NFPA 13, 1.5 (2007) requires TECHNICAL documentation. I believe you must demonstrate equivalency. Would it be water flow alarm is just as fast? Would it be that fire control is comparable? Would it be that overall reliability is the same? The first can be answered by timing the signal with the bigger system, the second could be answered by submission of hydraulic calculations, but the third is unanswerable unless you and the rest of us know what factors went into the 52,000 sq ft requirement in the first place. We all know it's OK to have a single valve control 52,000 sq ft of LH/OH system, but at 52,001 sq ft you are not equivalent. I don't see how any of the factors you seem to have come up with will do that. You're actually asking for a Modification as described in IBC 2009, 104.10. Then perhaps your reasons have some merit and could be accepted. But then again the language of 104.10 brings in the term "does not lessen".
Bill Brooks -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 3:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet Follow up - I posed this question to the EOR and the AHJ. The AHJ has a good friend in another part of the state who looked at it from a 3rd party objective point of view and stated that because: 1) this is a school occupied only during the day and the School Board policy is that all system shut downs occur when the building is unoccupied or at least when no students are present 2) the building is non-combustible with fire rated corridors and classrooms ( a lot of passive protection) 3) there is complete Fire Alarm System in place He would absolutely have no problem enlarging the system size. The local EOR said he was fine with it as well due to the fact that the existing system configuration does not lend itself to restructuring a portion near the riser ( inorder to reduce the existing systems size enough to add on the other ends) without major renovations and that he wants to keep the wings on the same systems for future maintenance and to negate the potential for a flood. Therefore, it appears that we have agreement in this particular case. Thanks for your feedback, Greg On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:02 PM, George Church <[email protected]> wrote: > Data for which one would think FM Global has, or they wouldn't have > relaxed their requirement to 60k without technical substantiation. > Hopefully someone up there will write a proposal sharing enough of > that data so the 13 TC can consider addressing a change in the system area. > > One would think it would be prudent to consider the propensity for a > building's occupancy to have changes made. A spec multi-tenant > building with 1 and 2 year leases will likely have shutdowns for > tenant mods often, compared to a hotel that's built, and pretty much > stays that way until they change the wallpaper and wall sconces every 5 years or more. > > George L. Church, Jr., CET > Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 > 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet > > Statistically the single biggest reason for system failure is a closed > valve so multiple valving (zoning) is not the answer. I think the shut > down for maintenance system argument is the the area of spurious. What > are the numbers on this occurring? And although I agree with > limitations making some sort of sense just because without them abuse > occurs, I think they do need to be based on stats and per risk type > (as Chris suggests) rather than on how many heads the schedule (that > is no longer used for the most part) goes to. > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Greg McGahan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > It would be great if there were allowances for systems that could > > be subdivided so that no more than xxx sq ft is disabled at a time > > rather than limit the entire system size. > > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Cahill, Christopher > > <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure I agree they need to go away. I understand they > > > didn't exactly come from a well thought out principal based on > > > some scientific merit. But my reasoning goes like this. In a > > > 208,000 sq.ft. building right now we would have 4 systems. If a > > > system is down for maintenance > > or > > > say to add a head in a new office there is a 75% chance the fire > > > will > > start > > > in a sprinklered area. And yes I have been involved with two > > > buildings where the system was off when the fire started. Get rid > > > of the limits > > and > > > there is a 100% chance the fire starts in an unsprinklered area > > > during these same down times. Double the current limits and it's > 50/50. > > > Remember most work is in design build which almost always = lowest > > > bid = one system per building. > > > > > > Sure make the argument some places will have thoughtful engineers, > > > thoughtful contractors, or owners that are interested in issues > > > like this and I won't argue but what about the majority of work. > > > Modify the limits perhaps but they shouldn't go away. Maybe > > > something like warehouses > > 100k, > > > HPS 40k, single tenant office buildings 50k, lease office 30k, > > > malls by tenant. By floor in lease or malls, building over 4 stories. > > > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > > > Aviation & Facilities Group > > > Burns & McDonnell > > > P: 952.656.3652 > > > F: 952.229.2923 > > > [email protected] > > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > *Lic. in MN > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron > > > Greenman > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:16 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet > > > > > > These limitations need to go away. They're based on pipe > > > schedules, and not because the limitations are true , but merely > > > because the schedule stops at > > > 400 heads. In the days when schedules were developed 52K was a > > > really big building. