NFPA 13R Attics
We have a job that is classified as a 13R [2007] and they have regular walk-up stairs to the attic which is enclosed and sealed from the dwelling unit, our position is that the attic is required to be sprinklerd because section A.6.9.6 states small openings and not walk-up stairs. please chime in with your opinions. 6.9.6* Sprinklers shall not be required in attics, penthouse equipment rooms, elevator machine rooms, concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment, crawl spaces, floor/ceiling spaces, noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. A.6.9.6 Concealed spaces are permitted to have small openings such as grilles for return air when the space is being used as a plenum. Such small openings do not disqualify the space from being considered as a concealed space, and sprinklers are still permitted to be omitted. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/28801310/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: NFPA 13R Attics
Joel, I believe NFPA-13R would only require the attic to be sprinklered if this space was being used for living space or storage... the method of getting up the attic does not come into play in this scenario... my take on this. lol Steven MacKinnon Senior Fire Protection Engineer Hartcorn Plumbing Heating Inc. 850 South 2nd Street Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 631-580-2300 - Office 631-580-1090 - Fax ste...@hartcorn.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Joel Chaim Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA 13R Attics We have a job that is classified as a 13R [2007] and they have regular walk-up stairs to the attic which is enclosed and sealed from the dwelling unit, our position is that the attic is required to be sprinklerd because section A.6.9.6 states small openings and not walk-up stairs. please chime in with your opinions. 6.9.6* Sprinklers shall not be required in attics, penthouse equipment rooms, elevator machine rooms, concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment, crawl spaces, floor/ceiling spaces, noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. A.6.9.6 Concealed spaces are permitted to have small openings such as grilles for return air when the space is being used as a plenum. Such small openings do not disqualify the space from being considered as a concealed space, and sprinklers are still permitted to be omitted. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120402/28801310/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: NFPA 13R Attics
Look at your commas. Sprinklers shall not be required in attics (comma) penthouse equipment rooms (comma) concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment (comma) crawl spaces (comma) floor/ceiling spaces (comma) noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (comma) and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. Each one of these items is separate from the other. The annex material only to concealed spaces which your attic is not. Permanent stairs, drop down stairs, ladder access through a hatch or a door doesn't change attic to something else. Heated space on the other hand would make it a living compartment. My opinion is that it is, as described, an attic and no matter how you access it is still exempt from sprinklering. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Joel Chaim activefireprotect...@gmail.comwrote: We have a job that is classified as a 13R [2007] and they have regular walk-up stairs to the attic which is enclosed and sealed from the dwelling unit, our position is that the attic is required to be sprinklerd because section A.6.9.6 states small openings and not walk-up stairs. please chime in with your opinions. 6.9.6* Sprinklers shall not be required in attics, penthouse equipment rooms, elevator machine rooms, concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment, crawl spaces, floor/ceiling spaces, noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. A.6.9.6 Concealed spaces are permitted to have small openings such as grilles for return air when the space is being used as a plenum. Such small openings do not disqualify the space from being considered as a concealed space, and sprinklers are still permitted to be omitted. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/28801310/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/ec719a41/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: NFPA 13R Attics
I would look at it as the stairs make storage in the space a real possibility. I would think that if there are stairs, there is probably a plywood or other solid platform in the attic space, which would be ripe for storage. No access within the dwelling units has no impact; it is access in general. If by sealed, you mean the door has been sheetrocked over and there is no access, then there would be a good case that it is a vacant attic. While we are on semantics, that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. Does this mean if they are being used for living purposes or storage and there is not any fuel fired equipment (i.e electric heat), that sprinklers are not required? At 01:15 PM 4/2/2012, you wrote: Look at your commas. Sprinklers shall not be required in attics (comma) penthouse equipment rooms (comma) concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment (comma) crawl spaces (comma) floor/ceiling spaces (comma) noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (comma) and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. Each one of these items is separate from the other. The annex material only to concealed spaces which your attic is not. Permanent stairs, drop down stairs, ladder access through a hatch or a door doesn't change attic to something else. Heated space on the other hand would make it a living compartment. My opinion is that it is, as described, an attic and no matter how you access it is still exempt from sprinklering. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Joel Chaim activefireprotect...@gmail.comwrote: We have a job that is classified as a 13R [2007] and they have regular walk-up stairs to the attic which is enclosed and sealed from the dwelling unit, our position is that the attic is required to be sprinklerd because section A.6.9.6 states small openings and not walk-up stairs. please chime in with your opinions. 6.9.6* Sprinklers shall not be required in attics, penthouse equipment rooms, elevator machine rooms, concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment, crawl spaces, floor/ceiling spaces, noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. A.6.9.6 Concealed spaces are permitted to have small openings such as grilles for return air when the space is being used as a plenum. Such small openings do not disqualify the space from being considered as a concealed space, and sprinklers are still permitted to be omitted. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/28801310/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/ec719a41/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: NFPA 13R Attics
