Tell Jim or Steve to..., well never mind. I don't agree to increasing the area because of a "higher potential for fire".
However, if the intent was to say "the fire potential is higher", that is larger fire area is anticipated, then I would agree. One can argue that an intentially set fire by the inmates is highly probable. If this is the case, a larger area would be proper without increasing the density because of the limited combustibles. The fuel load is what it is, but the quantity of involved materials may be larger because of inmate activity. But, this should have been presented "clearly" in the specs. Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed -----Original Message----- From: "Fletcher, Ron" <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:33 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)
