I like Bens logic to a point. But if I were the AHJ and you had two heads fail in a 100k area rather than 2 fail in a 10k area I would be more inclined to consider the former as a less dangerous scenario since the latter suggest a tenfold higher failure rate. I'd be more inclined to demand complete and mediate replacement of all heads in a building with a 2/10k failure rate than a 2/100k rate. The former sugAnd I obviously invented the numbers to illustrate my point since we don't have real numbers to work with.
On Monday, October 19, 2015, Ben Young <[email protected]> wrote: > Its something of a gamble, because if any one of the heads fail in an > 'area' all the heads in that area must be replaced. > So if your area is the entire building, if any one head fails, you must > replace them all. > If you segregate by floor, and only two of the floors have heads that fail, > you are only required to replace those floors (basically areas) > > So if you cheap out and want to test less heads and make very large areas, > you may have to replace them all at the same time. > > > Benjamin Young > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:50 AM, rongreenman . <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > If I recall how it was explained to me, the testing concept, among other > > things, is to buy time. If you can prove the heads are in acceptable > > condition you can extend their usable life, but not in perpetuity. If the > > heads are still serviceable you get another year and so on up to X years > (I > > forget but I think 10). This gives the owner a better ability to manage > the > > change out. If I owned a high rise I'd have started changing them out > > earlier than the due date and come up with a plan acceptable to the FM to > > stretch the cost out over several years. Failing to be proactive before > the > > expiration date, and hopefully finding that the heads were still > > serviceable after the testing means I have a good start on replacement > and > > would immediately try to cut a deal with the AHJ to amortize the cost. > > Maybe 20% per year for five years in exchange for no more tests. > > > > And my opinion to your original question is that the property manager is > > right, at least in this case. Unless there is some change in occupancy in > > this high rise that would make one floor more likely to be impacted than > > another. Perhaps a parking garage if it's by the sea or some other > > potentially corrosive atmosphere. But otherwise what value is there in > > having a full sampling from each floor? Why would the 12th floor of an > > office building have more or less impact on the viability of the heads > > installed there than say the 14th floor, or the 2nd, or the 23rd, or...? > > But of course I may be missing something here. > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Charles Thurston <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Sprinklerforum, > > > > > > Looking for a conses of how heads are picked to remove and send for > > > testing. We have an AHJ that has been calling a floor an "area" for > > > testing, Now that is being challenged by a property management co that > > > claims it should be per: > > > > > > 3.6.4* Sprinkler System. For fire protection purposes, an integrated > > > system of underground and overhead piping designed > > > in accordance with fire protection engineering standards. The > > installation > > > includes at least one automatic water supply that > > > supplies one or more systems. The portion of the sprinkler system above > > > ground is a network of specially sized or hydraulically > > > designed piping installed in a building, structure, or area, generally > > > overhead, and to which sprinklers are attached > > > in a systematic pattern. Each system has a control valve located in the > > > system riser or its supply piping. Each sprinkler system > > > includes a device for actuating an alarm when the system is in > operation. > > > The system is usually activated by heat from a fire > > > and discharges water over the fire area. [13, 2010] > > > > > > They are claiming that an "Area" is everything off that standpipe > riser. > > > Now if this is a high rise with floor controls off the standpipe, Does > > not > > > each floor control make that floor a "system" or "Area" unto itself? > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Charles mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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) > > > > A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, > > inventor and engineer (1876-1958) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