But when it says and all concealed spaces that are not used or intended... that would mean attic as well, an attic is basically a concealed space the only difference is that there is a possibility for fuel burning equipment. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13R Attics Look at your commas. Sprinklers shall not be required in attics (comma) penthouse equipment rooms (comma) concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment (comma) crawl spaces (comma) floor/ceiling spaces (comma) noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (comma) and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. Each one of these items is separate from the other. The annex material only to concealed spaces which your attic is not. Permanent stairs, drop down stairs, ladder access through a hatch or a door doesn't change attic to something else. Heated space on the other hand would make it a living compartment. My opinion is that it is, as described, an attic and no matter how you access it is still exempt from sprinklering. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Joel Chaim activefireprotect...@gmail.comwrote: We have a job that is classified as a 13R [2007] and they have regular walk-up stairs to the attic which is enclosed and sealed from the dwelling unit, our position is that the attic is required to be sprinklerd because section A.6.9.6 states small openings and not walk-up stairs. please chime in with your opinions. 6.9.6* Sprinklers shall not be required in attics, penthouse equipment rooms, elevator machine rooms, concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment, crawl spaces, floor/ceiling spaces, noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. A.6.9.6 Concealed spaces are permitted to have small openings such as grilles for return air when the space is being used as a plenum. Such small openings do not disqualify the space from being considered as a concealed space, and sprinklers are still permitted to be omitted. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120402/28801310/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120402/ec719a41/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: NFPA 13R Attics
While I'd agree that stairs indicate that the space will become a living space that can't be my concern other than to point out that the way it's constructed it could lend itself to future living space, and so sprinklering might be prudent, but if it's not heated then sprinklering is a bad idea. 13R is a truncated version of 13 for a reason and it's not so we can guess at future activities and force heating or a dry system into an attic. We used to have the same problem in Santa Cruz when I was with the building department. Housing and land was at such a premium everybody wanted a mother-in-law second house on their plot. This was a no-no per zoning but you could build a second building for other than living purposes if you met all the set-back lot size requirements. What differentiated a house a secondary building was a kitchen. You'd be surprised how many 3500+ sqft artist's studios were permitted that had a very suspicious room layout with built in cabinets that had a space the was just range size but designated for the kiln. There'd always be another space just refrigerator width and a kitchen size sink for cleaning up. Everybody knew what was going to happen the day after final and CO, but An attic is an attic no matter how obvious the intention to make it living space. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Todd Williams t...@fpdc.com wrote: I would look at it as the stairs make storage in the space a real possibility. I would think that if there are stairs, there is probably a plywood or other solid platform in the attic space, which would be ripe for storage. No access within the dwelling units has no impact; it is access in general. If by sealed, you mean the door has been sheetrocked over and there is no access, then there would be a good case that it is a vacant attic. While we are on semantics, that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. Does this mean if they are being used for living purposes or storage and there is not any fuel fired equipment (i.e electric heat), that sprinklers are not required? At 01:15 PM 4/2/2012, you wrote: Look at your commas. Sprinklers shall not be required in attics (comma) penthouse equipment rooms (comma) concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment (comma) crawl spaces (comma) floor/ceiling spaces (comma) noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (comma) and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. Each one of these items is separate from the other. The annex material only to concealed spaces which your attic is not. Permanent stairs, drop down stairs, ladder access through a hatch or a door doesn't change attic to something else. Heated space on the other hand would make it a living compartment. My opinion is that it is, as described, an attic and no matter how you access it is still exempt from sprinklering. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Joel Chaim activefireprotect...@gmail.comwrote: We have a job that is classified as a 13R [2007] and they have regular walk-up stairs to the attic which is enclosed and sealed from the dwelling unit, our position is that the attic is required to be sprinklerd because section A.6.9.6 states small openings and not walk-up stairs. please chime in with your opinions. 6.9.6* Sprinklers shall not be required in attics, penthouse equipment rooms, elevator machine rooms, concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment, crawl spaces, floor/ceiling spaces, noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. A.6.9.6 Concealed spaces are permitted to have small openings such as grilles for return air when the space is being used as a plenum. Such small openings do not disqualify the space from being considered as a concealed space, and sprinklers are still permitted to be omitted. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/28801310/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection
