Todd:
I have been monitoring the emails associated with your string and I have to
tell you that in my humble opinion, the mines are back to being closely spaced
with very sensitive acoustic fuses. You got my attention when you said the
system had been converted to dry. All of your answers have indicated to me
that you have a full understanding of your situation. I think that you are on
the right track with your plan to notify the insurance agent and owner. Once
you have documented your concerns and done your best to educate the owner that
the system, as it sits, does not provide any meaningful level of protection for
the building, you have covered yourself as far as you can in this day and age.
Normally you could say that once the fire department hooks up the pumper to the
FDC, that the additional supply and pressure would be enough to control an
active fire. But in this case, with the system that you have described, I have
no confidence that any firefighting technique known to man would help if the
fire got much of a start.
I completely agree with Mr. Hill with regards to the lawyer's cross
examination. I have seen it happen. I have also been the unwilling associate of
an owner willing to roll the dice. The bottom line is that in the event of a
catastrophic fire, everyone is going to get dragged into court in an attempt to
spread the cost among as many parties as possible. Protect yourself! Because I
guarantee you that no one else is going to.
Best of Luck,
-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 3:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage
And yes, this system was in service when the CO was issued.
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 3:27 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]>
wrote:
Craig,
Take a look at my last reply to Roland's comments. The end pieces on the branch
lines are 3/4" and the cross mains have "Y" type screwed and screwed by flanged
tees as well as offset fittings. If you like I can email you photos. It is some
form of pipe schedule. The sprinklers I believe we're last replaced around 1985
when the systems were converted to dry (don't go there... I know. Caused part
of the problems that I have been hired to address).
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 3:10 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]>
wrote:
Was this the system that was in place and approved by the FD when the latest
occupant filed for their certificate of occupancy?
How do you know it is a pipe schedule system?
What is the date on the sprinklers?
How do you know it was designed as an OH system and to which OH design level?
NOTE: New address and phone numbers
Effective 4/11/2016
Craig L. Prahl
Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
CH2M
200 Verdae Blvd.
Greenville, SC 29607
Direct - 864.920.7540
Fax - 864.920.7129
CH2MHILL Extension 77540
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage
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-firesprinkl
> er.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
