Some people have already hit the nail on the head. If the smoke control system sequence of operations matrix requires the fire sprinklers to initiate automatic control, then they have to be zoned per the smoke zones (CBC 909.12.3, 2013 edition, check yours to make sure it is not a California thing). Automatic control for smoke control is for pressurization system (supply or exhaust). Is it possible the plan checkers "evacuation" comment is maybe smoke evacuation?
The reason they must be zoned is because certain dampers and fans have to activate based on where the fire is. If there is not 100% smoke detector coverage, then the only thing to locate the fire based on a zone is the flow switch on the riser. IF there is 100% smoke detector coverage you could ask that the smoke control initiation be based on that. If the smoke control method for your building is passive, 909.12.2.2, (passive basically being only dampers) then those dampers can be activated by local smokes to each damper which may already be provided. Check your contract docs to see if there is a Smoke Control Rational Analysis Report. If there is there is likely a sequence of operations matrix and smoke zones shown in the document. It might say smokes initiate or it might say sprinklers initiate. Check it out. If there is nothing in your contract docs that states the smoke zones or any other indication of "automatic" versus "passive" system...then initiate your change order accordingly. Hope this helps. Justin Reid Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 13, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Travis Mack, SET <[email protected]> wrote: > > It doesn't. I was just hoping there wasn't some strange reference in the > I-codes or NFPA 101 that requires the smoke, alarm and sprinkler zones to > follow the same footprint in an I-2 occupancy. This project currently has 3 > risers. It would go to 8 if we have to follow smoke zones as there are 8 > smoke compartments. Also, this was originally a loop system. That would > break so all of the pipe sizing would go up. It would just be a real > nightmare to adjust for something that I am hoping is not an obscure > reference. > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 2508 E Lodgepole Drive > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > email:[email protected] > > http://www.mfpdesign.com > https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > >> On 4/13/2016 4:46 PM, Matthew J Willis wrote: >> Ok, first thing in the am, I am re reading 13 on where any of this applies >> to a sprinkler drawing.... >> >> >> >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >> Date: 04/13/2016 5:44 PM (GMT-07:00) >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Fire Sprinkler Plan to Match Evacuation Plan?? >> >> Just a heads-up Travis, >> It might go deeper than matching footprints- that is rarely a problem. >> A problem would be if the exhaust rate sizer used QR, 165F, at max 225 >> S.F., but you, being a 13 aficionado, installed QR, 200F, at 324 S.F. >> >> In a ~16 ft ceiling the exhaust rate would fall about 20,000 CFM short... >> >> ballpark figures, of course. >> >> Brad >> On Apr 13, 2016 5:42 PM, "Roland Huggins" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> There is a section in the IBC that tries to address the fact that fire >>> alarm zones and sprinklers zones are different sizes and that the larger >>> sprinkler zone is NOT limited to the size of the fire alarm zone. See >>> section 907.6.4 >>> >>> Roland >>> >>> >>> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering >>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >>> Dallas, TX >>> http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Travis Mack, SET <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> I have a reviewer stating that the fire sprinkler plan has to match the >>> evacuation plan and the smoke zones of the fire alarm plan. This is an I-2 >>> Occupancy. Has anyone ever come across this? After 3 weeks in plan >>> review, he kicked it back saying he can't review until we provide this >>> information. It is the first time I have ever heard of this. >>>> Travis Mack, SET >>>> MFP Design, LLC >>>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive >>>> Gilbert, AZ 85298 >>>> 480-505-9271 >>>> fax: 866-430-6107 >>>> email:[email protected] >>>> >>>> http://www.mfpdesign.com >>>> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 >>>> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign >>>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
