The question still stands why 4000? Duane
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:15 AM Eastern Standard Time To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think pressure is even a factor. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this work > regardless. Did you take your 75% reduction in fire flow based on the fully > sprinklered exception in B105.2? If you are starting at 4000 gpm, the > required flow can be reduced to 1500 gpm if fully sprinklered. Doesn't that > work with your pumps? > > Duane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:51 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: '[email protected]' > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > Has Annex B been adopted? See 101.2.1? > > Duane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:35 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > Hi John, > What Ron didn't say is that the AHJ is trying to connect chapter 5 of the IFC > and table B105.2 fire flow requirements to our sprinkler system pumps. We > conceded early on to furnish a redundant pump because it was specified that > way, but the FM is expecting the fire pumps to provide the 4000 GPM from > B105.2 at the sprinkler (ESFR) demand pressure (165 PSI) and do so at the > 100% design point of the fire pump. We submitted our design with two 1500 GPM > pumps piped in parallel along with calcs for the storage sprinklers flowing > at around 165 PSI at the pump discharge. The city water system which supplies > the project flow tested at 5700 GPM at 74 PSI from two 4" hydrant butts. No > one at the AHJ's office understands how to read a fire code, or any other > code for that matter. They are "Code Alchemist", taking a paragraph from > chapter 5, table from the annex, and numbers from our calcs, mix 'em all > together in an AHJ beaker and BOOM!! "Minimum code requirement". See? This > stuff ain 't > all that hard. > > Mark at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:24 AM, "John Drucker" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Like how you wrote; " everything is per code except we have". "Except" ?, > Are you/they saying that having two pumps rather than one is a violation; > I.e. " 4000 GPM at 160 vs 4000 at 165" and you're short 5 psi ? So two code > violations, two pumps and short 5 psi. Now before you chop my head off, > consider two things wheres the one pump and 165 psi coming from ? Somehow > apparently this has been planted in the ahjs head, I'm certain he/she didn't > come up with it on there own. Now you're stuck. Frankly and using common > sense are you hitting demand, does everything fit and work together, is the > principal designer and owner ok with it ? Move forward. > > John Drucker - Mobile Email > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > Cell/Text 732-904-6823 > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and > we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant > thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more > written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of > their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to > go from here.. > > Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, "John Drucker - Home" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Ron, et.al. > > I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's > your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue with the code > itself, a local amendment or interpretation. There's got to be something > driving this. > > Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall mounted > smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the illustration in the > annex is worded differently than the code. > > 29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on walls > shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the adjoining ceiling > surface. > > Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes; "Measurements shown are to the closest edge > of the detector". > > According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or > detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface. > > It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following statement; > > "Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is > included for informational purposes only. This annex contains explanatory > material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs" > > Yet when brought to NFPA's attention the answer from the NFPA representative > was interpreted from the Annex material. This is clearly incorrect, the > annex and the illustration are not part of the code. In either case fix the > code language or the annex. The same happens in I Code Commentaries and > various subject matter books that often interpret, amend or supplement the > actual code language. In a nutshell our codes and standards have become a > maze of requirements, exceptions and interpretations. This should be a > warning flag to the code community. Perhaps the code official has just > reached his limit and is instead relying on empirical experience in the face > of confusion. > > I have situation at this very moment on two different projects that impose > an operational issue for the fire department, one that the code is not > considering. However my approach is to get everyone around the table do > some brainstorming and come up with an equitable technical solution. > Perhaps by finding the root cause of your situation the stakeholders will > put down their swords and solve the problem. Food for thought. > > Best wishes, always available should the need arise. > > Sincerely, > > John > > John Drucker, CET > Assistant Construction Official > Fire Protection Subcode Official > Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector > Borough of Red Bank > Red Bank, New Jersey > Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 > > Safe Buildings Save Lives ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM > To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum. To set the stage, prior to > the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted drawings from the > AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we received from that same AHJ. > > "At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying said > plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed IFC, UFC, > and NFPA standards." Nowhere in the body of the letter does he say exactly > how we are to "EXCEED" IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the letter they basically > outline that what was submitted meets the all of the codes. I was told by > the author of the letter at a meeting the day before that he didn't care > what the code said because he is the AHJ and per Section 104 of the IFC he > can make us do whatever he wants. Then he said "do it my way or there will > be no Certificate of Occupancy." We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO and the > change involves increasing the size of two new diesel pumps that are being > installed. The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we > wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now. > > Ron F > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[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
