13D and 13R systems are not designed to control a fire but strictly for
life safety through extended egress time. I view this as useful an would
think the goal of 3rd world systems would initially be life safety not
property protection. Why couldn't a light commercial life safety
standard be developed?
Trevor Spain
Igneus Incorporated
On 6/19/2013 10:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:
A fire sprinkler system either controls a fire or it does not. If it does not
control a fire it is at best a fire detection system that is slower to
activate, and more expensive. It incorporates the worst features of both kinds
of systems. It is no longer a fire control system.
Overcoming the heat output of a fire is not like many other processes were are
used to. We know that using nail guns and worm drive saws can increase the
productivity of a crew using hammers and hand saws, but we know that the crew
using muscle powered tools can build a home. It just takes more time.
Firefighting and fire suppression are different. You either effectively apply
agent (water) that in quantity that rapidly overcomes heat output of the fire,
or you get out and protect exposures.
A sprinkler system that only puts out half the water needed to control a fire
does not control a fire in twice the time. It may get lucky and control the
fire with the first head. Or it will do nothing useful.
bv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Cahill " < ccahill @ burnsmcd .com>
To: sprinklerforum @lists. firesprinkler .org
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:30:24 AM
Subject: RE: Lighter NFPA 13
Normally you have food for thought. This one blah....got some examples?
You say 'only starting to "*do" *fire suppression' . Makes me think you are
talking about lesser developed areas. With that assumption do you think the people have
the ability to make such informed decisions? Granted American's aren't the top of the
knowledge pool in the world but certainly near the top. So how's that residential market
coming along? I think we can say people are the last ones capable of their own of risk
assessment and acceptance. I close my argument with the civil legal system as evidence
many people are not capable of understanding and willing to assume risk.
Chris Cahill , PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group
Burns & McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington , MN 55437
Phone: 952.656.3652
Fax: 952.229.2923
ccahill @ burnsmcd .com
www . burnsmcd .com
Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
*Registered in: MN
-----Original Message-----
From: sprinklerforum -bounces@lists. firesprinkler .org [ mailto :
sprinklerforum -bounces@lists. firesprinkler .org] On Behalf Of å... ....
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:52 AM
To: SprinklerFORUM @ firesprinkler .org
Subject: Drains and deciding what is a minimum level of safety.
Yes, NFPA 13 is a minimum
standard. Th
is is
clear to North American designers.
What may not be clear is that in other
areas
where resources
(either material or in personnel) are scarcer, NFPA 13 is not a minimum standard but a
bar too high and one bridge too far. Conforming with all of NFPA 13 can be too costly (in
terms of materials or capable personnel) for many jurisdictions that are only starting to
"*do" *fire suppression.
One solution is a *lighter *sprinkler design document. NFPA 13 /NZS-4541/BS:EN
12845 /AS 2118 etc. could all be slimmed and trimmed to provide a leaner system
that while barely less reliable, certainly would be a life saving proposition
for fire protection.
There are those on these standards committees who will say "we can not frame a lower
standard of fire sprinkler care to people just because they can not afford the full fare
in design, install and maintenance." These standard framers would not be lowering
the care to subscribers; they would be increasing the care to currently unprotected
exposures. Subscribing
jurisdictions should determine their own minimum standard. It is their
right to adopt the minimum standard that fits their condition. Should this
not be a definition within risk assessment: risk acceptance is local and
necessarily dynamically so? Simply declare publicly and as accurately as
possible--what the risk is that a Standard is putting out there. Let people
make more informed choices as to what level of risk they accept.
For many 3rd and 2nd world locations, a simpler, effective sprinkler system
provides the difference between maintaining bad jobs at factories versus losing
parents to tragedies.
Some NFPA 13 committee members are uniquely qualified to best cut corners off
their momentous document; cuts that would create the most reliable *
lighter* design alternative. However, many of these members are financially
shackled from making what is obvious to me, a morally superior judgment and
activity. As a result, many developing countries are left without means to
comply with, what is arguably called, just a minimum standard.
Saying "its not my responsibility" is not the best dressed advert for the field
of fire safety.
Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum @lists. firesprinkler .org
http ://lists. firesprinkler .org/ listinfo . cgi / sprinklerforum -
firesprinkler .org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum @lists. firesprinkler .org
http ://lists. firesprinkler .org/ listinfo . cgi / sprinklerforum -
firesprinkler .org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
