RE: UG pipe - min burry depth
Any comments on this for me? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: UG pipe - min burry depth Must a minimum burry depth below the frost line be used for UG pipe to a test header and FDC that are normally not filled with water? I have always tried to maintain this depth in fear of the frost heave damaging the pipe but I am being questioned in the office and wanted to get others opinions. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection 262-784-7900 (w) 262-784-8401 (f) 414-349-0468 (cell) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120606/552cf0a7/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:RTI
correction, meter, not feet. i should have looked in 13 instead of trying to recall and thinking i needed to convert. but i now have another (perhaps stupid) question re the definition of fast response and standard response: if fast is RTI=50 or less and standard is 80 or more, what is in between called? I am really more interested in the reasoning for the DEFINITION in NFPA #13, not some box of heads in RTI limbo. Any TC members out there not totally fed-up with me yet? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: UG pipe - min burry depth
10.4 Depth of Cover is seperate from 10.5 Protection Against Freezing, yet still requires burying the pipe at least 1 foot below the frost line. I would say that requirement applies regardless of whether or not the pipe has water in it to freeze? Typically we treat FDC piping the same way as we'd treat regular UG especially since there's the risk of the ball drip plugging up etc. From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Thu 6/7/2012 6:19 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: UG pipe - min burry depth Any comments on this for me? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: UG pipe - min burry depth Must a minimum burry depth below the frost line be used for UG pipe to a test header and FDC that are normally not filled with water? I have always tried to maintain this depth in fear of the frost heave damaging the pipe but I am being questioned in the office and wanted to get others opinions. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection 262-784-7900 (w) 262-784-8401 (f) 414-349-0468 (cell) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120606/552cf0a7/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 -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4522 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120607/9fc54fc3/attachment.bin ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: UG pipe - min burry depth
I don't think it's a code issue. It does seem prudent to keep it below the frost line, but that may be higher that the bury requirements for a lead-in. On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Dewayne Martinez deway...@dbfp.net wrote: Any comments on this for me? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: UG pipe - min burry depth Must a minimum burry depth below the frost line be used for UG pipe to a test header and FDC that are normally not filled with water? I have always tried to maintain this depth in fear of the frost heave damaging the pipe but I am being questioned in the office and wanted to get others opinions. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection 262-784-7900 (w) 262-784-8401 (f) 414-349-0468 (cell) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120606/552cf0a7/attachment.htmlhttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120606/552cf0a7/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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120607/aabdbc05/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: RTI
never mind (coffee worked), it's called 'nobody makes them because they would not be UL Listed', and it points out the amazing (to me) tolerances sprinklers are manufactured to. -Original Message- From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE:RTI correction, meter, not feet. i should have looked in 13 instead of trying to recall and thinking i needed to convert. but i now have another (perhaps stupid) question re the definition of fast response and standard response: if fast is RTI=50 or less and standard is 80 or more, what is in between called? I am really more interested in the reasoning for the DEFINITION in NFPA #13, not some box of heads in RTI limbo. Any TC members out there not totally fed-up with me yet? ___ 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: RTI
The amount of significant digits we work to in various aspects is quite varied. Some folks believe calc programs down to the .001 level when it all comes down to a gauge bouncing around in a variable water supply with uncontrolled changes. Yet we worry about inches in other areas. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 7:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI never mind (coffee worked), it's called 'nobody makes them because they would not be UL Listed', and it points out the amazing (to me) tolerances sprinklers are manufactured to. -Original Message- From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE:RTI correction, meter, not feet. i should have looked in 13 instead of trying to recall and thinking i needed to convert. but i now have another (perhaps stupid) question re the definition of fast response and standard response: if fast is RTI=50 or less and standard is 80 or more, what is in between called? I am really more interested in the reasoning for the DEFINITION in NFPA #13, not some box of heads in RTI limbo. Any TC members out there not totally fed-up with me yet? ___ 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: RTI Cloud Deluge
Yes we have a rulebook instead of an engineering approach (thank goodness), and yes we have been fumbling around for many years about this cloud thing, but in the name of common sense (which I hope we still have a little of) this design approach must be stopped at all costs. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:36 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI You won't believe this! Armstrong ceiling clouds that are arched, architect doesn't want to penetrate the clouds like the Armstrong data sheet shows so we have QR sprinklers above the clouds and a deluge system of sidewall sprinklers feed from the soffits throwing water under the clouds. Some big DA came up with this idea. It's a tiered classroom with a sloping floor, I suggested they install some life preservers for the students so they won't drown when the system trips. Mike From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:29:07 + Are the detectors at the same temperature as the QR heads? That just sound weird, what would be in the same room that would be protected by deluge system and also allow QR sprinklers? