And NFIRS. I have little faith in results. When we decided to address false alarms we spent a lot of time, effort on NFIRS. It still took two years just to get codes 73 & 74 (false alarms with different types of cause) regularly entered correctly.
NFIRS. Ok for house fires. Commercial? No, we weren’t get good info in. Best. Bruce Verhei > On Jun 17, 2018, at 21:45, Bruce Verhei <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
