How about tightening up the bracing requirements a bit? We've run into some problems arguing with contractor's where the military wants bracing regardless of seismic zone, hence "bracing" instead of seismic or earthquake bracing. Bracing is beneficial in hurricanes, terrorist attacks (heaven forbid), and the like. The problem is that we can find nowhere that it actually states bracing regardless of seismic zone, just install per NFPA which in turn references ASCE7, which only gives guidance regarding a location's susceptibility to natural seismic events.
After a recent SFPE meeting where MIC was discussed, I would also be curious to revisit the requirement of schedule 40 piping on most if not all installations. Ryan Hinson Burns & McDonnell Direct: 952-656-6003 Ext 3662 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Kowkabany Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Chance to Make a Difference in Military Standards Guys and Gals, After our discussion on this forum a couple weeks ago, our local SFPE chapter is setting up a symposium to discuss the military design standards and how they can be improved. There will be ranking military representation at this meeting and Navy FPE's who really care about the process and improving it. We are also bringing our local FPE's who do a large volume of military work and some excellent local contractors to this meeting, which will take place two weeks from today. My question to you is - how do you think the UFC codes, ETL's, and other military design standards be improved specifically? What types of things could be added or deleted to add more value to our governmental projects, reduce wasteful spending, and maintain or improve the level of fire protection in these facilities. Here are some things I intend to table for starters: 1) 3,000 sqft design area - reduce this to commercial or FM standards to save money. There is no data I am aware of that shows that doubling the remote areas in NFPA 13 provide better fire protection. 2) 12 psi mandatory backflow preventer pressure drop regardless of type - why force this when most installations are double-checks and this can often result in the need for a fire pump which in turn, is less reliable of a system and more expensive. 3) Doubled hose allowances - What data backs up this requirement and why not go with what works for the commercial world, FD operations on base seem similar to civilian operations and requirements for most buildings. Any thoughts you may have would be greatly appreciated and would love some input from this highly knowledgeable group. Plus you will be doing a service for your country and there is a good chance that some positive change will come of this. We intend to write a position paper based on the results and to collaborate closely with the military. Thank you very much in advance, Steve Kowkabany, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Neptune Fire Protection Engineering LLC 60 Ocean Boulevard, Suite 15 Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 904-652-4200 Phone 904-212-0868 Fax We have moved. Please note our new address. _______________________________________________ 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)
