Scott, I like blunt. I agree, I think.
I know you have lots of experience with expert witness and understand liability better than most, so I value your opinion. My report will include all of the information and code/standard requirements and the owner and AHJ will have all of the information. And my recommendations will be to meet or exceed the current, applicable codes and standards. However, isn’t it true that the existing pipe schedule system in service today will not work hydraulically, but meets the codes and standards for an existing building/system?...I’m assuming that the pipe schedule sizing was done correctly and everything was installed as per the applicable codes and standards in 1969 or they received the need variances. I understand the liability of seeing something wrong and as a professional not bringing attention to it, but in my understanding, this technically isn’t wrong; in that, when it was installed it met the requirements…assuming that it did. I can’t assume that the existing pipe schedule system “will not protect the existing hazard” when it meets the requirements of a pipe schedule system? Or can I? Am I liable if I know that this pipe schedule system as is, if calc’d hydraulically, is over the curve? Is the owner liable to replace a system that is hydraulically insufficient but met the code when installed? I guess my main question boils down to this… Can I leave an existing, “code compliant” system in place, as is, and install a sprinkler system throughout the rest of the building? Or, when I extend the system throughout the rest of the building, does that make the system non-code compliant? I was looking for chapter and verse that may state it bluntly or through interpretation, but it looks like I just need to take your advice and not pursue any other method of protecting this building besides installing a fire pump and design per the current codes and standards. Thanks for the advice. Reed Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Futrell Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 3:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Pipe Schedule System I’ll be blunt Reed. Keep those notes and emails because, in my opinion, nothing you’ve said relieves you as a professional of your liability if something goes wrong and you KNOW that system, as you wrote, “does not ‘work’”. KFI and the owner will have some ‘splainin’ to do (old line from the Lucy Show). Offline, if you want call me, my opinion is, you and your firm are required to let the owner know and that you need to tell the fire chief, too. I’ll take this one step further and say that if you have an existing pipe schedule system that will not protect an existing hazard without any remodeling, I wouldn’t want to be defending a position to leave it as is to save money, because of inconvenience, or any other frivolous reason. If it won’t work for any reason, and that is known to professionals, then it needs to be corrected. And by professionals I mean NICET, PE, Fire Service and any others that are trained and qualified to know what is designed and installed properly and what isn’t. Scott Office: (763) 425-1001 x2 Cell: (612) 759-5556 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 1:33 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Pipe Schedule System Ron, Todd, Scott, Matt: I agree with your statements and I’m not trying to be argumentative, but the system in place currently, does not “work”. We all know that even if the system doesn’t hydraulically work it still provides a degree of life safety and could actually “work” to control a fire….whatever…it has been assumed that it will do that job for the last 50 years. If the owner decides they don’t want the expense and hassle of a fire pump and decides to scrap the whole fire sprinkler upgrade because of it, then life safety has not improved at all. However, if the entire rest of the building is retrofitted with sprinklers, life safety does improve, and maybe down the road they can install a fire pump so the entire system will calc. I know it is the owner’s decision, but I am looking at it in a practical way, how I have often witnessed the fire official look at it. That is, we would be improving the life safety of the building dramatically and leaving an “inadequate” system in place. I know liability is a big part of a discussion like this, but if we leave that out for now, does that change your thoughts at all? I am thinking of it this way because the owner’s rep said, “This could be a game changer for us”, when I told them the existing system would not “work” without a fire pump. I know what is best and that is what I will recommend, but because I haven’t dealt with pipe schedule systems (other than replacing them), I was wondering in what instances, if any, you can leave a pipe schedule system in place when doing an upgrade? I also thought of discussing with the AHJ the option of retrofitting sprinklers throughout the building now, and installing a fire pump later. Just looking for options beyond what would be ideal. Thanks. Reed Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 12:39 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Pipe Schedule System If the system isn't required by code and you are doing a life safety analysis then your job is to give the client advice regarding life safety. 1. The client wants good life safety demonstrated by have the analysis done at all. 2. The system is not required. 3. Better life safety is obtained with a system. 4. The system can't work without a pump, thus a pump is required for the desired degree of life safety. 5. Analysis of cost versus benefit of the system. 6. Owner's decision. On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Everything you install or modify has to “work”. Anything that you know doesn’t is bad ethics and a huge liability issue. Give the owner the options for fully adequate systems and let him make the decision. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080<tel:(860)%20535-2080> (ofc) 860-553-3553<tel:(860)%20553-3553> (fax) 860-608-4559<tel:(860)%20608-4559> (cell) On Oct 6, 2017 at 12:41 PM, <SET Reed A. Roisum<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have an existing pipe schedule system in a partially sprinklered building…installed in 1969. I am doing a life safety analysis that includes budget estimating to provide new fire alarm and sprinklers. The existing pipe schedule portion of the system is considerably higher in elevation and remote. It doesn’t work hydraulically with the city supply. Even when I replace the system with larger pipe I can’t get the calc to work. In order to install a new system or keep the existing system in place and have it hydraulically “work” we will need to install a fire pump. My problem is, the owner may decide to just upgrade the fire alarm system and not sprinkler the building if we need a fire pump as the sprinkler retrofit is voluntary. My question for the Forum is, can an existing pipe schedule system be left in place even if we retrofit the rest of the building and hydraulically prove the rest of the building? NFPA 13, 2013 edition… 23.5 Pipe Schedules Pipe schedules shall not be used, except in existing systems and in new systems or extensions to existing systems described in Chapter 11. Water supplies shall conform to 11.2.2. If I can meet the water supply requirements of Table 11.2.2.1 for Ordinary Hazard, which is a minimum pressure of 20 psi flowing 850 gpm then is the pipe schedule permitted? It appears as though I am out of luck because of 11.2.2.6.1 Residual Pressure… The residual pressure requirement of Table 11.2.2.1 shall be met at the elevation of the highest sprinkler. The main reason I can’t get the calc to work is because of elevation. I would assume the AHJ would be willing to work with us if the choices are… 1. No upgrade to the sprinkler system, or 2. A fully sprinklered building with 2000 sq ft that is pipe schedule and doesn’t work hydraulically. Any insight or ideas will be appreciated. Reed Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903<tel:(701)%20552-9903> | mobile: 701.388.1352<tel:(701)%20388-1352> | KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Ron Greenman [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 253.576.9700 The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-) ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