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:08 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI There are QR Sprinklers in the same room that has a deluge system with open heads in it, they want to make sure that the detectors do not trip the deluge system first. From: ccah...@burnsmcd.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:31:18 -0500 Subject: RE: RTI Curious if you know why the AHJ wanted to know? Listings take care of either FR/QR or SR. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:26 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI Thanks, They told me it was 36. Mike From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:21:17 + Call Tyco. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:19 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RTI I have a AHJ wanting to know what is the RTI for a TYCO FR-B TY3231 155 degree pendent sprinkler. How do I determine the RTI? Mike -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/ atta chments/20120606/0ddfb8a7/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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/at tachments/20120606/47d8575c/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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
RE: UG pipe - min burry depth
There is no direction provided for this particular situation. I would treat it the same as the rest of the system since if it was used it could have water laying in it and if that water froze because the pipe was above the frost line, the FDC could be rendered inoperative. Also by burying it at the same depth you would not have to be concerned with potential traffic loading issues. There's my 2 cents for the day. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 6:20 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: UG pipe - min burry depth Any comments on this for me? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: UG pipe - min burry depth Must a minimum burry depth below the frost line be used for UG pipe to a test header and FDC that are normally not filled with water? I have always tried to maintain this depth in fear of the frost heave damaging the pipe but I am being questioned in the office and wanted to get others opinions. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection 262-784-7900 (w) 262-784-8401 (f) 414-349-0468 (cell) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120606/552cf0a7/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: UG pipe - min burry depth
Thanks guys, this is what I thought. The question arose with I had my pipe for a free standing FDC and test header exiting the building at 6'6 below grade and the sanitary exited at 3'0 below grade. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Garrison Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 6:24 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: UG pipe - min burry depth I don't think it's a code issue. It does seem prudent to keep it below the frost line, but that may be higher that the bury requirements for a lead-in. On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Dewayne Martinez deway...@dbfp.net wrote: Any comments on this for me? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: UG pipe - min burry depth Must a minimum burry depth below the frost line be used for UG pipe to a test header and FDC that are normally not filled with water? I have always tried to maintain this depth in fear of the frost heave damaging the pipe but I am being questioned in the office and wanted to get others opinions. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection 262-784-7900 (w) 262-784-8401 (f) 414-349-0468 (cell) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta ch ments/20120606/552cf0a7/attachment.htmlhttp://fireball.firesprinkler. org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120606/552cf0a7/attac hment.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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120607/aabdbc05/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: UG pipe - min burry depth
We all interchangeably use the words underground, water supply, and supply piping. And the rules originated in NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and their Appurtenances (I love that someone came up with the word appurtenances.) But any pipe that is BURIED is covered by the rules of Chapter 10 in NFPA 13. And since ANY pipe on a sprinkler system can be considered water pipe, section 10.4.1 would apply to your situation: The depth of cover over water pipes shall be determined by the maximum depth of frost penetration in the locality where the pipe is laid. And since Mr. Wagoner is the Chairman of that Committee, I'll defer to any additional comments he may have. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! Subject: RE: UG pipe - min burry depth Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:03:29 -0500 From: deway...@dbfp.net To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Thanks guys, this is what I thought. The question arose with I had my pipe for a free standing FDC and test header exiting the building at 6'6 below grade and the sanitary exited at 3'0 below grade. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Garrison Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 6:24 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: UG pipe - min burry depth I don't think it's a code issue. It does seem prudent to keep it below the frost line, but that may be higher that the bury requirements for a lead-in. On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Dewayne Martinez deway...@dbfp.net wrote: Any comments on this for me? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: UG pipe - min burry depth Must a minimum burry depth below the frost line be used for UG pipe to a test header and FDC that are normally not filled with water? I have always tried to maintain this depth in fear of the frost heave damaging the pipe but I am being questioned in the office and wanted to get others opinions. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection 262-784-7900 (w) 262-784-8401 (f) 414-349-0468 (cell) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta ch ments/20120606/552cf0a7/attachment.htmlhttp://fireball.firesprinkler. org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120606/552cf0a7/attac hment.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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120607/aabdbc05/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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120607/3c4fcc81/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: RTI Cloud Deluge
