to an extensively remodeled bldg. that was vacant for some time and is being recreated.
Art -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA #14 and pressures & pump You know you can NOT look at just ONE section of the standard. Since it is a high-rise, 14:5.4.1.1 is the criteria that drives this boat. The issue on 5.4.1.3 attempts (and badly I might add) to address using a combined standpipe. The way it is written here IMPLIES that you can have a combined sprinkler/standpipe with an automatic sprinkler supply but a manual standpipe supply ONLY in a retro-fit. It applies to new buildings too as clearly indicated in the latest edition. Roland On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:43 AM, art wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
