This sounds a lot like Dick Patton's position without the histrionics. 13D and 13R were developed to accomplish exactly what you propose within their respective areas od care, stripping the standard down to life safety only considerations within certain, well-defined (although these definitions still seem to escape many who want to manipulate and apply them far outside the prescribed scope) types of occupancies. Another approach would be for a jurisdiction to adopt the 1987 edition of 13 for installation and 13A as the standard for maintenance. Obviously all the seismic stuff doesn't apply in non-seismic zones. The three chapters about storage, commodities, racks, etc. doesn't apply in non storage applications. Residential requirements in non-residential. Et. cetera, et. cetera, et. cetera. Or do you spend a fortune to have an engineer "prove" a lesser standard applies to the building the you can't afford to have built to a prescription? Aren't the prescriptions there to lessen cost where like situations suggest that past practice is adequate? I'm a skeptic here Scot.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:52 AM, å... .... <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, NFPA 13 is a minimum > standard. Th > is is > clear to North American designers. > What may not be clear is that in other > > areas > where resources > (either material or in personnel) are scarcer, NFPA 13 is not a minimum > standard but a bar too high and one bridge too far. Conforming with all of > NFPA 13 can be too costly (in terms of materials or capable personnel) for > many jurisdictions that are only starting to "*do" *fire suppression. > > One solution is a *lighter *sprinkler design document. NFPA 13 > /NZS-4541/BS:EN 12845 > /AS 2118 etc. could all be slimmed and trimmed to provide a leaner system > that while barely less reliable, certainly would be a life saving > proposition for fire protection. > > There are those on these standards committees who will say "we can not > frame a lower standard of fire sprinkler care to people just because they > can not afford the full fare in design, install and maintenance." These > standard framers would not be lowering the care to subscribers; they would > be increasing the care to currently unprotected exposures. Subscribing > jurisdictions should determine their own minimum standard. It is their > right to adopt the minimum standard that fits their condition. Should this > not be a definition within risk assessment: risk acceptance is local and > necessarily dynamically so? Simply declare publicly and as accurately as > possible--what the risk is that a Standard is putting out there. Let > people make more informed choices as to what level of risk they accept. > For many 3rd and 2nd world locations, a simpler, effective sprinkler > system provides the difference between maintaining bad jobs at factories > versus losing parents to tragedies. > > Some NFPA 13 committee members are uniquely qualified to best cut corners > off their momentous document; cuts that would create the most reliable * > lighter* design alternative. However, many of these members are > financially shackled from making what is obvious to me, a morally superior > judgment and activity. As a result, many developing countries are left > without means to comply with, what is arguably called, just a minimum > standard. > > Saying "its not my responsibility" is not the best dressed advert for the > field of fire safety. > > > Scot Deal > Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- 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, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
