Sir I agree that the original design was correct. I myself have used that design which was supplied on the contract documents which were sealed by an out of state FPE for a nationwide storage facility.
Only trying to help passive the AHJ Which has the final say right or wrong Good luck on the project Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid On Apr 8, 2017 11:22 AM, John Paulsen <[email protected]> wrote: Ok, before this goes off on a tangent, there are a couple of ways that I can proceed with the design. But My point is, what was originally designed is the best layout based upon the current code. Baffles and such will solve the problem of cold soldering but it is still a response to a pour design concept. Like all the stuff hanging down from an F-4 Phantom to make it fly right. Yes given enough thrust, even a brick will fly! And if you throw more heads at a project, it must be better! Thanks, John P Crown FSD -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Phillips Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 11:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Sprinklers over low partitions Could your use as sheet metal shields attached to the deck where needed? Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid On Apr 8, 2017 11:07 AM, John Paulsen <[email protected]> wrote: John: Challenge accepted. I was in my office at 4AM this morning because this project was keeping me awake. Please look at the drawing in the attached link. Pay special note to the 4 bottom lines. I have "altered" the two lines at the bottom (originally 1 line with heads over the middle of the partition) to conform with the demand to have a head over each unit. I'm trying to figure out what to do with the 2 lines above to prevent doubling the number of heads in the remote area and prevent cold soldering the heads by being closer than 6'. The current arrangement allows the heads to spray on both sides of the partitions. I even kept a 30% safety factor on the calcs hoping it would help calm the reviewer. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5tugig975oxi97g/AADlLsJJk_5FjP91SSxYmpY3a?dl=0 Yes, to your point, there are some members of our industry out there that should have a keeper. But when are we going to address this situation, where a contractor is afraid to question a fire official because he fears retribution on future projects? John P Crown FSD From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Drucker - Home Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 10:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Sprinklers over low partitions Steve, You are a reputable guy, not all are. I've seen plenty massage the code to make stuff work in the interest of their clients. Had one consultant go so far as to blame us for delaying people cancer treatment (until he found out I am a cancer survivor myself) with regards to a code provision they were clearly in violation. It was simple issue, the contractor didn't follow the approved plans and the consultant was "hired" to clean up the mess. Problem was this consultant apparently promised folks (who leaked the conversation) that he would "work us over". There are always three sides to these things. As for storage, partitions, coverage blah blah blah..show me, that's all I ask, show me (as in "demonstrate" as the regulations state.) we're getting water on the fire at the proper density. John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Electrical Subcode Official Building Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 9:26 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] kler.org> Subject: RE: Sprinklers over low partitions Copy that. As a third-party designer, I understand what you're saying. On the other hand, I have a reputation throughout Southern California as being a real pain in the ass when it comes to bickering with fire officials about interpretations. Design-build contractors with turnkey responsibility are arguing from a position of vested interest. As a third-party designer, my interest in a particular issue is for the good of the order. The cost difference isn't coming out of my pocket, so that makes me a somewhat less-biased advocate in that regard. Steve -------- Original message -------- From: John Paulsen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 4/8/17 9:23 AM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] kler.org> Subject: RE: Sprinklers over low partitions Steve: If I were the installing contractor I would definitely approach the problem the way you suggest. But as a sub-contracted designer, it is up to my client to choose the fight, not me. As much as I agree with you, my hands are tied. John P Crown FSD From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 9:18 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] kler.org> Subject: RE: Sprinklers over low partitions I would ask the owner of the project to help you acquire information about mini storage industry standard practices. The reason that the partitions are not full height is the same reason that hospital curtains have a drop with a between the track and the top of the panel - it's for fire sprinkler distribution! The design of this building and those partial height partitions is to allow the exact basis of design concept that you have undertaken for the fire sprinkler system. The first mini storage units I worked on as a designer had full height walls. When you have 5 by 5, 5 by 10 and 10 by 10 cells that each have a sprinkler, you can literally end up with 40 sprinklers in the design area. After doing a couple projects with ESFR-like demands, we worked with a local storage company to drop the walls and use heavy duty mesh on top of the partitions for security between individual units. This is now the norm and I would not take no for an answer in this situation. Get the owner of the project to help you in any way that they can. If, as owners often do, they try to pawn this off as your problem, then I would hit them for the additive change order you're entitled to for extra sprinklers and larger pipe size. That will get their attention and likely lead to some support for your argument. Steve -------- Original message -------- From: John Paulsen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 4/8/17 5:14 AM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] kler.org> Subject: Sprinklers over low partitions We are in the final phases of designing a self-storage facility (Ord Haz, Grp II) that has upright, quick response sprinklers with the deflectors at least 18" above the top of the individual storage unit partitions. In some cases where the units are 5'x5' or 5'x10' we have located the sprinklers directly over the top of the low partition. Our design concept is that the sprinkler will throw evenly to each side of the partition and cover the space on either side. This prevents us from have to "stagger" the sprinklers with arm-overs to prevent spacing closer than 6' apart. We have also provided the manufacturer's sprinkler spray pattern information to support our design concept. Now the local plan reviewer is telling us that he will not accept this sprinkler arrangement and that each unit has to have sprinkler(s) over them. This is the second project that we have done in this jurisdiction and we ran into a similar issue with the first one that we solved with the sprinkler over the partition arrangement. Now he will not accept this solution, but he doesn't site any code or handbook reference that we are violating. Is our design concept contrary to the provisions of NFPA-13? A review of NFPA-13 only specifically deals with sprinkler spacing over low partitions in light hazard occupancies, not OH II, so I have no code guidance. Comments would be greatly appreciated. John Paulsen - SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P - 614-782-2438 F - 614-782-2374 C - 614-348-8206 _______________________________________________ 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
