Apothecary one week, non-wovens the next. Businesses come and go in strip malls. Some are in operation barely longer than your making a bid to getting paid for a shell job. OH 2 fits a very high percentage of fuel load the tenant space will contain. This is a lousy place for lowering to what current tenant might be. I can tell you that when the next tenant wants to move in, and thinks they are only going to to fixture, floor and paint, and gets told, gee, your sprinklers aren't adequate, they need upgrade, no one is happy. Oh and your fast track plan to be open in 12 days. Yeah, that's not going to happen. The explosion to Mayor's office, and general hate and discontent. Mayor's don't decide to run because they want to get involved in this kind of mess.
Sprinklers are largely sold by building code and sprinkler ordinance. The sprinkler industry does very little if any selling sprinklers directly to a customer, but rather works at making their installation a government-imposed mandate. Take away government regulation and half the industry is out on the sidewalk. The industry only competes for work that is already mandated. If you want sprinkler ordinances make sure they are not an on-going headache to the AHJ's bosses. If they are a headache, don't be surprised if the aren't renewed. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Greenman" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:34:35 AM Subject: Re: Hazard classification Brad, A wise old guy from a lifetime ago, long since passed, and long before the interweb and abbreviations like IMHO and LMAO, once told me that anything that comes out of your mouth is opinion, unless you can attribute it to someone else. That anyone that thinks what I might say has some authority without demanding proof of such is a fool and easily bamboozled, and should be taken advantage of. That's my disclaimer for all I've said or will ever say here. Codes have two purposes. First and foremost is to provide a minimum level of performance acceptable to society that is "codified" in such a manner to be: 1. Reproducible in a simple manner so that every strip mall, Home Depot, wood-frame structure, etc. does not have to be approached as a unique entity. Even high rises and suspension bridges, if they don't stray too far from standard practice, have "rules" that can be used to govern their design. Stray too far and you need the run of the mill engineer with a slide rule and a PE stamp. Further still, say employ a new and unproven material (In 1962 JFK, in a commencement address at Rice University (attribution) said, "...* giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented....")* and then you need that army of top level scientists and engineers for that first, second third application until some codifiable data is produced that turns use from "unique per project" to prescriptive. 2. Useable by us children of a lesser god without the need to invent a calculus to prove a simple design will work every time we take up T-square and pencil. I'll leave the slide rule in the drawer until there some variable I need to concern myself with. Craig hit the real problem, as has been muttered here often: There is no spec provided. On the other hand if it is slap it in per code then my job is (and even this ought to be the engineer's call) is to choose the proper criterion as defined or suggested by the prescription. As my colleague says engineering technology could be called "engineering light." This is similar to the relationship of the pharmacist to the doctor. The former (at least in the days of the apothecary) mixed the chemicals, per a recipe, necessary to create the drug prescribed by the doctor. Both have the same basic medical education but then diverged into specialties that artificially place one at a higher level than the other. In the old days one could go to the doctor, the pharmacist, or self-diagnose just like today. If I have a headache I'll certainly self-diagnose and prescribe an aspirin. You may choose another over the counter remedy but another may immediately decide brain tumor and perform ado-it-yourself surgery. Personally I think we all (here on the forum) need to stop worrying about the whys so much and discuss the hows. This thread started with someone (I've forgotten who) unsure of the hazard classification of a smallish grocery store. It seems several folks, presumably those that don't play in the building code itself too much (and rightly so as we're sprink geeks, but may I suggest a familiarity with chapters 3,4, 5,6, 7 & 9 wouldn't hurt) don't fully get what ICC means relative to A, B, E, etc. and how that dialect of Codese relates to the dialect used in Quincy and by most of us. These discussions are sometimes enlightening and always fun but even if you have PE behind your name what we discuss here isn't rocket science. My last couple of years of high school and immediately after were spent in Livermore, CA. I worked in the only bookstore in town. The per capita ratio