Prior to my arrival, my company designed a group B building with a 300 foot long corridor which had a slot atrium. The floor opening consisted of a 3 foot wide slot that ran the entire length along the outside wall. The code consultant recommended a deluge system the entire length of the slot. The architects loved this idea. As a result they will occasionally suggest this as an alternative solution to some scheme they have in their brains at which point I voice loudly how this is the dumbest hair brained idea I had ever seen and the company is very lucky it has not released. Fortunately it was multi-zoned and provided with multiple interlocks. Jack Fairchild -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI Cloud Deluge Yes we have a rulebook instead of an engineering approach (thank goodness), and yes we have been fumbling around for many years about this cloud thing, but in the name of common sense (which I hope we still have a little of) this design approach must be stopped at all costs. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:36 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI You won't believe this! Armstrong ceiling clouds that are arched, architect doesn't want to penetrate the clouds like the Armstrong data sheet shows so we have QR sprinklers above the clouds and a deluge system of sidewall sprinklers feed from the soffits throwing water under the clouds. Some big DA came up with this idea. It's a tiered classroom with a sloping floor, I suggested they install some life preservers for the students so they won't drown when the system trips. Mike From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:29:07 + Are the detectors at the same temperature as the QR heads? That just sound weird, what would be in the same room that would be protected by deluge system and also allow QR sprinklers? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:08 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI There are QR Sprinklers in the same room that has a deluge system with open heads in it, they want to make sure that the detectors do not trip the deluge system first. From: ccah...@burnsmcd.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:31:18 -0500 Subject: RE: RTI Curious if you know why the AHJ wanted to know? Listings take care of either FR/QR or SR. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:26 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI Thanks, They told me it was 36. Mike From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:21:17 + Call Tyco. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:19 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RTI I have a AHJ wanting to know what is the RTI for a TYCO FR-B TY3231 155 degree pendent sprinkler. How do I determine the RTI? Mike -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/ atta chments/20120606/0ddfb8a7/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
RE: RTI
Calc with computer to 6 decimals, measure with micrometer, mark with piece of chalk and chop off with an axe. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI The amount of significant digits we work to in various aspects is quite varied. Some folks believe calc programs down to the .001 level when it all comes down to a gauge bouncing around in a variable water supply with uncontrolled changes. Yet we worry about inches in other areas. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 7:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI never mind (coffee worked), it's called 'nobody makes them because they would not be UL Listed', and it points out the amazing (to me) tolerances sprinklers are manufactured to. -Original Message- From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE:RTI correction, meter, not feet. i should have looked in 13 instead of trying to recall and thinking i needed to convert. but i now have another (perhaps stupid) question re the definition of fast response and standard response: if fast is RTI=50 or less and standard is 80 or more, what is in between called? I am really more interested in the reasoning for the DEFINITION in NFPA #13, not some box of heads in RTI limbo. Any TC members out there not totally fed-up with me yet? ___ 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: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that which are special, are hose outlets, yard hydrants with weeps, flush valves, laundry machines, dishwashers, medical water aspirators, mobile homes and carbonated beverage machines. One would think that section title Special Applications and Installations intends to single out specifically named applications and installations. For example there is a trade distinction between Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants that any reasonable tradesman would know. If this code truly intends to apply to both Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants then it would not be special and the wording would be Hydrants. Incidentally there is no mention of any fire protection related devices at all in the section. All mention of fire protection devices, which surely must have special distinction to most, occurs in a different 890 subsection. Claiming this section applies also to fire protection is to expand its special scope to included another very special application, thereby denying the section's purpose. The question stills stands for those in the Illinois area. Is this actually the state's stance? For the case where I heard about this, the state will be making another arm of the state put an RPZ device in a hot box on the piping between an ordinary, existing fire hydrant and the private main it connects to, because that one hydrant is being moved due to a new drive and that section of existing underground is being replace, not as its own small project but as part of a much larger project. Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:13 AM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: The 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code 603.4.16.1requires backflows in lines to FP systems. RPZ's are required for systems with chemicals like antifreeze or AFFF and double checks for others. It says they are not required for private hydrant only lines that comply with city water main and AWWA standards. To the best of my knowledge there is no requirement in the International Plumbing Code. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org ] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 5:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Most THINK that the AWWA recommends BFP's on ALL firelines, especially deadened lines over 100 feet, but the AWWA does NOT recommend backflow protection on hydrant only lines. For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes... HCS Romans 1:16 On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:56 AM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: accounting departments see plus signs when they see marketing department, lunch n learn, and regulatory agencies on the same spread sheet line lol (and some consulting engineering firms). Steve- can you explain the USC friction loss graphs? there is some diff in turning on and turning off? Quoting Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com: I think the backflow prevention device manufacturers have a lot of influence with a fair share of regulatory agencies. