The reduction in design area has nothing to do with the likelihood of a fire, it is related to the ability of the sprinkler system to control the fire....period. This is a great example of the reviewer suffering rectal cranial inversion.
I will bet that in typical RJA fashion the review was littered with statements-of-the-obvious that have nothing to do with deficiencies in your design like: comply with NFPA 13, follow the obstruction rules, take an umbrella if its raining... and all of the other fluff and filler they use to make their reviews appear extensive. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:03 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)
