I understand that perspective. I often have a similar conversation with the PE who reviews our plans.
I'm curious to those of you who have been in a lawsuit situation or just those that understand the legal system better than I do: Is the mere fact that something was not "to code" enough to find fault, or does there need to be some kind of proof or reasonable suspicion that the omission actually in some way contributed to the damage? For example, if someone designed a storage facility as a light hazard occupancy, and it burned down, it would be pretty easy to point at that and say the sprinkler system was inadequate and likely contributed to the damage. Conversely, if you were to properly design a storage facility, but have a zone that exceeds the allowable area by 2,000 sq. ft., it would seemingly be very difficult to prove that the extra area contributed to the damage. In all likelihood, you'd be looking at a sprinkler system that did its job and minimized property loss and kept people safe. My argument is that the goal should not necessarily be minimizing/eliminating all risk, but establishing an acceptable amount of risk and not exceeding it. But that's easy for me to say since I'm not the one with the extra initials who stamps his name on the plans. This is the part where I need to add the disclaimer that this is just my opinion and not that of my employer. -Kyle M From: Parsley Consulting [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:02 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Kyle.Montgomery <[email protected]>; Brian Harris <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misc. Storage No desire for confrontation here either, Kyle. However, if that AHJ is willing to extend that "reasonable" perspective and allow me to protect > 40,000 ft² of storage with a single system, and ignore the limitation imposed by NFPA 13, then I'll likely ask him if he's willing to sign a document defending me in court should it ever come to that. I've not had the experience in court that some of the others on this forum have, however I can relate that in one instance I pointed to NFPA 13 and said, "It's right here, your honor, I didn't make it up," and was dismissed from the case AND awarded attorney's fees. I don't have any issue with create a 2,000 ft² or more area of some other occupancy. sincerely, Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone 760-745-6181 Visit the website<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.parsleyconsulting.com_&d=DwMD-g&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ny9euLltibCgctyfRXVZGuicLBdjOVrigQ2i3WLuKGg&s=CLCVR8_SFo0LibV2pOZMu0Zbv_OaKcqDvUuxtkt0XeM&e=> On 01/29/2020 9:30 AM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum wrote: Don't mean to hi-jack, but does anyone here think that breaking a 42,000 sq. ft. building up into two separate systems actually improves the level of protection? If your AHJ is reasonable, they might let you save that extra riser and feed main and just use one system. Or, if there is a small office in the corner or some area that will be designated for manufacturing or something other than storage, you could look at applying 8.2.3. In a building this small, adding that extra zone will end up being a not-so-insignificant cost increase. -Kyle M From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:31 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Brian Harris <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Misc. Storage Ken- Thank you sir, haven't talked to you in a while. Much appreciate your insight and clarity as always. If EH kicks in looks like (2) Risers.... Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bvssystemsinc.com_&d=DwMFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=_i-3gtRgUe3C3_NF6JEVrRsp03qeNc1whW5ctjjD9go&s=Eehr8EULwOEFVj7mx_BUUA9FU4i6_xpQB4y6xdkenyc&e=> From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:16 AM To: Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Parsley Consulting <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Misc. Storage Brian, I'll be happy to share my perspective for you. * Review the definition of miscellaneous storage in the paragraph you quoted. It sounds to me as though you've described a building where the storage of 42,000 ft² is not "incidental" to other use of the building, is not less than 4,000 ft² in area, and is not less than 10% of the building area. It meets only one of the criteria as miscellaneous storage - that it doesn't exceed 12' in height. * So, we're looking at rack storage of class I-IV commodities, to 12'-0" high. In §16.2.1.2.1 the protection for those commodities, stored up to and including 12'-0" "shall be the same as miscellaneous storage from Chapter 13." That does not mean that it IS miscellaneous storage, simply that it is to be protected per the criteria in chapter 13. This is confirmed in §13.2.1(5) which says Table 13.2.1 and Figure 13.2.1 shall apply to "storage of class I through IV commodities up to 12' in height as directed by 14.2.3.1 and 16.2.1.2.1. * Sorry to disagree with your client, however in my read of table 13.2.1, I see that Class IV commodities stored in "rack storage" below 10' can be protected by an OH2 density. Once the storage exceeds 10', but remains less than 12', the density jumps to EH1, the ceiling height is limited to 32'. * I suggest you take a good long look at 5.6.1.2, in its entirety for protection of mixed commodities. Also, how are you intending to exceed the limit for a system protection storage of 40,000 ft² in 8.2.1, or EH? hope that gives you some help, Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone 760-745-6181 Visit the website<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.parsleyconsulting.com_&d=DwMFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=_i-3gtRgUe3C3_NF6JEVrRsp03qeNc1whW5ctjjD9go&s=weMlHZR15R1XKbhcZZfI65UsJDt_5jUCOoknwGbXThU&e=> On 01/29/2020 7:44 AM, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum wrote: Just want to confirm per the definition of Misc. Storage (3.9.1.18 NFPA 2013) that just because something is stored less than 12' high doesn't automatically make it misc. storage. Working on a project that is 42,000 sq.ft. and the owner is storing Class I-IV commodities on double row racks. Says he was told as long as he doesn't exceed 12' high he only needs OH-2 protection at the ceiling... Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Design Manager bvssystemsinc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bvssystemsinc.com_&d=DwMFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=_i-3gtRgUe3C3_NF6JEVrRsp03qeNc1whW5ctjjD9go&s=Eehr8EULwOEFVj7mx_BUUA9FU4i6_xpQB4y6xdkenyc&e=> Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=_i-3gtRgUe3C3_NF6JEVrRsp03qeNc1whW5ctjjD9go&s=gvUG67wB-YHYa2BtGq0mqZlbYHVw1_ophFnBrlli2PY&e=> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMD-g&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ny9euLltibCgctyfRXVZGuicLBdjOVrigQ2i3WLuKGg&s=D24DOsaD88j_Q1Gch31-uryXbh0leGVvjNnXCyaU-WY&e=>
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