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Matt Grise <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Now that FM allows 60ksf, I have had more success convincing > > > > AHJ's that sprinkler systems still work when they exceed 52K. > > > > > > > > Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP > > > > Sales Engineer > > > > Alliance Fire Protection > > > > 130 w 9th Ave. > > > > North Kansas City, MO 64116 > > > > > > > > *Licensed in KS & MO > > > > > > > > 913.888.0647 ph > > > > 913.888.0618 f > > > > 913.927.0222 cell > > > > www. AFPsprink.com > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd - > > > > FPDC > > > > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 12:46 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet > > > > > > > > Chris, I agree is that is what the Code says. However, the 52000 > > > > is an arbitrary number and has no real impact on protection. For > > > > a couple of thousand square feet, I wouldn't have a big problem > suggesting it. > > > > Probably 3k max. > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 12:46 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > As a former AHJ many requests, all denied with I agree it's > > > > > silly but > > > > it's the law. > > > > > > > > > > As a former contractor wanted to make such requests but never > > > > > did > > > > because it's not compliant with the law. > > > > > > > > > > As a current consultant would only make such request if > > > > > specifically > > > > instructed by the client over my clearly documented objections. > > > > (with the hope the AHJ would back the law) > > > > > > > > > > And I don't think one can put a 52,000 sq.ft. aux dry system > > > > > off a > > > > 52,000 sq.ft. wet system as an example. The combined systems > > > > are still limited to 52,000 sq.ft. So adding a control valve > > > > and flow switch at the additions off the existing isn't going to help. > > > > > > > > > > As any role would suggest if you can easier cut off 6,000 sq.ft. > > > > > near > > > > the riser and turn that into its own system. Avoids the long > > > > run and then add the new 6,000 to the end. > > > > > > > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > > > > Senior Fire Protection Engineer Aviation & Facilities Group > > > > > Burns & McDonnell > > > > > P: 952.656.3652 > > > > > F: 952.229.2923 > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > > > *Lic. in MN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 11:31 AM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: RE: 52,000 square feet > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > I think that option two would be ok. It seems that it's ok to > > > > > have an > > > > auxiliary dry system off the end of a wet system, so an > > > > auxiliary wet system should work as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Knight, CET III > > > > > 208-318-3057 > > > > > www.firebyknight.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > > > Greg > > > > McGahan > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 10:04 AM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: 52,000 square feet > > > > > > > > > > We have a school that is getting 2 small additions at the end > > > > > of the > > > > wings of approx. 6,000 and 3,000 sqft respectively. If we tried > > > > to tie on to the end of one system to feed the larger addition, > > > > that system would be approximately 56,000 sqft. Th other two > > > > options (I > > > > guess) would be to run 250' of 3" back to the main riser and > > > > create a new system for this addition, or use it for both > > > > additions with another 300' or so of main, or maybe to put in a > > > > new control valve and flow switch at each addition to supply them. > > > > > I am not sure if the second option would meet the intent of > > > > > the code and > > > > I am too confused to figure this out this early in the year. > > > > > > > > > > The other addition appears to be on a system that is already > > > > > about > > > > 53,000 sqft and adding the addition would also put it around the > > > > 56,000 mark. > > > > > > > > > > Has anybody ever asked for a variance on something like this? > > > > > It > > > > honestly doesn't make any sense to put it in a separate system > > > > (other than to meet > > > > > code) because the operation of the system will not actually be > > > effected. > > > > > Especially in the way these systems are shaped, there are > > > > > several > > > > different fire rated zones of much smaller area. > > > > > > > > > > Happy New Year and thanks, > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Greg McGahan > > > > > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC > > > > > <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > > > > > 1160 McKenzie Road > > > > > Cantonment, FL 32533 > > > > > 850-937-1850 > > > > > fax 850-937-1852 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > > > > scrubbed... > > > > > URL: > > > > > < > > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum > > > > /a > > > > ttac > > > > hment > > > > > s/20120102/1eb1176e/attachment.html> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerfo > > > > > ru > > > > > m > > > > > ----- > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > > Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4718 - Release Date: > > > > > 01/02/12 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerfo > > > > > ru m _______________________________________________ > > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerfo > > > > > ru > > > > > m > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforu > > > > m _______________________________________________ > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforu > > > > m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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: > > > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > > > > > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. > > > -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > > scrubbed... > > > URL: < > > > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/att > > ac hments/20120103/c5838ccd/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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Greg McGahan > > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > > 1160 McKenzie Road > > Cantonment, FL 32533 > > 850-937-1850 > > fax 850-937-1852 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > scrubbed... > > URL: < > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/att > > ac hments/20120103/0d9a9834/attachment.html > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > > > -- > 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: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > scrubbed... > URL: < > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac > hments/20120103/c958c936/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 > -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120106/83f6e325/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
