We'll have to have that conversation over drinks one of these days. As I understand it the NFIRS entries are often made by line fire fighters at the time of the fire, 0200 in the morning or what have you. I was friendly with the former superintendent of the National Fire Academy and had asked him what training did FFs get at NFA on automatic fire protection systems..."limited at best". Garbage in, garbage out as for the NFIRS field data. NFPA's advertised statistics are based on these 2am fire fighter reports not on a professional experienced examination or inspection.
I've trained a few fire fighters (on fixed suppression) and a few fire inspectors and can attest for their lack of required knowledge and experience. I recently reviewed the DOD fire inspector I course; and well, there's just not much in there. There is a reluctance from the trade to publish negative stories, its a form of confirmation bias. Virtually all of the trade press (Sprinkler Quarterly, Sprinkler Age, BAFSA) actively solicit "success stories" not failure stories. They should adopt a negative feedback position and solicit the opposite. We learn from the failures of others, not from hearing the same "sales" pitch over and over again. Shame on the industry for repeating the same statistics -we learn nothing from that press, nothing. It's self-serving BS to make us feel good. Until such time as the trade stops being salemen I won't take them at their word. Last I recall Denver was requiring the use of "modeled" hydraulic data. When I was contracting there in the early 2000s I recall there was pressure to accept modeled flow test data from Denver Water and a reluctant to do true blue NFPA 291 (a/k/a Prof. Pat Brock style) proper flow testing. Who verified or verifies the model outputs? How frequently is that model tested with real work data. The NFPA system is very slow to take negative feedback and adjust the standards, in theory it works but its painfully slow. It would help if the press would stop playing salesman. Make one snide comment about "minimums" and NFPA 13 and see what happens on the forum. Those responders are virtually all designers sitting in their offices. As for as-builts. Overseas they're all rubber stamped after the fact. As-builts rarely reflect reality. Acceptance/commissioning is a farce overseas. All the best Byron Diego Garcia, BIOT ________________________________ From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> on behalf of Scott Futrell <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 5:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Safety Margin Ron, We’ll need to talk about these so called statistics that come from incomplete and inaccurate NFIRS reports almost exclusively. I’ve researched the statistics, spoken with NFPA, and I can tell you the statistics are only as accurate as the firefighters writing them at the time of the fire. Investigations go on for months longer and NFIRS reports are rarely updated. Currently NFPA states that 97% of fires are controlled by 5 sprinklers or less, so that is up from what it used to be. I can assure you that many of the fires I investigate, that have sprinklers that were ineffective are not accurately or not included in those statistics. $35M fire in Illinois recorded as less than $10M and didn’t make the NFPA large loss fires. Sprinklered. Sprinklered part of the building burned to the ground…none of that made NFPA investigation or statistics. I have pictures, reports, NFIRS reports and more to back this up and my files grow weekly. I recently had an interesting debate with a NICET designer from Denver. I told her the flow test was wrong (it is of course), the pump test was incorrect and old (it is of course) and she hadn’t as-built the BFP on the plans correctly that her company replaced. She told me “she didn’t have time to drive the two hours to Denver to verify the as-built conditions” and that was the flow test the city gave them (incorrect side of the building, old, and off larger main than the pump suction). The supposed safety margin she was providing was non-existent. I realize this story isn’t reflective of requirements for a safety margin, but it is reflective of an improperly designed system that will be just fine until we have a fire and then we find out it wasn’t. I have many design related stories and my plan review rate remains at >70% revise and resubmit with the majority of the problems water supply and hydraulic calculation related. I have a NFIRS report in my hands that states that the sprinklers operated/ineffective and that three operated. There were more than three that operated, but more importantly the two branch lines directly over the area of origin were capped without a water supply to those sprinklers!!! Take care my friend. Scott Office: (763) 425-1001 x2 Cell: (612) 759-5556 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 11:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Safety Margin 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]<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-) On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 7:50 AM Scott Futrell <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 2:16 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> 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]<mailto:[email protected]> 828-696-3400 828-696-2288 Fax 828-708-9118 Mobile [cid:[email protected]] [cid:[email protected]] From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 1:22 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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<http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> 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]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:46 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<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]<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
