While many of you may be thinking of (2013) NFPA 13 23.3.1 which is the general requirement for preparing hydraulic calculations...
I would like to remind the forum about 8.15.20.5 [Revamping of Hydraulic Design Systems] and more specifically 8.15.20.5.2 which states that "Calculations shall be provided to verify that the system design flow rate will be achieved." If you have projects in jurisdictions enforcing an edition of NFPA 13 prior to 2010, it may not be applied, since the 2010 edition is the one in which that specific requirement first appeared. The variation of editions adopted in the many jurisdictions forum members have experienced may explain the variation in experiences of enforcement of this rule, in addition to the other "normal" factors that cause variation in enforcement... Note that A.8.15.20.5.2 makes it clear that it is not the intent of the section to require a full hydraulic analysis of the existing piping system in addition to the new sprinkler layout. In my experience, performing calculations in such scenarios can expose problems that should be made known. It may bring to light deficiencies in the water supply [such as hydraulic degradation, increased hydraulic demand due to change of hazard, building owners who have not been paying for annual fire pump tests to be performed or do not address problems noted by the contractor on the report, etcetera]. The FAQ in the handbook is similar: "When a hydraulically designed system is modified, new calculations must be provided to verify that the arrangement can provide the necessary flow and pressure. The calculation must be made in the case of one or two sprinklers being supplied from the existing line fitting." On the P.E. issue, our State's fire protection sprinkler systems law [Title 40, Chapter 10] requires the involvement of a P.E. on design of fire sprinkler systems, including additions and alterations, unless the building is exempted under the engineering law [Title 40, Chapter 22], such as when it is a one or two-family dwelling or a farm building not used for human occupancy, in which case a fire sprinkler contractor with a qualifier with the appropriate NICET IV certification is allowed to do the design in lieu of a P.E.. Please feel free to email me directly if you want more specifics about the sections, links to the laws, or have other questions for me. Respectfully, David Blackwell David Blackwell, P.E. Chief Engineer (803)896-9833 Office of State Fire Marshal 141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203 http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/ (803)896-9800 "Our firefighting starts with plan review..." From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 11:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Calcs and tenant improvements *** SCDLLR NOTICE *** * This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links. * Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in e-mail text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted. I hear ya. My point is/was, while we may Know the system will work, others may not. Once the "core and shell" have been CO'd, subsequent modification become new work and subject to chapter 23, once again. Each jurisdiction is of course different. For instance, I have never seen a safety factor for "future tenants". Only for field changes during current review/build/install. Getting the water flow information, and having to survey back to the System Riser are the main problems for this, without a doubt. R/ Matt "As-Built", adjective. * " A mythological creation of the Fire Sprinkler Industry meant to result in dazed and confused looks when requested." Matthew J. Willis Project Manager Rapid Fire Protection Inc.<http://rapidfireinc.com/> 1530 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Direct Line-605.593.5063 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 [cid:[email protected]] From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Hill Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 8:58 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Calcs and tenant improvements As I am sure you are aware, many jurisdictions adopt/modify the standards and seem to apply them differently. Most jurisdictions we work in require substantial safety factors when calculating base building sprinkler installations. The reasons given for these are usually "to allow field changes" and to "account for future tenant revisions". For instance, you would only be required to calculate the most demanding area of the highest typical floor in a multi-story office building. Any tenants on lower levels that matched the original pipe sizing and spacing would not require new hydraulic calculations. That has gone away for many jurisdictions, as they now require new calculations on all tenant improvements. On the flip side of this. I have been asked to calculate projects that I would have argued did not need them, as I was matching existing conditions that had already been proven by hydraulic calculations, only to find these areas to be more demanding. I do not mind having to do calculations on every project. We are however, finding it difficult to obtain water flow information in a timely manner from several local jurisdictions. Mike Hill From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 10:41 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Calcs and tenant improvements It's Friday so.., Where does it say in 13 that you do Not provided calcs? If I read 23.1.3 they are required no? R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Project Manager Rapid Fire Protection Inc.<http://rapidfireinc.com/> 1530 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Direct Line-605.593.5063 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 [cid:[email protected]] From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Hill Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 8:28 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Calcs and tenant improvements It is because of scenarios like these, the AHJ require calculations for everything. It makes the ill informed/trained do what they should have done originally. Mike Hill From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 10:22 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Calcs and tenant improvements This may not speak to your question in general terms, but has a third party planner viewer for a local fire department I have kicked two tenant improvements back and demanded couch recently. one of them entailed the Edition of 11 sprinklers in an area that already had 10, that was being remodeled into small counseling cubicles. The end result was 21 sprinklers in a space no larger than 1200 square feet. The submitter put a note on the plan saying that they were taking the exception of only counting sprinklers in separate fire areas, his badly flawed premise being that the non-rated walls forming the little rooms represented a fire area separation of sorts. The other was a retail tenant Improvement in an existing Ordinary Hazard shell building where outlets were spaced at 120 square feet and originally designed for K5.6 sprinklers. The TI utilized extended coverage at 20 x 20. The submitter's reasoning was it was like for like because the hazard didn't change and there were fewer sprinklers. Like everything else, we in the sprinkler community need to take ownership of what is still a low standard of care in our industry. On the AHJ side of the counter, we hope that common sense will prevail. Steve -------- Original message -------- From: Travis Mack <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 10/6/17 6:39 AM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Calcs and tenant improvements Interesting to see what others run into. As far as the PE seal, that is jurisdiction specific. We have PE on staff and seal in jurisdictions that require. This has just been something that has been popping up more and more. It was very rare in the past. We maybe calculated 1:100. Now I am seeing 3:5 requiring it for the jurisdictions I deal with. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2017, at 6:31 AM, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: It depends on the jurisdiction, but I do see it. More of the rule and not the exception. I don't see anything to the extreme you are talking about. I did have one recently where the existing sprinklers were installed on flex drops and we have to move 5 sprinklers one pad over. The engineer stated if we used flex drops (even the existing ones), the system had to calculated. However, if we removed the flex and installed hard pipe, no calcs we're required. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080<tel:860-535-2080> (ofc) 860-553-3553<tel:860-553-3553> (fax) 860-608-4559<tel:860-608-4559> (cell) On Oct 6, 2017 at 9:15 AM, <Travis Mack<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: How many of you are being required to calculate systems when you do a tenant improvement? Just your run of the mill add/relocate. I am seeing it come up more and more. I am seeing it in situations where it is mostly relocates and no additions anywhere near the design areas. I have one now where the AHJ rejected for no calculations where the shell was OH2 and the new space is residential lofts. This particular AHJ wants us to show all piping on portions of the floor where no work is being done. They are also requiring us to submit plans for the two floors below our space that have no work being done. Is anyone else seeing stuff like this? Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
