Sam: In Dubai, the local authorities (not sure if you are under Civil Defense of JAFZA on this project) require a fire hazard report on most jobs. Included in this report is a classification of hazard of contents (light, ordinary and High per NFPA 101, 2007 edition, section 6.2.2). I am curious if your customer is referring to this classification and not to the design density requirements for sprinklers (although you did say ordinary group 2 which would be sprinkler density). Ordinary hazard of contents would not necessarily drive ordinary hazard sprinkler design. You may want to make sure the customer is referring to the right topic before you get to much further. Also, with the nature of a lot of the labor housing facilities in Dubai, you may want to run the design requirements past the local AHJ. The way some of those facilities are built and fenced in, the local authorities may have driven a higher design requirement (but I do not really suspect that they have).
Andrew Weisfield David de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/2008 08:25 PM Please respond to [email protected] To [email protected] cc Subject Re: Occupancy hazard for labour accomodation Sam: Building on the prior comments and based on your client's expectations, perhaps your client does not understand the difference between "Ordinary Hazard" and "Light Hazard". Sometimes clients need education and in this case, the economics favor the client and can make you look good. That is, by your demonstration that a purely residential occupancy can be reasonably protected with a Light Hazard system or even a 13R system, which will save the client some money, you can end up looking like you have the client's interests at heart. If on the other hand, the client selected an Ordinary Hazard system and that's what is truly wanted, that is what the client should get! Good luck. Dave Ron Greenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 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 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]> 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]> 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) _______________________________________________ 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) This email is intended for named recipients only. _______________________________________________ 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)
