Thinking they missed a cut when cutting and pasting from the last letter.
And even if it's true in their opinion, changing the remote area is not a consideration in hazard analysis like this. In-other-words it appears they are agreeing with light hazard but want 1500 sq.ft. If they are concerned with higher than normal fire potential the correct comment would be to change the hazard classification. Yes then there are cases to further change the RA but that's not my first move. And I don't think they get to make evaluations like that on a peer review. If they wrote the spec fine you have a problem. Here it's strictly per 13. I think both prisons and residential are rather well covered it the standard. Ask where you were employed to practice engineering in the first place. See now if you said you engineered the system I bet they'd rightfully call you on it. (assuming you don't have engineers) Good or bad your job I'd bet has nothing to do with engineering. A single company does not get to set good engineering practices. They are only developed through industry standards. An engineering company might have engineering opinions but unless they have some ASTM, NFPA, SFPE document I've not heard of talking about the engineering practice in this case it ain't a good or bad practice. I'd love them to articulate what is normal for prisons or residential in the first place. Unless they can quantify normal they can't judge higher. Here's another twist they might be thinking of. The frequency of fire they may be concerned with. They say "potential for a fire" not "fire potential" which could be interpreted as the frequency vs. the size. Now I doubt frequency is a concern in prison. And NFPA 13 and all its good and bad have really nothing to do with frequency or risk of a fire starting IT ASSUMES A FIRE HAS STARTED. Hey I'll peer review it for you but I think good engineering practice is for a full 2500 sq.ft. hahahahahaha Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [email protected] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: PE Peer Review I would like the take from the PE's on forum on how to deal with a plan review comment from an unnamed engineering firm (RJA). "Due to the higher than normal potential for a fire in the occupant sleeping and common areas, the reduction in fire are (remote area) for quick response sprinkler in accordance with NFPA #13 Figure 11.2.3.2.3.1 is not a good engineering practice. Please revise the hydraulic calculation to account for at least the minimum 1500 square foot design area as specified by NFPA #13." The hazard is a dormitory at a minimum security prison. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Sprinkler Phoenix, AZ _______________________________________________ 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)
