Ron, I did one of these at Mt Home AFB several years ago. We were given the same design criteria as you have been given.
Bob -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 3:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Occupancy vs Hazard It's a munitions maintenance facility for missiles. I suppose once the mushroom cloud clears the type of sprinkler system wouldn't really matter. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Occupancy vs Hazard H-1 is a detonation hazard. Fireworks, explosives, organic compounds, etc. could all fall under that category. But you would also need to consider other materials used such as paper for casings of fireworks or plastics for storage of peroxides, etc. It's not a simple one point analysis. So you could actually have multiple NFPA 13 classification within the facility. I've got an H-4, that's due to dust issues, no flammables or combustible liquids present. No fire threat from the process. An EX classification would be gross overkill and provide nothing except extra cost. The one problem with the Occupancy listings in NFPA 13 is that when used by a novice, they can result in a wrong conclusion. This case in point. The EOR probably looked at OHII for chemical plants and said BINGO! Now I'm not saying that his conclusion is wrong, it might be dead on. Unfortunately he could be way off if he did not look at everything going into this plant, the locations, the quantities, use, storage, handling, compatibilities, etc.... Hazardous occupancy classification for fire protection systems is one area that probably has more screw-ups than any other due to the complexity of the analysis and lack of black and white direction. If the facility is not in the list in A.5.2 then most just make a wild guess based on the first thing the owner tells them. Industrial occupancies need an experienced "engineer" who can make the determination because there are cases when NFPA 13 is NOT the applicable primary Standard. Unfortunately there are many who don't realize that NFPA has anything other than the 13 Standard. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [email protected] http://www.ch2m.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Occupancy vs Hazard Is there a correlation between the IBC occupancy and NFPA #13 Hazard? I have a set of plans where the building occupancy classification is H-1 and the EOR has specified OH-II for the sprinkler system. I have always thought (maybe mistakenly) that any H occupancy would be EH-I minimum. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2899 - Release Date: 05/27/10 00:25:00 _______________________________________________ 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)