Re: NFPA 13R Attics
No, an attic is an attic, and a concealed space is something other than an attic. If it were then the passage would read all concealed spaces with annex material listing spaces, but not limited, that could be considered concealed. Remember when your grade school teacher harped on punctuation? There was a reason. I where I wish I were at work where I have the entire NFC. There's an entire volume dedicated to general definitions. I'd like to see if concealed space and attic are in there. And the business about intended for storage or living space is a qualifier related to the concealed spaces clause in the sentence, not the entire passage. Just saying. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Joel Chaim activefireprotect...@gmail.comwrote: But when it says and all concealed spaces that are not used or intended... that would mean attic as well, an attic is basically a concealed space the only difference is that there is a possibility for fuel burning equipment. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13R Attics Look at your commas. Sprinklers shall not be required in attics (comma) penthouse equipment rooms (comma) concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment (comma) crawl spaces (comma) floor/ceiling spaces (comma) noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (comma) and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. Each one of these items is separate from the other. The annex material only to concealed spaces which your attic is not. Permanent stairs, drop down stairs, ladder access through a hatch or a door doesn't change attic to something else. Heated space on the other hand would make it a living compartment. My opinion is that it is, as described, an attic and no matter how you access it is still exempt from sprinklering. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Joel Chaim activefireprotect...@gmail.comwrote: We have a job that is classified as a 13R [2007] and they have regular walk-up stairs to the attic which is enclosed and sealed from the dwelling unit, our position is that the attic is required to be sprinklerd because section A.6.9.6 states small openings and not walk-up stairs. please chime in with your opinions. 6.9.6* Sprinklers shall not be required in attics, penthouse equipment rooms, elevator machine rooms, concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment, crawl spaces, floor/ceiling spaces, noncombustible elevator shafts where the elevator cars comply with ANSI A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment. A.6.9.6 Concealed spaces are permitted to have small openings such as grilles for return air when the space is being used as a plenum. Such small openings do not disqualify the space from being considered as a concealed space, and sprinklers are still permitted to be omitted. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120402/28801310/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120402/ec719a41/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu
Flow Test
We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: Flow Test
You can make a stretch and say that the hydraulically most demanding system would include the weakest water supply and well as the most hydraulically remote area. More water usually equals better test. Ran into a water supply problem a while back where static pressures vary +/- 25 psi. Found this out from discrepancy between flow test provided by city and the pressure at the riser. A flow test is only a snapshot in time. At 01:48 PM 4/2/2012, you wrote: We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
Technically the hydrant flow test should be conducted in accordance with NFPA 291. It's rare anyone does it though, it's the generic static, 1 ports then two ports for a 3 point graph. Look in the back of 13 for Fig A.22.3.4 for the idiot proof method for the flow test data. Beyond this, in 291 there's a line (4.3.6) to flow the total demand necessary for fire fighting purposes. Well, spin that into sprinkler system demand values and it's pretty simple. Plot your 3-4 point graph depending on how many points you need to represent your sprinkler demand flow and get an actual curve, not a 2 point line. IE We had a tire storage facility here, approximate estimated gallons for the system demand was around 3000 gpm. We had to static one as usual, but then we had to pop 2 separate hydrants with both 2.5 outlets to simulate the drop in the water system for the sprinkler system demand. Long story even longer, you cannot extrapolate a water supply curve from a static and a single residual point - you have to get enough flow out of the hydrants to approximate sprinkler demand flows. At least that's my take on it anyway... -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
