A friend of mine just bought a 53 Chevy.No seat belts. Theory blown. Most of the commercial RE agents in this part of the world have no idea what a sprinkelr system is. They thing ESFR is a government agency.
Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > For what it's worth, the real estate market has driven that thought process > back into the stone age. For new spec properties in todays' vernacular, if it > ain't ESFR, it ain't gettin' built! Ten years ago we would design "ESFR > convertible" systems for buildings with up to 30 feet clear height. Today the > leasing agents won't even take a listing if it can't say "ESFR" on the > Brochure even for 22 feet clear. This is somewhat like seat belts, and later > air bags in cars. They needed a Government requirement boost until the free > market demand caught on. Today no one would even consider buying a car > WITHOUT seat belts! > Mark at Aero > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dwight Havens [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 11:13 PM > To: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Hazard classification > > I always liked the spec 24 foot high B/F/S where they want to install light > hazard, because its the least expensive and they can write the lease so the > new tenant has to pay for any upgrades, maximizing the owner's profit and, > making the government employee who discovers the problem the bad guy. > > Dwight > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:23 PM > Subject: Re: Hazard classification > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
