As a contractor I would send an RFI to the Architect and go from there. I would not argue with the owner about installing a system in their building.
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:57 PM, "Bill Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote: > Wouldn't 634 sq ft be partial? > > Bill Brooks > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cahill, > Christopher > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 12:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: BK Design > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
