Chris, When the UFC was going through it's first iterations I was doing a lot of work with the Navy and one of the inspectors I was working with was very involved in commenting on the development of the document. He often asked for advice or just used me for a sounding board. This document was developed to meet the needs of the Navy, Army and Air Force anywhere in the world. There are requirements that far surpass those of the civilian world and most were debated. This was back in the mid nineties and you've seen how many drafts there have been since. This is the military and like a nuclear power plant the usual rules just don't apply. I hate waste in government as much as anyone but this is a case where the more stringent requirements were thoroughly vetted and justified. As a side note there's a few things that are less onerous than in the civilian standards. Take care.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, > > The 3,000 ft design area is unexplainable. We have just learned that it is > what it is. These systems just cost more and we make more money. Is it good > use of taxpayer money...I don't think so but what do you do? If the system > now needs a tank and a pump then sell it to the government and again make > more money. I had a similar situation and presented the facts to the gov't > and when I came with my proposal for tank and pump in hand they were way more > willing to negotiate. In my case we "reduced" our hose down to 250 as the > building was mainly light hazard and they took away one of the increasers for > either dry or sloped since the area was already increased and then it worked. > Bottom line is that it is their requirements and if they want to enforce it > they will have to pay for it. I also have it in my mind that there is an > exception to mechanical room hazard classification for rooms under 400 ft. I > think this is why you can run cpvc piping in a small mech room. So if that is > the case maybe you can go from 500 to 250 hose. Doesn't look like it would > make the difference for you but it would be closer. > > Rod DiBona > Rapid Fire > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Kowkabany > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Inadequte Water > > Ben, > > I've had this referenced and enforced by the Navy twice in the last 3 > months. Even if it is a draft, we are abiding by what the government says > as they are the AHJ for these projects. > > > Steve Kowkabany, P.E. > Fire Protection Engineer > Neptune Fire Protection Engineering LLC > 616 Davis Street > Neptune Beach, FL 32266 > 904-652-4200 Phone > 904-212-0868 Fax > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Young > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Inadequte Water > > Steve, > > Is this requirement also in a spec, or are you basing this requirement > solely on the section of the draft copy of 3-600-10N? > > If its the latter, I don't believe that a draft copy of a new UFC series is > in enforceable. I stopped doing government work two months ago, so unless > something has changed since then, the only thing you have to worry about is > 3-600-01 and the project's UFGS spec. > > If someone from the corps is referencing this standard, I think you may want > to ask why they're using a draft document. > > -Ben > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Steve Kowkabany > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> Like Steve said, the requirement comes from the UFC codes - section and >> verse below >> >> 2-3.1.1.1 Hydraulic calculations must include a minimum pressure drop >> across >> backflow preventers of 12 psi (82.7 kPa), or the actual pressure drop, >> whichever is greater, regardless of type or size. >> >> What really gets me about this is that I think this is because they are >> afraid that eventually an RPZ will be put in and they want to design for >> that, but even some of the new RPZ's now can be designed for less than 12 >> psi and many times increase can put you into a fire pump. Also, once a >> double-check is deemed acceptable as the BFP, very little is likely to >> change that would require adding an RPZ - short of adding an antifreeze >> loop >> or something. >> >> I'm with you on the 3,000 sqft design area. It makes no sense to me. I >> could see increasing the density, because suppression is all about > delivery >> rate, but doubling the design area just adds a lot of unnecessary water in >> my opinion. >> >> Any government folks know where those requirements originate from? >> >> >> Steve Kowkabany, P.E. >> Fire Protection Engineer >> Neptune Fire Protection Engineering LLC >> 616 Davis Street >> Neptune Beach, FL 32266 >> 904-652-4200 Phone >> 904-212-0868 Fax >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark >> Sornsin >> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:12 AM >> To: '[email protected]' >> Subject: RE: Inadequte Water >> >> Steve: >> >> Which UFL standard is requiring the 12 psi drop across the backflow? This >> is the second time I've heard of this but have not yet had to deal with it >> (I don't know why not). >> >> I would LOVE to have a sit-down with the 'powers that be' responsible for >> the UFC standards. E.g. where do they get the 3,000 sq.ft design area > crap? >> They say it's common HPR requirements in the civilian world - except I >> worked for FM and we NEVER required 3,000 sq.ft. design areas for light or >> ordinary hazard-equivalent occupancies. Maybe they just want to cover >> themselves in case a combustible concealed space appears... >> >> Mark A. Sornsin, PE >> Fire Protection Engineer >> Ulteig Engineers, Inc. >> 3350 38th Avenue S. >> Fargo, ND 58104-7079 >> >> Direct: 701. 280.8591 >> Fax: 701.280.8739 >> Cell: 701.371.5759 >> >> [email protected] >> www.ulteig.com >> >> Confidentiality Notice >> This message may contain privileged and confidential information. If you >> think, for any reason, this message may have been addressed to you in >> error, >> you must not disseminate copy or take any action in reliance on it, and >> we >> would ask you to notify me immediately by return email to >> [email protected]. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve >> Kowkabany >> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:18 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Inadequte Water >> >> I have the single most frustrating water issue I have ever had going on >> right now Greg. I am working on this small commercial entrance facility > at >> a military base in Georgia. We are only sprinklering a small 3,800 sqft >> cargo transfer building and getting the water from the local utility > rather >> than the base. >> >> We designed based on modeling data that was the only thing available at >> design (there was no water within a mile then) and had no problem making >> the >> small light hazard wet system work. >> >> Last week the underground was finally finished and we had our main run up >> to >> the building and some nearby hydrants to test, so we tested them - 55/25 > at >> 750 gpm. Bad water but still enough to make an little light hazard wet >> system work right? >> >> Not once you take a 3,000 sqft design area, a 500 gpm hose allowance due > to >> the presence of 300 sqft of OH1 rooms, and a mandatory 12 psi pressure >> across the BFP regardless of the fact that it is actually a double-check - >> all mandatory per UFC codes. After all that, you need 850 gpm at 40 psi > to >> make this system work and we are looking at a pump and a tank! >> >> It's a very frustrating situation, so feel free to tell your AHJ he is not >> alone. >> >> >> Steve Kowkabany, P.E. >> Fire Protection Engineer >> Neptune Fire Protection Engineering LLC >> 616 Davis Street >> Neptune Beach, FL 32266 >> 904-652-4200 Phone >> 904-212-0868 Fax >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%3asprinklerforum-requ...@fire > sprinkler.org> >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.111/2386 - Release Date: > 09/24/09 >> 05:52:00 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%3asprinklerforum-requ...@fire > sprinkler.org> >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.111/2386 - Release Date: 09/24/09 > 05:52:00 > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
