If you did a 1M sf building they already tried to maximize the height, and
now had to go for increased area to accommodate they storage needs. They are
probably an ESFR system and require more pressure than most city mains can
supply. But lets just say they could, cause the city elevated water tank is
on site, and made the 25 or so taps to the city main you already did the
owner an expensive dis-service. Generally these type structures require a
fire pump to work, and either a single FDC on the underground or at the pump
house is still way cheaper than 25 FDC's. Further if there are 25 FDC's
which is the right one? Now your zoning the alarms in ways that may require
the FD to attach to Multiple FDC's because the fire crosses systems.
No boiler plate doesn't work "All The Time!" but if the general rule will
improve the operation and safety of the User (The FD) then it is the
exceptions that should stand alone on their own merit.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:53 AM
Subject: RE: FDC's on multiple systems
But to what extent? It's not a matter of not being willing but a matter
of does it make good sense? If I have a million sq. ft. warehouse with
multiple risers separated by hundreds of feet, fed from a city water
main, interconnecting the FDs at all the risers would be a bit extreme.
This could just be another unnecessary item adding an exorbitant cost to
a utility (sprinklers) that most owners don't see value in already. We
would be cutting our own throats to force this. There may be times when
this makes sense as in cases where risers are not accessible by fire
trucks, but it should be decided on a case by case basis, not just some
boilerplate mandate.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lg.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom
McMahon
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: FDC's on multiple systems
I realize that the added expense of running hundreds of feet of
additional pipe to interconnect the risers may seem exorbitant. But Stop
and think a moment. Every day we run thousands of feet of pipe to ensure
these properties are protected, but we're not willing to run a couple of
hundred feet of additional pipe to ensure that these systems will
perform, with minimal training the way they are expected to by both the
owner and the FD?
Maybe this needs to be submitted to 13, as Ed said, but doing what is
right has never been limited by "The standard doesn't say I have to!" (I
just can't get that Winnie text to sound as good as Steve L. can)
Sitting down with the owner and the AHJ and reviewing the situation, and
reasons to do it right, may have your owner opening his wallet, to save
the AHJ from getting something he doesn't want and won't work for his
FD.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 6:40 AM
Subject: RE: FDC's on multiple systems
That is why if there are multiple risers it just works out best to
provide a single FDC at the backflow or at some designated point on the
UG system if it's a private loop, but if the building is large enough to
warrant multiple risers but is fed from a municipal system, then a
common FDC or FDC tied together is not practical. Signage at risers
and a good walkthrough of the facility with the local FD is about the
best that can be done. Running hundreds of feet of pipe inside the
building between risers to connect FDC's is just a bit over the top.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lg.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom
McMahon
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:12 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: FDC's on multiple systems
From an AHJ point of view more than one FDC on a Building that only
supplies
a portion of that building is always a bad idea. Late at night, maybe
snowing they drive up to the building, see an FDC, but the strobe or
water motor above it isn't flashing or making a sound. They have the
right address, even if no smoke or flame is visible, they will still
hook up to it before entering the building, guessing that the strobe is
broken or water motor broken. Now we've put them at risk, because they
don't have time to drive all the way around the building to see if there
is another strobe flashing somewhere, or another FDC.
This is just a bad idea!
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Kramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:27 PM
Subject: FDC's on multiple systems
Run into something new that I need opinions on.
An addition is being added to an existing building. Existing building
is
fully sprinklered. The total area of the combined existing and new
structure exceeds 52,000 sf and the existing system riser is in the
far
corner away from the addition. So the decision was made to bring in a
new
underground supply to serve the new addition. Thus the new addition
will
have its own independent system riser and fire department connection.
Does 2002 NFPA 13 section 8.16.l2.4.3 (or any other section) require
the
two FDCs (one existing, one new) be tied together?
The commentary hints at this, but I've never thought that was the
intent.
I thought the intent was that multiple systems SERVED BY THE SAME
UNDERGROUND LEAD-IN be served by the same FDC. Section 8.16.2.4.5
seams
to
support this.
Opinions?
Ed Kramer
Littleton, CO
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
