But one of the things to consider is impairments. How big a system do you want shut down when work needs to be done? I can see some kind of target limit for max square foot, but flexibility within that.
If that is going to be addressed, then perhaps look at the 40,000 sqft max for hydraulically calculated EH. Does that have much value? The 40,000 sqft for high piled storage does make sense due to the impairment potential, IMHO At 10:16 AM 1/3/2012, you wrote: >These limitations need to go away. They're based on pipe schedules, and not >because the limitations are true , but merely because the schedule stops at >400 heads. In the days when schedules were developed 52K was a really big >building. > >On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Matt Grise <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Now that FM allows 60ksf, I have had more success convincing AHJ's that >> sprinkler systems still work when they exceed 52K. >> >> Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP >> Sales Engineer >> Alliance Fire Protection >> 130 w 9th Ave. >> North Kansas City, MO 64116 >> >> *Licensed in KS & MO >> >> 913.888.0647 ph >> 913.888.0618 f >> 913.927.0222 cell >> www. AFPsprink.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd - FPDC >> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 12:46 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet >> >> Chris, I agree is that is what the Code says. However, the 52000 is an >> arbitrary number and has no real impact on protection. For a couple of >> thousand square feet, I wouldn't have a big problem suggesting it. Probably >> 3k max. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 12:46 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > > > >-- >Ron Greenman >Instructor >Fire Protection Engineering Technology >Bates Technical College >1101 So. Yakima Ave. >Tacoma, WA 98405 > >[email protected] > >http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > >253.680.7346 >253.576.9700 (cell) > >Member: >ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > >They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, >essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120103/c5838ccd/attachment.html> >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
