Sam, Reiterating what others have already said this building sounds like it could fall into the category of NFPA 13R which is less stringent than 13 light hazard. What the owner wants is what he gets. If you want a new Mercedes you don't expect the salesman to argue the merits the of a nice '98 Hyundai even if the latter meets your basic needs for transportation. This sounds like a common problem we discuss all the time on this Forum: You were given the work without adequate instruction, you did it with the customer's best interest in mind (typically that he wants to spend the least amount of money), and then he's dissatisfied because he didn't get what he expected even though he wasn't clear in telling you those expectations. My point is don't feel alone.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:45 AM, John Drucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sam, > > Interestingly the 2002 NFPA-13 handbook commentary (11.2.1.3 pg 430) states > "Each hazard can be protected with the appropriate discharge criteria, or > the most demanding criteria can be used throughout the facility." > > Keep in mind that most building codes and reference standards are adequacy > requirements. Some use the word "minimum" but in reality its merely what the > consensus agree is necessary. Theres absolutely nothing restricting a > principal or stakeholder from stipulating something more then what a code or > standard requires with some exceptions. Density is one such area. We have > clients and engineers that stipulate OH-2 design for everything from > offices, restaurant service and seating areas, places of assembly and so > forth. > > In the context of whats acceptable from an AHJ's perspective, 2002 NFPA-13 > 5.2 provides that residential dwelling units are classified as light hazard > occupancies. > > Hope that helps, > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) > Fire/Building/Electrical Inspector > New Jersey, USA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sam b > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 2:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Occupancy hazard for labour accomodation > > Hii. > Thaanx for the quick replies. > > As Mr Todd guessed ,its a living quarters for workers and in Dubai we are > following NFPA standards. > The problem I face is that I had made my calculations for the sprinkler > based on NFPA 13 and with occupancy hazard as Light Hazard. > But our Client just crossed it :( and said its an Ordinary hazard Group 2. > I checked NFPA ,But couldnt see such a thing. > Have I missed something.?? > > Sam > > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Todd Williams - FPDC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Sam, >> >> Welcome aboard. By 'labour accommodations', I assume you mean living >> quarters for workers. If so, then the occupancy would be Residential and >> would need to be protected by either NFPA 13R or NFPA 13 Light Hazard, >> depending on the arrangement of the building, local codes, etc. This, of >> course, is under the assumption that Dubai is using the NFPA standards. >> >> >> >> At 03:34 AM 10/25/2008, you wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone. >>> >>> am a new kid on the block. >>> >>> a beginner to Fire protection Engineering and am working in Dubai. >>> Found this forum as a very informative one >>> >>> I have a doubt regarding the occupancy hazard classification needed for >>> labour accomodation. >>> Labour accomodation is in portable cabins and is a G+1 Construction. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please give your valuable advice. >>> >>> sam >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > sprinkler.org> >>> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >>> >> >> Todd G. Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> Stonington, Connecticut >> www.fpdc.com >> 860.535.2080 _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > sprinkler.org> >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