That is also my take on the matter, the standard however does not appear to specifically require this!!! As indicated NFPA 291-2010 4.3.6 states To obtain satisfactory test results of theoretical calculations of expected flows or rated capacities, sufficient discharge should be achieved to cause a drop in pressure at the residual hydrant of at least 25% OR to flow the total demand necessary for fire-fighting purposes. It does not require the contractor to use whichever demand is greater. In this case all tests achieve a drop of 25% as required by the standard however only one test of the three meets the system demand and only when using theoretical numbers extrapolated from the curve. What is to prevent a contractor from only flowing until a 25% drop in residual pressure has been achieved? On small dead end water mains this would be very easy to achieve however it would not provide a good indication of the actual condition or availability at the main. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of CH Fire - Mike Gallello Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flow Test Technically the hydrant flow test should be conducted in accordance with NFPA 291. It's rare anyone does it though, it's the generic static, 1 ports then two ports for a 3 point graph. Look in the back of 13 for Fig A.22.3.4 for the idiot proof method for the flow test data. Beyond this, in 291 there's a line (4.3.6) to flow the total demand necessary for fire fighting purposes. Well, spin that into sprinkler system demand values and it's pretty simple. Plot your 3-4 point graph depending on how many points you need to represent your sprinkler demand flow and get an actual curve, not a 2 point line. IE We had a tire storage facility here, approximate estimated gallons for the system demand was around 3000 gpm. We had to static one as usual, but then we had to pop 2 separate hydrants with both 2.5 outlets to simulate the drop in the water system for the sprinkler system demand. Long story even longer, you cannot extrapolate a water supply curve from a static and a single residual point - you have to get enough flow out of the hydrants to approximate sprinkler demand flows. At least that's my take on it anyway... -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
a line (4.3.6) to flow the total demand necessary for fire fighting purposes. Well, spin that into sprinkler system demand values and it's pretty simple. Plot your 3-4 point graph depending on how many points you need to represent your sprinkler demand flow and get an actual curve, not a 2 point line. IE We had a tire storage facility here, approximate estimated gallons for the system demand was around 3000 gpm. We had to static one as usual, but then we had to pop 2 separate hydrants with both 2.5 outlets to simulate the drop in the water system for the sprinkler system demand. Long story even longer, you cannot extrapolate a water supply curve from a static and a single residual point - you have to get enough flow out of the hydrants to approximate sprinkler demand flows. At least that's my take on it anyway... -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flow Test That is also my take on the matter, the standard however does not appear to specifically require this!!! As indicated NFPA 291-2010 4.3.6 states To obtain satisfactory test results of theoretical calculations of expected flows or rated capacities, sufficient discharge should be achieved to cause a drop in pressure at the residual hydrant of at least 25% OR to flow the total demand necessary for fire-fighting purposes. It does not require the contractor to use whichever demand is greater. In this case all tests achieve a drop of 25% as required by the standard however only one test of the three meets the system demand and only when using theoretical numbers extrapolated from the curve. What is to prevent a contractor from only flowing until a 25% drop in residual pressure has been achieved? On small dead end water mains this would be very easy to achieve however it would not provide a good indication of the actual condition or availability at the main. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of CH Fire - Mike Gallello Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flow Test Technically the hydrant flow test should be conducted in accordance with NFPA 291. It's rare anyone does it though, it's the generic static, 1 ports then two ports for a 3 point graph. Look in the back of 13 for Fig A.22.3.4 for the idiot proof method for the flow test data. Beyond this, in 291 there's a line (4.3.6) to flow the total demand necessary for fire fighting purposes. Well, spin that into sprinkler system demand values and it's pretty simple. Plot your 3-4 point graph depending on how many points you need to represent your sprinkler demand flow and get an actual curve, not a 2 point line. IE We had a tire storage facility here, approximate estimated gallons for the system demand was around 3000 gpm. We had to static one as usual, but then we had to pop 2 separate hydrants with both 2.5 outlets to simulate the drop in the water system for the sprinkler system demand. Long story even longer, you cannot extrapolate a water supply curve from a static and a single residual point - you have to get enough flow out of the hydrants to approximate sprinkler demand flows. At least that's my take on it anyway... -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list
RE: Flow Test
Common practice in my experience is to list these flows as part of the contract documents and then require the winning contractor to conduct a confirming flow test prior to submitting drawings and calculations. I assume you've accounted for elevation in your example in that the static/residual hydrant is at the same elevation as the BOR. But I'm not saying I would list these flows or issue this documentation as you've described. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
