When you have to specify a non-standard design criteria it's best to provide some clarification in the documentation as to why you chose what you did. It could help prevent these types of questions (or at least minimize them somewhat).
Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard My comparable story relates to a small town community wellness center. It included Gymnasium spaces, swimming, etc. We were hired only to provide a 'performance specification', but we thought it might be novel to include performance criteria... For the gymnasium we talked with the architect about potential uses beyond athletics, and he confirmed that there could be trade shows, receptions, etc. We specified OH II. The contractor submitted shops to the Fire Marshal who commented that the Gymnasium didn't require OHII, just Light haz., so naturally the contractor wanted us to allow the LH design. I don't blame them, but this highlights what we're discussing on this thread: classification and hazard are different animals. Sometimes a gymnasium, is just a gymnasium; sometimes a banana, is just a banana; and sometimes the engineer has done his homework and specifies a design for a good reason. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Curtis Tower Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard It seems that semantics are everything in this industry; however, certain terms tend to be used interchangeably by certain people. Code vs. Standard, hazard occupancy vs. IFC occupancy group, etc. I've had very heated discussions with GC's and MEP's concerning the differences. I once had a full blown argument with an individual over a "community center" project in a small Texas town which was blanket classified as IFC Group A-3. As we later found out, every third weekend, this community center, which had a large, multi-court gymnasium would be hosting a swap-meet inside. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what would have been considered a light hazard occupancy per the standard is being utilized as an IFC Group "M" or "S-1" occupancy which would necessitate a higher density requirement per the standard. Given that it's a "swap-meet" there is absolutely no telling what sort of commodities might be present. I imagine that the commodities would not exceed 8'0" under most any circumstance and the majority of the merchandising would be on collapsible tables, but I was attempting to apply a conservative approach by implementing an ordinary hazard II density. Curtis Tower -----Original Message----- From: Brad Casterline [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard Humble enough, Sir Roland. I will have to think quite a bit more about everything else you said, however. _______________________________________________ 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
