Ron must be feeling mellow. Sort of a mild rant. Caused by M’s being 20 games over 0.500?
Best. Bruce > On Jun 16, 2018, at 09:25, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Where is the data that supports the need? I don't have the exact numbers in > my head this morning, nor am I willing to look them up but the statistics are > that somewhere above 90% of all fires are controlled by a single or two > sprinklers operating, and above 95% are controlled by three (anybody jump in > with the exact numbers), and since we design to nine or usually more > typically I'd say a safety factor is already built-in. I think if you look at > systems that have been overwhelmed you'll mostly find that maintenance was > not carried out properly, or TIs were not addressed, or fires got into > unsprinklered or under sprinklered attics, or any number of things that were > existing code deficient. I also think you'd find that many fires were > controlled by systems that were existing code deficient. My mind could be > changed if I were shown a significant amount of loss due to inadequate water > in the original design in buildings where there were no other factors as > stated above, but I'm not seeing a need. Additionally, in my neck of the > woods, all the metropolitan jurisdictions are already imposing a 10# or 10% > factor already. Most are holding to that number like it's gold and even if > the hose stream allowance takes you over the supply line by 1/2# you're > surely going to have to re-design. This is unreasonable already, and I > realize the FDs already often act like over-indulgent parents, so I'm > especially worried that if this 10#s is codified it will be an add-on to the > already existent 10#s. I see tanks and pumps in everyone's future because of > mistrust of municipal water systems. Rant over. Ron out. > > > Ron Greenman > > [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-) > > >> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 7:50 AM Scott Futrell <[email protected]> wrote: >> As a plan specifier, plan reviewer and an investigator I see designs right >> to the supply and then as-built conditions far worse (read more demanding) >> than the design submitted with the calcs. This is not a regional >> observation. >> >> >> >> Additionally, I am aware of communities that lower elevated tank levels 20’ >> in winter to lower heating costs. Contractors in those areas do NOT adjust >> flow tests for this seasonal variation. >> >> >> >> No safety margin what-so-ever in NFPA 13 is unreasonable for a design >> standard. >> >> >> >> Arguments on the floor including ‘requiring all systems to have back-up >> power’ were ridiculous. >> >> >> >> Scott >> >> >> >> Office: (763) 425-1001 x2 >> >> Cell: (612) 759-5556 >> >> >> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton >> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 2:16 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Safety Margin >> >> >> >> That was the conversation on the floor of the code hearing. The concerns >> underscored by the CAM were not about whether safety factor is a good >> practice, it was that a fixed minimum value as high as 10 PSI could trigger >> all sorts of cost-impact consequences, particularly in areas where pressures >> are middling to poor – in Rhode Island, 10 PSI could be 25-30% of the >> available pressure. >> >> >> >> In the West, due primarily to the politics of drought, water districts are >> using models in lieu of physical flow tests. Prudent and conservative >> programming makes it possible for them to issue safeguarded values from >> which it’s not necessary to reduce the available pressure. For ex., City of >> San Diego uses a three-level safety factor in their (highly accurate) >> models: starting with legacy drought water levels in the reservoirs, then >> factor the highest seasonal demand, then the highest peak day demand of that >> season. The values we’re getting are usually significantly lower than what >> can be measured on the hydrant, and this practice isn’t without controversy >> because there are obvious complications that can and do occur, particularly >> with existing systems based on 20-year old (and older) pressures that were >> physically measured (with crappy equipment) when first designed and built. >> >> >> >> But if modeling becomes the new normal, prudent water district engineering >> departments and fire departments they serve can coordinate manipulating data >> to include reasonable safety factors. The range of variation in pressures, >> accuracy of flow test equipment, the use of modeling in many areas … there >> are too many variables to set a fixed minimum safety factor based on PSI, >> IMHO. >> >> >> >> SML >> >> >> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting >> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 12:00 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Safety Margin >> >> >> >> Richard, >> >> If my memory is accurate of the issues raised in the discussion that >> ambiguity was a part of the differing viewpoints. >> >> Some argued that 10 psi was not workable in their locale as their pressures >> were so limited that an imposition of 10 psi was simply to drastic and would >> result in much larger pipe sizes as a result. >> >> Others argued that 10 psi was not enough, and in their area 10 psi didn't >> equal 10%, and there was some reluctance to base their designs on a pressure >> greater than 90% of the available. >> >> It was quite a discussion. >> >> Ken Wagoner, SET >> Parsley Consulting >> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >> Escondido, California 92025 >> Phone 760-745-6181 >> Visit the website >> >> On 06/15/2018 10:23 AM, Richard Carr wrote: >> >> Even though it is not in NFPA most AHJ’s require some sort of safety margin, >> 10%, 10 psi which we have had to provide for a long time so most designers >> know to leave safety margin in the calc’s. it would be nice if they all used >> the same amount. >> >> >> >> Richard M. Carr, SET >> >> Project Manager/Design >> >> Diboco Fire Sprinklers, Inc. >> >> 325 Jackson Loop Road >> >> Flat Rock, NC 28731 >> >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> 828-696-3400 >> >> 828-696-2288 Fax >> >> 828-708-9118 Mobile >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On >> Behalf Of Parsley Consulting >> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 1:22 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Safety Margin >> >> >> >> Scott, >> >> Based on the material which was presented to the -24 and -291 committee >> meetings I believed the proposed safety margin and the means to calculate >> that margin there was some merit in the proposal. >> >> For reasons I don't quite remember the PI was voted down at the 2nd draft >> meeting. I listened to some of the discussion, and there were some good >> points made. I'm not terribly surprised it failed at the convention level. >> Perhaps the attendees were following the lead of the technical committees, >> and declining to overrule their decision. >> >> sincerely, >> >> Ken Wagoner, SET >> Parsley Consulting >> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >> Escondido, California 92025 >> Phone 760-745-6181 >> Visit the website >> >> On 06/15/2018 8:09 AM, Scott Futrell wrote: >> >> Only that the 'safety margin' inclusion in the 2019 edition of NFPA 13 >> failed, so it won't be included or required. >> >> I consider this unfortunate, but I'd guess that not everyone on the forum >> would agree. >> >> Scott >> >> Office: (763) 425-1001 x2 >> Cell: (612) 759-5556 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:46 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: NFPA Vegas Convention >> >> I didn't make it again this year. >> "Caputo" is the only speaker name I recognized. >> Anybody have any earthshaking epiphanies? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
