We’ll leave 13-R vertical fire spread up from unprotected deck then lanai’s to one side.
In a career in a jurisdiction with so much high piled storage that the FF’s called one area tilt up town we had one fire that opened 33 heads. Manufacturer of SIF panels. Ceiling temps? Some black marks, but no real attack on the CDX. The is no pre-wetting when 8’x4’x4’ blocks of styrofoam are burning. Fire burns around underside, then heads to ceiling, a couple heads open. Repeat. FF’s working in very low visibility conditions, but not hot conditions, deploy several (3-4?) 2 1/2”’s and eventually 1 3/4”’s, run through several bottles each, and extinguish fire. Another place made polyurethane buns from liquid. A dozen heads? A place that bought zinc and electricity, melted the zinc and made those inserts that the screw goes into when you assemble KD furniture. Machines remind one of injection mold operation, except for the open tops of liquid zinc. Air, water, and hydraulic lines to machines. Earthquake sloshes zinc out of tanks. Zinc or fire in drip pans causes lines to fails. Fireball operates 12-15 heads. Fire controlled. All fires well less than design area. These are the only fires we had that operated more than half a dozen heads. Doors not locked from the outside. Sprinkler valves open. Gauges all seem right. FACP panel status green. Confidence tests current. Sprinkler design criteria is adequate for fuel matrix. If you don’t get these you haven’t done the basics of a fire inspection. Scott, the problems you describe I would assume are not confined by the property line. It’s probably common all over the town. Best. Bruce Verhei > On Jun 17, 2018, at 19:16, Scott Futrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > > 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