. Mark A. Sornsin, PE| Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc.| Fargo, ND mark.sorn...@ulteig.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flow Test That is also my take on the matter, the standard however does not appear to specifically require this!!! As indicated NFPA 291-2010 4.3.6 states To obtain satisfactory test results of theoretical calculations of expected flows or rated capacities, sufficient discharge should be achieved to cause a drop in pressure at the residual hydrant of at least 25% OR to flow the total demand necessary for fire-fighting purposes. It does not require the contractor to use whichever demand is greater. In this case all tests achieve a drop of 25% as required by the standard however only one test of the three meets the system demand and only when using theoretical numbers extrapolated from the curve. What is to prevent a contractor from only flowing until a 25% drop in residual pressure has been achieved? On small dead end water mains this would be very easy to achieve however it would not provide a good indication of the actual condition or availability at the main. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of CH Fire - Mike Gallello Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flow Test Technically the hydrant flow test should be conducted in accordance with NFPA 291. It's rare anyone does it though, it's the generic static, 1 ports then two ports for a 3 point graph. Look in the back of 13 for Fig A.22.3.4 for the idiot proof method for the flow test data. Beyond this, in 291 there's a line (4.3.6) to flow the total demand necessary for fire fighting purposes. Well, spin that into sprinkler system demand values and it's pretty simple. Plot your 3-4 point graph depending on how many points you need to represent your sprinkler demand flow and get an actual curve, not a 2 point line. IE We had a tire storage facility here, approximate estimated gallons for the system demand was around 3000 gpm. We had to static one as usual, but then we had to pop 2 separate hydrants with both 2.5 outlets to simulate the drop in the water system for the sprinkler system demand. Long story even longer, you cannot extrapolate a water supply curve from a static and a single residual point - you have to get enough flow out of the hydrants to approximate sprinkler demand flows. At least that's my take on it anyway... -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
Sadly, common practice in my part of the world is to have no water flow data whatsoever. At most, you may get a requirement to do a hydrant flow test. I have seen projects for new facilities in new parts of towns that did not have a water supply at the time of bidding (muni water not yet extended to that area), yet the EOR didn't see a problem with not providing an estimated water supply. Once in my contracting days we challenged the EOR during bidding - their solution was to add an addendum to include a booster pump... no controls in place to eliminate the pump if the muni water was adequate. Just let the owner pick up the extra cost regardless if it is needed. And since these guys usually get paid on a percentage of construction, it was win-win right? Mark A. Sornsin, PE| Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc.| Fargo, NDÂ mark.sorn...@ulteig.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 4:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flow Test Common practice in my experience is to list these flows as part of the contract documents and then require the winning contractor to conduct a confirming flow test prior to submitting drawings and calculations. I assume you've accounted for elevation in your example in that the static/residual hydrant is at the same elevation as the BOR. But I'm not saying I would list these flows or issue this documentation as you've described. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: Rack Storage of Cars?
I also recall a short blurb in Sprinkler Quarterly a few years (maybe even 6) back. I scanned the article and will try to find it if you'd like - just drop me an email off list. The takeaway from the article was so simple and straightforward I never forgot it By definition Extra Hazard Grp 2 occupancy classification includes the phrase '... or occupancies where shielding of combustibles is extensive.' One might argue that one or more cars positioned over a lower car which is on fire would extensively shield the fire from the sprinkler discharge at the ceiling level. Perhaps that explains why the stackers in this metro area all seem to be outside in open parking lots Dave Phelan ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: Flow Test
Email needs a like button. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Mark Sornsin mark.sorn...@ulteig.comwrote: Sadly, common practice in my part of the world is to have no water flow data whatsoever. At most, you may get a requirement to do a hydrant flow test. I have seen projects for new facilities in new parts of towns that did not have a water supply at the time of bidding (muni water not yet extended to that area), yet the EOR didn't see a problem with not providing an estimated water supply. Once in my contracting days we challenged the EOR during bidding - their solution was to add an addendum to include a booster pump... no controls in place to eliminate the pump if the muni water was adequate. Just let the owner pick up the extra cost regardless if it is needed. And since these guys usually get paid on a percentage of construction, it was win-win right? Mark A. Sornsin, PE| Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc.| Fargo, ND mark.sorn...@ulteig.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 4:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flow Test Common practice in my experience is to list these flows as part of the contract documents and then require the winning contractor to conduct a confirming flow test prior to submitting drawings and calculations. I assume you've accounted for elevation in your example in that the static/residual hydrant is at the same elevation as the BOR. But I'm not saying I would list these flows or issue this documentation as you've described. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.htmlhttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120402/602d2941/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
here, approximate estimated gallons for the system demand was around 3000 gpm. We had to static one as usual, but then we had to pop 2 separate hydrants with both 2.5 outlets to simulate the drop in the water system for the sprinkler system demand. Long story even longer, you cannot extrapolate a water supply curve from a static and a single residual point - you have to get enough flow out of the hydrants to approximate sprinkler demand flows. At least that's my take on it anyway... -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
