Please note I am not arguing the big picture. One really, really should calc the most demanding area no matter how many systems it may or may not cross.
My point was the standard was deficient in really small systems within the area of a larger system. Even if the area is bound by walls it only helps IF the walls and openings meet the room design criteria. And if it's EH or storage there are no walls in the standard that are clear to use the room design method. Your small building example would be a hard sell in a court arrangement when the judge asked the Fire Marshal exactly where did the defendant not follow the procedure set forth in the standard. Of course the defendant in that case would have a hard sell to the jury if there was a fire and a loss in either property or life. If that's what was added to the '10 I still think it's deficient. First this belongs in the body of the standard not the annex. Second it doesn't address Karen's situation neatly. It seems more geared to really small buildings and not really small systems in otherwise big buildings. And third and most important IMHO typically is a bad choice of words. Typically by it's definition allows for atypical. Thus the latest and greatest edition provides for "The area of sprinkler operation 'does not always but usually' (atypically) encompasses enough of the floor area to make-up the minimum allowed (should be required) size of the remote area up to the entire area of a single floor of the building". Even changing typically to should IMHO would have made for a clearer intent. And I'm not even arguing the intent is anything other than full remote areas. I know I'm parsing words but this is how the cheaters survive and the lawyers make a buck. That's the real world we fight against. 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 Dewayne Martinez Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: mixed systems Thanks Roland, I guess I wasn't that clear in my statement but my thoughts were along the lines of the annex material you pointed out. Dewayne -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: mixed systems Anyone want to venture a guess on whether water flowing through 2 systems is more or less hydraulically demanding than that flowing through one? Granted you could have a case where a higher hazard in a relatively small area is centered between systems that MIGHT be more demanding with two flowing but until I see the numbers, I'm not going to pick the fly**** out of that pepper. The calc applies to one system. Having said that the criteria as Chris pointed out is a tad loose and leaves it open for SMALL systems. Case in point, you have a 1,500 sf building and really bad water. One might consider putting in two system at 750 sf each and claim that is the size of the remote area since it is the entire system. I had this exact issue before this cycle and after butting heads over it can say the text did not cover that situation. It does now in the Annex of 2010 in A. 11.2.3.1.4(1) where it states: The area of sprinkler operation typically encompasses enough of the floor area to make-up the minimum allowed size of the remote area up to the entire area of a single floor of the building Roland On Jan 14, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Dewayne Martinez wrote: > Chris, > I still think that if the hydraulically most demanding area falls > either between 2 systems or branch lines off 2 separate cross mains, > you still need to pick up the full remote area for the area/density > method. The fire will not know what sprinklers are supplied from > which pipe. You still must pick up the " hydraulically most demanding > area". > Dewayne _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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)