of Ph.Ds was the highest in the world at that time. Top echelon engineers were a dime a dozen. If we hunted them as vermin there'd be a bounty on their pelts like coyotes in the Southwest. They were overrunning the town. And these guys were the real "Big Bang Theory" guys. Edward Teller wandered in one day. I became good friends with a young astrophysicist recently papered with a phud at the age of twenty. He was busy developing experiments for the Voyager probes while an army of engineers were inventing the equipment to pull off stuff that had never been done before. Our moon landing party was probably a tad different than those of others. As usual I was a lucky kid, in the right place at the right time, and smart enough to see it. My point is that not one of those guys could do what I do, but I have no doubt that not one of them couldn't learn it and understand it in a short time, whereas I'm lost with their stuff. A child of a lesser god am I. I'll expect that that god is the diety for most of us here. To paraphrase Garrison Keeler, "Do good work, but don't worry too much about the other guy's." On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]>wrote: > Does it bother anyone that occupancy classifications are based on the > quantity and combustibility of the contents, and the expected heat release > rates, but there are no numbers given? It seems like "we" ought to be able > to come up with something; Quantity in pounds of fuel per square foot. For > Combustibility we could figure the entire fuel load is combustible, and the > reaction is infinitely fast. Heat release rate could be based on oxygen > consumption calorimetry (100% of the fuel converted to heat and the fire > gets the perfect amount of O2 to do that). > I have posed this question several times, hoping more qualified people will > take it up. I am just not good at following up formally with any thoughts, > but would like to see discussion here, and some collaboration. So far I > think LH is ~4.5 lb/ft2, and heat release rate is ~750 kW/m2. That is > mixing > measuring systems I know. I think it is too important to throw our hands up > and say things like-- "no way, too many variables", etc, but shouldn't "we" > at least try? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Leadbetter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Hazard classification > > Dwight, > > I love the optimism that there is actually a spec to look at that says more > than provide a system per code. No mention of commodities types on the > plans > and if I asked I have sure I would get the deer in the head lights look. > > This has been great discussion on this topic, it confirms that my area of > the country is not the only one that provides more questions than answers. > I > believe that most systems we see are under analyzed from a fire suppression > stand point. Most engineers appear to be so afraid to put anything in > writing when it comes to fire protection that we generally get an "X" > through the drawings with a note to provide per all codes and insurance > requirements, and add any additional heads at no cost to the owner. > > I understand that not is not just in my area, I do spend time looking at > other projects out for bid on Bid Clerk in other areas of the country in > search of a good fire protection design to be able to model our specs and > designs after. Much of what I see confirms the apparent fear of putting > anything on paper. > > If someone is willing to share a what they feel is a good spec and maybe > even a good set of sprinkler bid drawings that would always be appreciated. > I understand that every situation is unique but there is value in a review > of other designs to provide a new perspective that can be used for future > projects. > > > Craig Leadbetter > > Safeguard of Marquette > PO Box 116 > Marquette, MI 49855 > > > (P) 906-475-9955 > (F) 906-475-5474 > (C) 906-362-5393 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Dwight > Havens > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Hazard classification > > Without looking at the specifics, I would put it at OH-2 sprinkler > classification as a grocery store. Some of the merchandise might challenge > this design (plastic toys, Duraflame (R) logs, charcoal lighter fluid, > pool > chemicals, etc.), but if the quantities are limited it should be within the > capabilities of the system, given an adequate water supply. > > Dwight > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Craig Leadbetter <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:55 PM > Subject: Hazard classification > > > What is the hazard classification for a grocery store? This is not a > Wal-Mart but a rather a 25,000 sqft local food store. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Craig Leadbetter > > > > Safeguard of Marquette > > PO Box 116 > > Marquette, MI 49855 > > > > > > (P) 906-475-9955 > > (F) 906-475-5474 > > (C) 906-362-5393 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
