What John said two times over. On 9/12/07, John Drucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Remember it's the guy with the most paper that's coming out ahead when the > disputes start. I cannot stress the importance of excellent (not just good) > communications and the way to make that happen is an RFI (Request for > Information). When it comes to something as significant as having to provide > 12 fire service mains versus 1 it ought be in writing. And stay within your > area of expertise. Something as important as if its one building or many > buildings can only be answered by one entity, the government AHJ. While what > I wrote may serve as guidance its only as good as you're AHJ seeing it that > way. If you have a formal written determination that's money in the bank. > > Lastly contracting should not be a roll of the dice. It often amazes me to > have contractors arguing an issue that clearly deserves compensation only to > find out they signed on to some assumption without first hedging that bet. > The administrative side of the business deserves equal if not better > attention as the technical side. > > In about one hour I am off to a meeting with a very astute architect who > says "I want to know what I'm getting into before I get there". No truer > words could be spoken. > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) > Former Project Manager-Siemens Fire Safety. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: what makes a "building" > > John, > > That's a great answer as far as it goes. I'd like to add, for Garth's > benefit, that these types of determinations are in the realm of > responsibility for the architects and engineerrs and not the fire > sprinkler contractor. If at the point of the project that a sprinkler > contractor has been issued a notice to proceed (accompanied by the > standard engineering plans and specifications: "Design/build a > sprinkler system per NFPA 13 and local codes"), and the jurisdiction > has agreed with the architect that this arrangement is indeed a single > building, and that the arrangement of single riser is acceptable as > described, then the sprinkler contractor should proceed as though the > arrangement is correct. Certainly he wouldn't question whether there > was adequate glazing area or if HVAC calculations were correct, but if > he does feel that the arrangement is not correect then he should > register his concern, in writing, with his employer (probably the mech > sub or GC) and proceed. The GC should kick this concern up to his > employer, the architect, who should review the issues and determine > whether the original concept is sound or not. If none of this happens > then negligence does not rest with the sprinkler contractor but with > one of other, higher parties in the chain. > > On 9/11/07, John Drucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A question without a simple answer. From the building code a building is > > merely defined as " Any structure used or intended for supporting or > > sheltering any use or occupancy". That in itself defines the difference > > between a building and a structure. A home is a building, a radio > > transmission tower a structure. > > > > With that said a covered mall is an example of a large multiuse single > > building. Don't let the zoning issues steer you astray, theres no telling > > what some land use law could allow. It is entirely possible that a > building > > could project over or require access through another lot, a deeded > easement > > is just one method to do this. The building code actually makes reference > > that land use, i.e. zoning issues are outside the scope of the building > > code. > > > > If one desires to use the term building in the context of the building > code > > they must do so in complete compliance with the building code. Its simply > > not acceptable to pick and choose the sections "that work". With that > said > > in order for this complex of buildings to be considered a single building > > the full width and breadth of the building code need be applied. > > > > First determine the occupancy (and more specifically the most stringent > > occupancy) construction type, height and area. Add the building areas > (also > > referred to as the footprint) together. This represents the total > building > > area just as we would do with a single large building. Now take all of > this > > information and review it utilzing Table 503 of the IBC. Can we build this > > building in accordance with the table ?. Either yes or no we must > consider > > the two modifiers that modify the tabular (the numbers found in the table) > > height and area limitations. Fire Sprinklers and Open Frontage are two > such > > modifiers, verify if using either or both of these modifiers allows the > > building to fall within the permissable (tabular + modifiers) building > area. > > This is essentially what 2006 IBC 503.1.2 (Buildings on same lot) says. > > > > If the "building" in question has passed muster so far, then means of > > egress(IBC Chapt 10) (number of exits, travel distance, etc) must be > > considered. Next consider the fire protection requirements (IBC Chapt 9) > > (Sprinklers, Standpipes, Fire Alarms) ....... I think everyone gets the > > idea and its not a simple process. As a code official when this question > > arises it is the design professional who must prove compliance not the > other > > way around. A single large building will actually gravatate to a more > > stringent construction type, means of egress and fire protection. (just to > > name a few). > > > > There is one example I'd like to share and that has to do with occupant > > load. The IBC (2006 IBC 1004.2 for those who want to check) stipulates a > > provision wherein the occupant load of a building may be increased beyond > > that listed in the "Maximum Floor Area Allowances Per Occupant" Table > > (1004.1.1). But to do this the designer is directed by the code section > that > > "all other requirements of the code are also met". In other words theres > a > > synergy implied in the code. If you want a glass of milk (versus say a > glass > > of water) you need to buy the whole cow. So no picking and choosing. > > > > Hope that sheds some light on the whole thing. PS- Don't leave out the > > requirements of NFPA-13,14, 20............ > > > > John Drucker > > Fire Protection Subcode Official > > Building Inspector > > New Jersey > > > > Safe Buildings Save Lives ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > at home.... > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >
-- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
