Hello All, The AHJ has been calling an "Area" as a floor (this property manager did not agree), We have tested several buildings this way, Only 1 building had heads fail on 2 of the 5 floors. In that case we replaced all the heads on those 2 floors. 90% of the heads we are testing in this area are outside on walkways open along one side. In that case there were 9 heads per floor.
In this area it is RARE for them to spend the money for repairs much less anything that does not "beautify" the property to increase the profit. Monday, October 19, 2015, 1:50:59 PM, you wrote: > 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 suggests 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 suggests a tenfold higher > threat to life safety and I'd rest my case there. And 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] >> <javascript:;>> >> 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] >> <javascript:;>> >> > 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] >> <javascript:;> >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > > [email protected] <javascript:;> >> > > >> > > >> > >> 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] <javascript:;> >> > >> > 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] <javascript:;> >> > >> > >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] <javascript:;> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Best regards, Charles mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
