Builders and developers do take note of these things occasionally. There is a developer in the DC area that requires base building sprinkler systems in their buildings to be designed as ordinary hazard occupancies. This is not done because of the actual occupancy, but to get enough sprinklers (and safety factor) to accommodate tenant revisions. They were burned in the past with the low builder using maximum spacing and minimum safety factor to achieve the smallest pipe sizes. Unfortunately, the first tenant into this multi-story office building required so many additional sprinklers, that the Fire Marshal required calculations. They didn't even come close to working. It took a lot of work to get calcs to work (by running additional pipe to create loops) and to keep from having to tear a brand new system out and start over.
Mike Hill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 1:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Frozen pipe, a rant Doug: Matt's comment is tongue-in-cheek, but spot on. The problem is that a life-safety system that often requires thoughtful and conceptual design basis is generally brought to market by a process that rewards a bidder for leaving stuff out. At least occasionally. If the code or referenced standards doesn't prescribe it, and the project documents don't require it, then you're exponentially lessening your chances of obtaining the work if you include it in a competitive proposal. The bottom line answer to your question (or rant, as the case may be) is that a more proactive approach isn't undertaken organically because there is little or no demand for excellence or a standard of care above and beyond the minimum prescribed by code. Until building developers and owners perceive value in what we do, and demand a higher standard of care than "Adequate", then the situation you describe will not only continue to occur, it will prevail. Steve Leyton -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Frozen pipe, a rant As I bill out yet another frozen pipe repair, I am wondering why there is not any input from the sprinkler trade concerning insulation methods to prevent frozen pipes. We had a motel that had a problem with frozen pipes. The owner had the blown-in insulation removed. The pipes were repaired and the pipes tented with plastic and then insulation blown in. No problems for 5 years. We have a facility that had the attic piping protected by tenting plastic over the pipes, then insulation blown in. After 20 + years, we have had no problems with frozen pipes. Another facility has insulation batts under the pitched roof. The pipes are in the warm attic and after 10 years, we have had no problems with frozen pipes. I have no idea what the insulation costs are in new construtcion, but I am sure not as much in repairing busted pipes, not to mention ruined ceilings, damaged goods and stocks. Then there are those building with the large ventilation louvers in the gable ends. The wind blows in and moves the insulation, exposing the piping. I am done, I will save my comments about Schedule 5 and 10 for another time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120106/5a050cff/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
