I always liked this analogy for non-required systems. They're like turn signals on a motorcycle: they're not required, but if you want them, they have to be installed and work properly.
I've never been a big fan of partial systems personally, but I understand that they have their place. At least protecting the entirety of the dining area helps customers, but what about the workers in the back? This isn't anywhere close to Dennis Frye levels of criminal negligence, but don't we also have to worry about giving people a false sense of security? We can't abandon systems in place for that reason. Speaking of Dennis Frye, is there anything explicitly criminal (not civil) stopping said BK from just gluing cover plates to ceiling tiles? I'm genuinely curious, and just using the BK as an example of a small stand-alone place that would not normally require fire sprinklers. Stuff like this is what keeps me up at night. Not the worry, but these off-the-wall hypotheticals that always pop into my head when I'm trying to fall asleep. Benjamin Young On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]>wrote: > Chris, > > I was just ranting about the all or nothing, or the bigger/more is always > better approach. And I'm guessing that the engineer in 1978, thinking life > safety in an otherwise non-required building came up with that design area > through some rationale process (right/wrong, good/bad, but stuck his name > on it in less litigious time) lacking any kind of guidance from the > prescriptive code. For those of you that don't know about the same time > California was seriously considering a new occupancy category (I think it > was G) for non-standard, experimental buildings. Just as the code now is an > impediment to building with this new wood technology coming out of Europe > (composite wood high-rise) back then the code was an impediment to > experimenting with alternative construction materials or methods and > alternative energy sources (you could use solar energy for your water > heater but you had to have it connected to a utility type energy source, > making solar water heaters even more expensive than they already were). No > thought it wrong as housing, where people wanted to experiment most, > changes hands often and I certainly wouldn't want to be unable to sell my > house without dumping lots of money into it because it was non-standard, > nor would I want to ignorantly buy a non-standard house. The idea was to > have a category that allowed non-standard experimentation, and remained as > the building definition (there was a caveat that the G could be changed to > R in the case of housing if the building were made standard0. It went > nowhere because of the typical politics, and all that stuff continued to be > done by "hippies" in Arizona and New Mexico. A lot of those "hippies" were > engineers that then took all that experimental data and started those > companies cranking out solar voltaics, etc. But back to the main story. BK > ought to revisit this spec just 'cause a lot's happened in the intervening > 35 years, but I'd hesitate to push them fully sprinkler without negotiation > because the obvious alternative, if there's no ordinance requiring that > type of building be fully sprinklered, is nothing. > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Cahill, Christopher > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Trying to figure out if you are disagreeing with Curtis other than the > > reference to latest code. You are right you follow the code in effect as > > to whether you need sprinklers. So there are differences in which > edition > > in whether they are required. But if not required and you choose to go > > over and above you are still obligated to follow the referenced standard > > (and year) of the adopted code. See IFC 2006 (and '03 and I still think > > it's in '12) 901.4.2 Nonrequired fire protection systems. Any fire > > protection system or portion thereof not required by this code or the > > International Building Code shall be allowed to be furnished for partial > or > > complete protection provided such installed system meets the requirements > > of this code and the International Building Code. > > > > So you can't do a 634 sq ft system. Now there is a question about doing > > above the ceiling with the phrase for partial...but generally AHJ's rule > > either all of 13 or no sprinkler (when allowed to be non-sprinklered). > > Could one say they are doing a full 13 design below the ceiling or I > > suppose the same question is if you only do 634 sq ft in the building > then > > you have a 634 sq ft design (notwithstanding the phantom design area if > in > > the '13 13). > > > > 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 > > [email protected] > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron > Greenman > > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:36 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: BK Design > > > > Curtis, > > > > You're obligated to design to the current adopted code of the > jurisdiction > > which may or may not be the "latest codes and standards." And if this > > building is a stand alone of <5000 sqft, with an occupancy of <100 it > > doesn't need to be sprinklered at all per IBC (see requirements for an > A-2 > > occupancy). If the applicable building code is IBC 2003 (I think it > changed > > in 2006 but maybe 2009--the prior threshold being <12K sqft and <300 > > people), or some earlier version, or one of the other model codes from > the > > Twentieth Century, or any code amended upon adoption by a state > > legislature, or an amended municipal or county code (acceptable in home > > rule states), or the code adopted in a major city, requirements can be > > wholly different either requiring more or less protection. If BK has > chosen > > to provide what is essentially a volunteer life safety type system to > > provide customers added egress protection in case of emergency (pretty > > standard thinking in A and R type occupancies in the late seventies, > > through the eighties and into the early nineties) in an otherwise > > non-required building I applaud them. That it hasn't been revisited by > the > > corporation since 1978 is troubling but it's their decision. Personally I > > feel I'm pretty savvy as to how a fire works and what threat I'm exposed > to > > in the dining area of a stand alone corporate fast food joint, and don't > > even give it a second thought as to where I sit other than noting where > the > > exits are. > > > > Now if it's in a strip mall or a high rise or a full mall it's going to > be > > fully sprinklered because of the type of building it's in, first and > > foremost because these buildings will already be sprinklered (at least > > relatively new ones), and secondly because it poses a greater exposure > > threat to it's neighbors, not necessarily its customers. > > > > More prevalent on the fire alarm forum than here is an attitude of' "If a > > little is good, then the most is best." This is eventually self defeating > > as other interests have larger stakes in buildings than fire guys and > fire > > protection contractors , and the concept of cost/benefit and diminishing > > returns has to be considered from the customers' point of view. The > > engineers are supposed to be doing this, but while the design/build model > > is prevalent it's incumbent upon the contractors and techs to study up on > > this stuff and incorporate it into their thought processes. I'm not > > directing these comments at you Curtis, even though it was your comment > > that put me on this track, but rather just in general. Nothing makes my > > head explode more than a spec calling for a double-interlock pre-action > > system covering a closet with a single rack of five or six PC type > > "servers." Not only an unnecessary expense in this case but the wrong > > system, spec'd because someone thought if single-action is good > > double-action must be better. Damn it Jim, I'm no accountant but even I > > know it's cheaper to have off-site back-up than amortizing the cost of > one > > of these things. What I do know is I wouldn't even put a double-action > over > > a $10M Cray. Wrong system altogether. Rant over. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:09 AM, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I'm sure that you're quite aware that your obligation is to design and > > > protect this facility according to the latest codes and standards. > > > The only way that I'm aware that you might justify a 653 s.f. is > > > through some application of the room design method in this instance. > > > And, of course, the concealed combustible spaces would still need to > > > be addressed. > > > > > > BK must have drug some prints out of a closet, blew off the dust, and > > > said, "Here ya go...all signed and sealed!" Bottom line is that codes > > > and standards trump owner "wants" all day long, so satisfy the code and > > CYA. > > > > > > Curtis Tower > > > Central Fire Protection > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bob [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:58 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: BK Design > > > > > > I'm working on a Burger King. I've never done a BK before, so what > > > I'm about to describe seems ridiculous. > > > The design criteria is based on a PE proto type from 1978. This is > > > what the contractor was given and told to use as "spec". > > > There are combustible concealed spaces above ceilings throughout > > > premises, but no sprinkler protection is to be provided. The design > > > criteria is 6 sprinklers over 653 sf in the dining area. To be calc'ed > > light hazard. > > > That's it. Has anyone out here in forum land provided the system for > > > a BK lately? What was required/done? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bob Knight, CET III > > > 208-318-3057 > > > www.firebyknight.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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, WFSC > > > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > 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, WFSC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, > essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > _______________________________________________ > 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
