I also know of another officers club where 6" sch 40 pipe kept the
velocities low, but the structure was not able to support the seismic loads
of that piping. When it falls and kills some navy captain in an earth
Quake,(and it will fall, the wood frame structure can almost support the
weight of the water filled pipe.) (And yes it is in a seismic active zone)
Then where is the benefit to the owner?
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sornsin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: Beyond code (was max velocity)
I only want to point out that velocity requirements are not necessarily
an improvement from the minimum requirements. If you want to accomplish
that, do as others have suggested and require sch 40 pipe, or additional
pressure cushion, etc.
I know of at least two installations in my experience where the velocity
requirements made the design impossible to complete: in one, we were
balancing the foam system with the sprinklers and got caught in a loop -
pipes were sized to meet velocity requirements, which caused overflowing
of the system, and reduced the pressure available to the other
system....
Same thing happened on a small Navy office building (Thom knows): the
configuration of the building combined with the water supply and 3,000
sq. ft. design area resulted in an infinite loop where to meet velocity
requirements, we were at 3 in branch lines before we were able to
convince the spec. engineer to relax his requirements.
Again: velocity limitations do not equal additional safety factor nor
do they increase the quality of the system - they usually just add
headache. It can be especially bad when you have not provided a
complete layout for the contractors to bid on - they're forced to find
out the problems with the velocity requirements AFTER they've signed the
contract.
Mark A. Sornsin, PE
Fire Protection Engineer
Ulteig Engineers, Inc.
Fargo, ND
701.280.8591
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Beyond code (was max velocity)
Well, not to increase the storm clouds further, the following needs to
be
explained.
1. Most of what I specify is part of the Facilities Standard that we
build
buildings under. (pipe types, design areas, densities, etc.)
2. I am the AHJ and the owner's representative, just as it allows in
the
good book.
3. I have to try my darndest to insure that a system will last a
minimum
of 50 years, not just till the warranty runs out.
4 I am not in any way advocating the government requirements for the
private sector.
5. These buildings are not going to change ownership or occupancy ever.
6. My process is to insure that I have pipe that will remain large
enough
to provide at least some measure of protection after 50 years of
everybody
and their dog modifying and changing the sprinkler system in that period
of
time.
7. Walls will change in these buildings and preventing the sprinklers
from
covering more than 130 square feet with a light hazard density will help
compensate for that. I cannot ever guarantee that sprinklers will
accompany wall changes. In our buildings it seldom does, leaving areas
unprotected.
8. If you are ever on a federal jury, try to think about the fire
protection systems in a highly secured building with really bad egress.
9. I seemed to noticed that some readers apparently feel that these
systems should be competitively bid against minimum codes as interpreted
by
what they are familiar with on other projects. We simply cannot work
that
way. Too much gets by that shouldn't.
10. This is not a bad return on the taxpayer's money. In the private
sector, the architectural and every other trade gets more attention than
the fire protection systems. It seems that the fire protection systems
are
the red headed stepchildren to everything else. I am trying to make
this
trade better, not worse.
11. It also appears that many think that no one deserves more than just
the bare minimum with various interpretations. There is nothing wrong
with
having something better. Does anyone think that they deserve only the
cheapest truck or house or other things or is that reserved for the
other
guy?
I do appreciate constructive criticism and comments, but lets don't let
it
get beyond that.
Thank You
Rahe Loftin, P.E.
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
