If the water supply criteria from Table 11.2.2.1 can be met, then an existing pipe schedule system should be acceptable. I have run up against this more than a few times given all the old buildings in my area (oldest system so far from 1884). Remember, pipe schedule systems do not have to meet the hydraulic design criteria in NFPA 13. Hydraulically calculating a pipe schedule can open up a can of worms. I try and avoid it.
If the rest of the building gets sprinklers, the life safety in those areas should improve. The life safety in the area with the existing pipe schedule is an unknown and I would state as much. Whether NFPA has any data they would be willing to share about water supplies and performance of pipe schedule system, I do not know. Even if there is, it may not give you much insight that you could apply. In your analysis, treat them as two separate situations. If all you are doing at this point is making recommendations, you should be able to cover yourself by giving all of the options for the owner to decide. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc) 860-553-3553 (tel:860-553-3553) (fax) 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559) (cell) > > On Oct 6, 2017 at 2:32 PM, <SET Reed A. Roisum > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > Ron, Todd, Scott, Matt: > > > > > > > > I agree with your statements and I’m not trying to be argumentative, but the > system in place currently, does not “work”. We all know that even if the > system doesn’t hydraulically work it still provides a degree of life safety > and could actually “work” to control a fire….whatever…it has been assumed > that it will do that job for the last 50 years. If the owner decides they > don’t want the expense and hassle of a fire pump and decides to scrap the > whole fire sprinkler upgrade because of it, then life safety has not improved > at all. However, if the entire rest of the building is retrofitted with > sprinklers, life safety does improve, and maybe down the road they can > install a fire pump so the entire system will calc. > > > > > > > > I know it is the owner’s decision, but I am looking at it in a practical > way, how I have often witnessed the fire official look at it. That is, we > would be improving the life safety of the building dramatically and leaving > an “inadequate” system in place. I know liability is a big part of a > discussion like this, but if we leave that out for now, does that change your > thoughts at all? > > > > > > > > I am thinking of it this way because the owner’s rep said, “This could be a > game changer for us”, when I told them the existing system would not “work” > without a fire pump. I know what is best and that is what I will > recommend, but because I haven’t dealt with pipe schedule systems (other than > replacing them), I was wondering in what instances, if any, you can leave a > pipe schedule system in place when doing an upgrade? I also thought of > discussing with the AHJ the option of retrofitting sprinklers throughout the > building now, and installing a fire pump later. > > > > > > > > Just looking for options beyond what would be ideal. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Reed > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reed A. Roisum, SET| Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.|Senior Fire Protection > Designer | Fargo, ND | direct:701.552.9903 |mobile: 701.388.1352 > | KFIengineers.com (http://www.kfiengineers.com) > > > > > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > rongreenman . > Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 12:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Pipe Schedule System > > > > > > > > > If the system isn't required by code and you are doing a life safety analysis > then your job is to give the client advice regarding life safety. > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The client wants good life safety demonstrated by have the analysis done > at all. > > > > > > 2. The system is not required. > > > > > > 3. Better life safety is obtained with a system. > > > > > > 4. The system can't work without a pump, thus a pump is required for the > desired degree of life safety. > > > > > > 5. Analysis of cost versus benefit of the system. > > > > > > 6. Owner's decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you install or modify has to “work”. Anything that you know > > doesn’t is bad ethics and a huge liability issue. Give the owner the > > options for fully adequate systems and let him make the decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Todd G Williams, PE > > > > > > > > > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > > > > > > > > > > > Stonington, CT > > > > > > > > > > > > 860-535-2080 (tel:(860)%20535-2080) (ofc) > > > > > > > > > > > > 860-553-3553 (tel:(860)%20553-3553) (fax) > > > > > > > > > > > > 860-608-4559 (tel:(860)%20608-4559) (cell) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2017 at 12:41 PM, <SET Reed A. Roisum > > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have an existing pipe schedule system in a partially sprinklered > > > building…installed in 1969. I am doing a life safety analysis that > > > includes budget estimating to provide new fire alarm and sprinklers. > > > The existing pipe schedule portion of the system is considerably higher > > > in elevation and remote. It doesn’t work hydraulically with the city > > > supply. Even when I replace the system with larger pipe I can’t get > > > the calc to work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to install a new system or keep the existing system in place > > > and have it hydraulically “work” we will need to install a fire pump. > > > My problem is, the owner may decide to just upgrade the fire alarm system > > > and not sprinkler the building if we need a fire pump as the sprinkler > > > retrofit is voluntary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My question for the Forum is, can an existing pipe schedule system be > > > left in place even if we retrofit the rest of the building and > > > hydraulically prove the rest of the building? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NFPA 13, 2013 edition… > > > > > > > > > > > > 23.5 Pipe Schedules Pipe schedules shall not be used, except in > > > existing systems and in new systems or extensions to existing systems > > > described in Chapter 11. Water supplies shall conform to 11.2.2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I can meet the water supply requirements of Table 11.2.2.1 for > > > Ordinary Hazard, which is a minimum pressure of 20 psi flowing 850 gpm > > > then is the pipe schedule permitted? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears as though I am out of luck because of 11.2.2.6.1 Residual > > > Pressure… The residual pressure requirement of Table 11.2.2.1 shall be > > > met at the elevation of the highest sprinkler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main reason I can’t get the calc to work is because of elevation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would assume the AHJ would be willing to work with us if the choices > > > are… 1. No upgrade to the sprinkler system, or 2. A fully sprinklered > > > building with 2000 sq ft that is pipe schedule and doesn’t work > > > hydraulically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any insight or ideas will be appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reed A. Roisum, SET|Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.|Senior Fire Protection > > > Designer | Fargo, ND | direct:701.552.9903 (tel:(701)%20552-9903) > > > | mobile:701.388.1352 (tel:(701)%20388-1352)|KFIengineers.com > > > (http://www.kfiengineers.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] > > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Ron Greenman > > > > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > 253.576.9700 > > > > > > > > > > > > The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner > Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director > (1942-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > 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
