ignoring convenient stairs as already addressed, it I certainly would not be the one ATTEMPTING to argue just because the design added more exits than minimally required I can leave out standpipes just because of such loose wording. IF you provide extra exits they all are treated as full fledge exits and get all the bells and whistles of the other exits. There is room to dance but I suggest to my members to keep their butts in the chairs until a better song starts.
Roland On Mar 25, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Chris Cahill wrote: > Dude, the standard is clear in every required exit stair. Even the > IFC uses > similar language. If it ain't required you don't need a standpipe. > As a FF > I of course think that would be bad design as I would have no idea > when the > building is on fire which stairs are required and which aren't. > Thus I > wouldn't know where to find standpipes. As an FPE I agree with > myself the > FF. Further I'd walk from a job (in a normal economy) where the > standpipes > weren't in every stair leading to an egress. In this economy I'd > certainly > write lotsa CYA letters for the only job we would have. (Sorry I do > need to > eat). As a former AHJ I'd fight for every stair until the judge > overruled. > My only case lost as AHJ was over an exterior standpipe for a > Cathedral > copper reroofing job where the Chief wanted a standpipe to reach the > top > (over 250' above grade no access from the inside). Tactically the > Chief was > right but the City Council sided with God's representative. Once that > happened the City couldn't proceed to a judge. I assume I'm going > to Hell > anyway so arguing against God really didn't chance anything. > > Now I can't think of a place where a stair was there but not > required, but > it is certainly theoretically possible. (Assuming something can be > "certainly theoretical") Closest comes to mind is a convenience stair > connecting several floors. Some might go to street some might not. > > In a legal contest the required part is going to be key if all the > experts > like the architect show up and have all the exiting calc's done > showing the > stair in question is not required. My money is on the NFPA committee > believes all stairs get standpipes but that is not what they wrote - > Steve..... > > > In a legal deposition (or worse on cross in front of the judge) on > the side > of the standpipe how are you going to answer the questions along the > line of > > > Mr. Huggins have you reviewed the Architects exiting analysis? > > Assuming you had the follow up is - > > Mr. Huggins is there anything wrong with the analysis as it applies > to the > minimum requirements of the Code? > > Assuming there wasn't - > > Mr. Huggins does the analysis show the stair in question is required? > > And you wouldn't have gotten this far if it was required - > > Does the IFC and NFPA 14 refer to standpipes in required stairs? > > You really are in a corner to say yes - > > And finally Mr. Huggins what does the LAW say about non-required > stairs? > > I'd guess you'd respond "nothing, but...." > > And your counsel will have no choice but to drop the matter. > > I try to use my powers for good so let's change the IFC and NFPA 14 to > change this loop hole. Might be as simple as dropping the word > required. > > Now I don't know if Greg's stairs are required or not. I tend to > think they > are required so really the discussion is mute but it does reveal a > flaw in > the code that until now I had not thought of. > > 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 Roland > Huggins > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: side by side standpipes > > Just because the design exceeds the minimum number of exits needed to > meet the travel distance does NOT allow you to say the extra exit is > not REQUIRED so no standpipe in it. If it is an actual stairway exit, > it is considered required. > > Roland > > On Mar 25, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Greg McGahan wrote: > >> This is an unusual case - it is not for volume or congestion - there >> are 4 stairs, (2 sets) within 50-60 feet of each other in an >> amusement building. You pay to go up but you get to come down for >> free. >> >> My thoughts were since the hose valves are serving the same area it >> is overkill to calc 1,000 gpm at an elevation of only 50' - manual >> wet should be allowed per law, but the EOR says auto is what he >> wants, serving about 14,000 sqft per floor. >> >> But Ok, I got what I needed - thanks. >> >> Greg McGahan >> Operations Manager >> >> Living Water Fire Protection > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > _______________________________________________ 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)
