“…then that sprinkler protection would be sufficient life safety protection without adding exit capacity.”
I have read with interest the thread resulting from the Oakland fire. While there is much to say I do choose to take this opportunity to provide a comment on this entry. The above quote would lead many, who have already changed the codes by allowing “tradeoffs” and who are consistently proposing that we in the fire service are not considering the advantages afforded by the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, to present yet another argument that exiting can be compromised by the addition of a sprinkler system in a building. Travel distance changes are just one example in the current cods, what would be next? One man’s opinion. Ed Foster Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Bureau Carpinteria-Summerland Fire District (805) 566-2451 [cid:82df1ca92855c9c2623baa3ddf8c0acda8677ac1@zimbra] From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of å... .... Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 1:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Ghostship Fire Exiting is arguably more critical than (automatic) fire sprinkler protection, becuase it serves more emergencies. But if the sprinkler system were properly designed, installed and maintained to reasonably predictable, worse-case occupancy conditions, then that sprinkler protection would be sufficient life safety protection without adding exit capacity. This life safety extends to all occupants of the building except those unfortunate enough to be intimately involved with the fire origin, or those of extremely frail pulmonary/cardiovascular condition. In fact, with a properly designed, installed and maintained sprinkler system for reasonable, worse-case occupancy conditions, we could have had all the exits locked, and sufficient life safety protection would be provided by sprinklers alone, for those not intimate with the fire origin and not in the room of origin. Automatic fire sprinklers control if not extinguish residential fires such that for residential applications, fire fighters need only bring in a few buckets of water to complete the extinguishment of fire. Yes, there are special circumstances where sprinklers might not be as effective as they usually are, such as: a large fire load that might be shielded under tables, or a solid mezzanine, an extra-ordinary large fuel load (Tupperware party) protected overhead by a wax-coated tarp or combustible liquids One of the counterarguments to sprinklers is--not nearly enough automatic fire sprinklers systems, once designed and installed according to NFPA 13, are maintained per NFPA 13/NFPA 25; impairments appear that reduce system reliability. Still, few systems competing with fire sprinklers offer as little maintenance or as much reliability (NFPA 25 maintenance notwithstanding) as fire sprinklers, without or with good maintenance. Without knowing any other details about this fire than what has been presented on this forum, I would venture to say we would be looking at no more than 1 or 2 fire related deaths (if that) had the building presented a properly designed, installed and maintained sprinkler system to NFPA 13. There are no special interests in this statement, other than sharing the most accurate information possible. I am not a sprinkler contractor. I am not a member of NFPA 13 or 130. I am not a hired 'expert witness' who is paid hundreds of dollars per hour to legally testify for wealthy parties interested in defending their position. Scot Deal Excelsior Fire & Risk Engineering
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
