Reed, I didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn last night, and I don’t pretend to be an attorney.
I personally don’t think there are many records of pipe schedule systems in fires that are controlled being evaluated to see if they worked properly when the loss was small. In other words, a sprinkler save is a sprinkler save and if it opened four sprinklers or less nobody pays any attention. If there is a fire in a building with a pipe schedule system that ‘doesn’t work the way we design them today’, but controls the fire with 1-4 sprinklers because of 1) safety factors, 2) fuel load, 3) other then it’s a success. There are records of pipe schedule systems that can’t protect hazards that have changed in buildings and the systems were overwhelmed – even with fire pumps, but usually that involves fuels load greater than light or ordinary and maybe shouldn’t have been there anyway. I don’t take the projects like yours any more. And if I get into one and find out the things you’ve uncovered, I’m blunt with the owner. I always hear, well the sprinkler contractor has been here and the fire department has been here and no one said anything was wrong. I tell them, what is wrong, what it will take, and if they don’t like what they hear, then I’m out and they can find someone else. But, it is confirmed in writing. Admittedly I’ve become overly conservative because I know what does go wrong. I can’t answer your question with any chapter and verse. My opinion is that to leave a pipe schedule system in a building with the knowledge we have today including such things as office furniture may not be light hazard fuel loading and so on is not appropriate. And if it can’t meet the current pipe schedule design requirements then it probably never met those requirements (I’m guessing no one paid any attention to the minimum pressure requirement originally based upon your elevation information). A final thought. I’m not opposed, and I strongly support, fire protection engineering. If your staff can prove that the fuel load, existing sprinkler system pipe sizes, sprinklers, and water supply will protect the space, or limit the damage to a predetermined acceptable level (life safety, property protection, and firefighter safety all considered) based upon an engineering analysis or performance-based design, go for it. Maybe looping a cross main, or changing to QR sprinklers, in conjunction with the engineering analysis based upon fuel load, fire department access, construction, and so on is appropriate. Maybe not. Good luck. 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 3:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Pipe Schedule System 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
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
