I understand the concerns, but first of all, I am going to the owner's rep, not the AHJ. They may have an analysis, but I have my doubts (I would have most likely been asked to do it). The letter can die with the rep, but at least I would have done my part. This is not an OH Pipe Schedule system as we know it. The system was installed 8 years before the first edition of the Rules and Regulations for Sprinkler Equipments (now NFPA 13) came out. It is an early version of some kind of pipe schedule (ex: up to 10 sprinklers fed from 1-1/2") possibly created by the installing contractor. I am pretty confident that the occupancy has changed for two reasons: First, there was probably not a lot of demand for free-flowing plastic pellets in a textile mill in 1884, when the building was constructed. Secondly, I was in this building 8 to 10 years ago and I remember the basement as being vacant. Roland is right that this is not going to calc out and any attempt to do so is just going to create a fecal storm. My beef here is that the existing sprinkler system is probably not going to do too much to control a fire with this occupancy. It might send an alarm. This could end up in another classic mill fire as there are 3 stories above it. I really don't want to see that.
Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) Sent using CloudMagic [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti&cv=6.0.64&pv=8.2] On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Roland Huggins <[email protected]> wrote: This poses an interesting dilemma. You feel it is a problem but can’t articulate a definitive statement so do you or don’t you write a letter. I certainly understand the need for a CYA philosophy (as moronic and insane as our legal system has become - notice I didn’t say anything about justice since that is not what the courts provide). But I’m off path. The interesting dilemma is that you have a pipe schedule system acceptable for protecting an Ordinary Hazard classification. You have a storage facility that can be protected as an OHG2 (aka not treated as storage but as a chap 11 risk). Any discussion on it not calculating out is a nonstarter since pipe schedule systems never calc-out (after all a calculated system was based on supplying a remote area in a pipe schedule layout about 2/3 the distance out from the riser). So the big question is where’s the beef? 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 27, 2016, at 3:27 AM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am working at a facility where there is an existing OH pipe schedule system > over 12ft palletized Class IV storage. The fire department has approved it, > but I question whether it will provide adequate protection. I did not see > anything in NFPA 13 that requires storage occupancies to be hydraulically > calculated. Am I missing something? > This is outside of the project I am working on, but as an FPE, I feel > obligated to notify someone if I see a potential hazard such as this. > > Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) > Sent using CloudMagic > [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti&cv=6.0.64&pv=8.2] > _______________________________________________ > 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
