Good morning, All: I probably missed something, but it seems to me that there should not be any AHJ resistance to so-called "newer/better/improved" technology offered by newer/latest standards - specifically, our beloved "13"...It seems to me that, arguably, rather than attempting to design a minimal level of protection, we are trying to go 'above and beyond' the older sprinkler standards. Certainly, QR sprinklers increased levels of protection in LH occupancies. We are on the design/engineering side of this equation, and it has always been my position that when a "PE" signs and seals, you are probably wise (in this instance) to go along with his/her engineering judgement. So long as we do not attempt to design less than the minimum permitted, I believe we are on solid ground. I am still waiting for an AHJ to actually take on a PE/FPE over something like this. Here in New Mexico - based on nearly 25 years' residing here - I will put my money on the FPE prevailing, in a legal setting, over the AHJ - that is, if the FPE can adequately defend his/her position. We design sprinkler systems under the 2010 edition of NFPA-13 and one of our local AHJ's currently remains under the 1997 UBC/UFC. They might look twice at one of my smaller pipe schedule layouts, however, they do not blink at reviewing our 2010 criteria for sprinklers or fire alarms. Then again, our designs bear the seal of licensed PE/FPE's. It is difficult for me to believe that trying to design more than the minimum (2010 vs., say, NFPA-13/1996) can ever come back to haunt us. When the seal of the PE/FPE appears on sprinkler plans/calc's, the AHJ should at least cooperate unless they believe they have justifiable grounds to challenge the design. Just my 5 cents... Happy Easter to Everyone!! Jerry [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Jerry D. Watts, SFPE President & Co-Founder ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd.* Santa Fe, New Mexico USA (800) 503.1961 nationwide *Licensed Fire Protection Engineers - Architects/Inspectors/Fire Investigators: AZ CA CO NM NV NY TX UT KS MD MS In a message dated 4/3/2015 9:00:27 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
My favorite example of this conundrum goes back to the transition to the requirement in 13 for the use of QR sprinklers in Light Hazard, and the reduction in design area allowed by their use. I believe this occurred in the '96 edition - whatever, our local codes were following earlier editions of 13. So when the engineer specifies to design to the latest edition of NFPA 13 and follow state and local codes, what do you do? QR sprinklers at the time were more expensive; but you could get the reduced design area, which could save money. Meanwhile, since the most recent edition of 13 called for their use, it was implied that QR was superior protection to standard response in Light Hazard occupancies. Galen's response make the most sense, but in my example, we were a contractor competing for a job as a sub-contractor to mechanical - or maybe sub- to a sub- of the general. No one cared about such an issue during bidding. If you won the job, no one was going to listen to your esoteric discussion about the benefits of QR sprinklers unless you were willing to give a deduct change order. It was more difficult after receiving my PE, when I became professionally obligated (not just morally) to provide the best system for our customer. The QR issue was relatively minor and I am certain no one suffered injury because our local codes didn't adopt the latest version of 13 at that time. But it highlights the challenge and emphasizes a common point on this forum: engineers of record need to be more engaged in and take more responsibility for the fire suppression aspect of their job. And if the opportunity is available to contractors (with or without PEs on staff), they should take Galen's advice and propose alternative designs based on the latest standards. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 7:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: ignoring new standard requirements I'm sorry for my grammar and autocorrect as this is coming from my phone. How does the forum feel about ignoring the more stringent requirements of the most current NFPA standards all because the AHJ hasn't adopted the latest year? As the standards have evolved with each new addition, they typically try to clarify murky wording of past standards, expand on topics, or add/change requirements based on the latest and greatest tests. So should we be purposely designing and installing and inferior product that more times than not is less safe just because the AHJ hasn't adopted the latest design guidelines. I've heard sometimes the AHJ doesn't adopt the new standard simply due to the financial impact of republishing their amendments and not merely because they don't agree. To me it seems morally/ethically wrong but I may just be on my high horse today. Thoughts? Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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
