We run into this issue more with fire alarm systems. Given the evolution of fire alarm systems over the years there is no way we would approve a like for like replacement of some of these POS fire alarm systems that used to be allowed.
Rich Richardson Seattle Fire Department -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:51 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Hydraulic Calcs That would be a change of occupancy and so require a new analysis. Different issue. Nothing changes, only replacing the system exactly as it was and it's a repair unless someone like Rich (AHJ) wants to call it otherwise On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > If a system is installed that is an exact duplicate of an existing system, > which it is to replace, is that considered a new system under the Code or a > "repair" of a system under 25? Where is the cut-off between the two? How > would any of the AHJ's out there address this? > > Now George, supposed your building has 12ft storage of expanded plastics or > flammable liquid storage? Most likely the pipe schedule system is not going > to be able to protect those occupancies. Would you swap the system old for > new as it was installed? How would the attorney for the plaintiff react to > that? > > I didn't even bring up the issues about 3/4", 3-1/2" and 5" pipe. > > > > At 12:33 PM 1/12/2011, you wrote: >> >> So you run new UG into a building that was legally pipe schedule because >> the calc (that wasn't required under the valid but old design criteria) >> doesn't work? It doesn't have to, its designed to the applicable code at >> installation. >> >> George Church' >> Rowe Sprinkler >> [email protected] >> 570-837-7647 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Williams >> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:20 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Hydraulic Calcs >> >> Ok, so in Doug's situation, it constitutes a new installation and not >> repair work (based on your first statement) and it is based on a prior >> design. However, as a new installation wouldn't the design need to meet >> current Codes irregardless of when the design was done and probably require >> hydraulic calculations? >> > > Todd G. Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860.535.2080 > www.fpdc.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: AFSA, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, NFSA, AFAA, ASEE, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ 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)
