Also, and a nod to Scot here, just who decides what lower level pf protection is actually going to provide a "modicum" of, but lesser degree of, safety than the prescribed standard at a reduced cost. UM modelers can parse it out but they'll increase the cost in the end. The average, let's say NICET Level 3, FP guy doesn't have enough background info regarding how sprinklers work (for example), actual performance criteria, to determine whether greater spacing, or lower pressures, or..., would provide any predictable level of safety. Might as well put up a pipe with holes in it, or a stack of buckets by the well (an actual viable, and proven, strategy in a low tech, low relative wealth situation). Would a 13D system provide enough protection in say a market in Sudan to justify spending the money it would cost to install it? Would the cost/benefit analysis matrix determine that a full 13 system would provide a substantial value that would justify the cost, but could not be afforded, and that a 13D system, no matter how inexpensive, wouldn't provide enough benefit to justify any expenditure? Then what value could be gained with the actual dollars available? Would that be worth it? Who decides these things? Modern or traditional construction? Would a system from a legacy code (we can go back to standards from John Wormald, c. 1907, as being efficacious in mills of late 19th/early 20th Century timber and masonry buildings? And how much would it cost to have someone do this analysis? The prescriptive codes are supposed to be a minimum standard. If this is a case they are a snapshot of the consensus of minimum at their time. Perhaps under these circumstances one could say this building is very much like a building built to 1950s standards of construction. What type of minimum was considered adequate for this type of occupancy in this type of building in 1955? Wormald's standard did not allow extra hazard coverage to exceed 60 sqft, and ordinary to exceed 90 sqft. There was no light hazard. Something changed between 1907 and sometime before the advent of standard spray because areas of coverage increased. What? If standards do what standards are supposed to do, reduce costs by standardizing materials and procedures, then you may be able to use old standards, but you need the history of how a standard was developed, and how it's changed, to be able to determine whether it's viable or not.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Roland Huggins <[email protected]>wrote: > Lets be careful in saying control the fire and property protection. 13D&R > do indeed control the fire but provide a lower level of assurance of > property protection. > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:26 AM, Trevor Spain <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 13D and 13R systems are not designed to control a fire but strictly for > life safety through extended egress time. I view this as useful an would > think the goal of 3rd world systems would initially be life safety not > property protection. Why couldn't a light commercial life safety standard > be developed? > > > > Trevor Spain > > _______________________________________________ > 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
