As a former AHJ many requests, all denied with I agree it's silly but it's the law.
As a former contractor wanted to make such requests but never did because it's not compliant with the law. As a current consultant would only make such request if specifically instructed by the client over my clearly documented objections. (with the hope the AHJ would back the law) And I don't think one can put a 52,000 sq.ft. aux dry system off a 52,000 sq.ft. wet system as an example. The combined systems are still limited to 52,000 sq.ft. So adding a control valve and flow switch at the additions off the existing isn't going to help. As any role would suggest if you can easier cut off 6,000 sq.ft. near the riser and turn that into its own system. Avoids the long run and then add the new 6,000 to the end. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell P: 952.656.3652 F: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com *Lic. in MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 11:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 52,000 square feet Greg, I think that option two would be ok. It seems that it's ok to have an auxiliary dry system off the end of a wet system, so an auxiliary wet system should work as well. Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 10:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: 52,000 square feet We have a school that is getting 2 small additions at the end of the wings of approx. 6,000 and 3,000 sqft respectively. If we tried to tie on to the end of one system to feed the larger addition, that system would be approximately 56,000 sqft. Th other two options (I guess) would be to run 250' of 3" back to the main riser and create a new system for this addition, or use it for both additions with another 300' or so of main, or maybe to put in a new control valve and flow switch at each addition to supply them. I am not sure if the second option would meet the intent of the code and I am too confused to figure this out this early in the year. The other addition appears to be on a system that is already about 53,000 sqft and adding the addition would also put it around the 56,000 mark. Has anybody ever asked for a variance on something like this? It honestly doesn't make any sense to put it in a separate system (other than to meet code) because the operation of the system will not actually be effected. Especially in the way these systems are shaped, there are several different fire rated zones of much smaller area. Happy New Year and thanks, -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120102/1eb1176e/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4718 - Release Date: 01/02/12 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