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Private fire service mains in CA have required backflows for years. The type of device varies by water authority standards, but pretty much throughout Southern California the use of an RPDA is standard practice. Whether the downstream connections are sprinklers only, plus one hydrant or with multiple hydrants, a backflow appliance is required on a private fire service main. The thinking isn't that hydrants represent a cross connection or contamination threat per se, but that a private property owner can make whatever connections they want in the dark of night after final acceptance testing. So better safe than sorry, bureaucratically speaking ... SML In SoCal, where nothing surprises anymore From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that which are special, are hose outlets, yard hydrants with weeps, flush valves, laundry machines, dishwashers, medical water aspirators, mobile homes and carbonated beverage machines. One would think that section title Special Applications and Installations intends to single out specifically named applications and installations. For example there is a trade distinction between Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants that any reasonable tradesman would know. If this code truly intends to apply to both Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants then it would not be special and the wording would be Hydrants. Incidentally there is no mention of any fire protection related devices at all in the section. All mention of fire protection devices, which surely must have special distinction to most, occurs in a different 890 subsection. Claiming this section applies also to fire protection is to expand its special scope to included another very special application, thereby denying the section's purpose. The question stills stands for those in the Illinois area. Is this actually the state's stance? For the case where I heard about this, the state will be making another arm of the state put an RPZ device in a hot box on the piping between an ordinary, existing fire hydrant and the private main it connects to, because that one hydrant is being moved due to a new drive and that section of existing underground is being replace, not as its own small project but as part of a much larger project. Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:13 AM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: The 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code 603.4.16.1requires backflows in lines to FP systems. RPZ's are required for systems with chemicals like antifreeze or AFFF and double checks for others. It says they are not required for private hydrant only lines that comply with city water main and AWWA standards. To the best of my knowledge there is no requirement in the International Plumbing Code. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org ] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 5:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Most THINK that the AWWA recommends BFP's on ALL firelines, especially deadened lines over 100 feet, but the AWWA does NOT recommend backflow protection on hydrant only lines. For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes... HCS Romans 1:16 On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:56 AM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: accounting departments see plus signs when they see marketing department, lunch n learn, and regulatory agencies on the same spread sheet line lol (and some consulting engineering firms). Steve- can you explain the USC friction loss graphs? there is some diff in turning on and turning off? Quoting Ron
Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that which are special, are hose outlets, yard hydrants with weeps, flush valves, laundry machines, dishwashers, medical water aspirators, mobile homes and carbonated beverage machines. One would think that section title Special Applications and Installations intends to single out specifically named applications and installations. For example there is a trade distinction between Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants that any reasonable tradesman would know. If this code truly intends to apply to both Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants then it would not be special and the wording would be Hydrants. Incidentally there is no mention of any fire protection related devices at all in the section. All mention of fire protection devices, which surely must have special distinction to most, occurs in a different 890 subsection. Claiming this section applies also to fire protection is to expand its special scope to included another very special application, thereby denying the section's purpose. The question stills stands for those in the Illinois area. Is this actually the state's stance? For the case where I heard about this, the state will be making another arm of the state put an RPZ device in a hot box on the piping between an ordinary, existing fire hydrant and the private main it connects to, because that one hydrant is being moved due to a new drive and that section of existing underground is being replace, not as its own small project but as part of a much larger project. Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:13 AM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: The 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code 603.4.16.1requires backflows in lines to FP systems. RPZ's are required for systems with chemicals like antifreeze or AFFF and double checks for others. It says they are not required for private hydrant only lines that comply with city water main and AWWA standards. To the best of my knowledge there is no requirement in the International Plumbing Code. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org ] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 5:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Most THINK that the AWWA recommends BFP's on ALL firelines, especially deadened lines over 100 feet, but the AWWA does NOT recommend backflow protection on hydrant only lines. For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God's power
Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com: I think the backflow prevention device manufacturers have a lot of influence with a fair share of regulatory agencies. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Private fire service mains in CA have required backflows for years. The type of device varies by water authority standards, but pretty much throughout Southern California the use of an RPDA is standard practice. Whether the downstream connections are sprinklers only, plus one hydrant or with multiple hydrants, a backflow appliance is required on a private fire service main. The thinking isn't that hydrants represent a cross connection or contamination threat per se, but that a private property owner can make whatever connections they want in the dark of night after final acceptance testing. So better safe than sorry, bureaucratically speaking ... SML In SoCal, where nothing surprises anymore From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Tue 6/5/2012 7:24 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I am hearing that in Illinois the state plumbing inspectors insist on RPZ back flow prevention for fire hydrants on dedicated underground private service mains. What is up with that? Allan Seidel St. Louis. MO ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4685 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/ att achments/20120605/c0c6b675/attachment.bin ___ 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, WFSC 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/ att achments/20120605/19d8453d/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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120606/015d1967/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 http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC 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/20120607/5e773027/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that which are special, are hose outlets, yard hydrants with weeps, flush valves, laundry machines, dishwashers, medical water aspirators, mobile homes and carbonated beverage machines. One would think that section title Special Applications and Installations intends to single out specifically named applications and installations. For example there is a trade distinction between Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants that any reasonable tradesman would know. If this code truly intends to apply to both Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants then it would not be special and the wording would be Hydrants. Incidentally there is no mention of any fire protection related devices at all in the section. All mention of fire protection devices, which surely must have special distinction to most, occurs in a different 890 subsection. Claiming this section applies also to fire protection is to expand its special scope to included another very special application, thereby denying the section's purpose. The question stills stands for those in the Illinois area. Is this actually the state's stance? For the case where I heard about this, the state will be making another arm of the state put an RPZ device in a hot box on the piping between an ordinary, existing fire hydrant and the private main it connects to, because that one hydrant is being moved due to a new drive and that section of existing underground is being replace, not as its own small project but as part of a much larger project. Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:13 AM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: The 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code 603.4.16.1requires backflows in lines to FP systems. RPZ's are required for
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
That's for full doc in AutoCad and CA? Presuming yes, design team meetings are to be in San Diego? Only one trip to the project site for CA inspection? That's pretty tight, but I'm inclined to do it for a chance to show HMC what we can do. Steve L -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that which are special, are hose outlets, yard hydrants with weeps, flush valves, laundry machines, dishwashers, medical water aspirators, mobile homes and carbonated beverage machines. One would think that section title Special Applications and Installations intends to single out specifically named applications and installations. For example there is a trade distinction between Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants that any reasonable tradesman would know. If this code truly intends to apply to both Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants then it would not be special and the wording would be Hydrants. Incidentally there is no mention of any fire protection related devices at all in the section. All mention of fire protection devices, which surely must have special distinction to most, occurs in a different 890 subsection. Claiming this section applies also to fire protection is to expand its special scope to included another very special application, thereby denying the section's purpose. The question stills stands for those in the Illinois area. Is this actually the state's stance? For the case where I
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
Sorry all: Trying to close a project and replied to the wrong email. Steve -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:04 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants That's for full doc in AutoCad and CA? Presuming yes, design team meetings are to be in San Diego? Only one trip to the project site for CA inspection? That's pretty tight, but I'm inclined to do it for a chance to show HMC what we can do. Steve L -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that which are special, are hose outlets, yard hydrants with weeps, flush valves, laundry machines, dishwashers, medical water aspirators, mobile homes and carbonated beverage machines. One would think that section title Special Applications and Installations intends to single out specifically named applications and installations. For example there is a trade distinction between Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants that any reasonable tradesman would know. If this code truly intends to apply to both Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants then it would not be special and the wording would be Hydrants. Incidentally there is no mention of any fire protection related devices at all in the section. All mention of fire
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
Dude: It's a GOVERNMENT REGULATION. I have no idea what's to wash or flush; chances are there's no value to this additional layer of cost and hassle. Next question: where does this filthy run-off go? Not to the storm drain system I hope; the otters will be slowly poisoned. Steve -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Really RW? We have a few problems with corrosion and MIC in potable water. What else might be in these RW system that is going to eat up our systems or I suppose might be better as a slim chance. Can the chemical makeup of RW change over time and seasons further complicating what is does to our systems? What's the FD going to wash and flush? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that which are special, are hose outlets, yard hydrants with weeps, flush valves,
Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4685 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/ att achments/20120605/c0c6b675/attachment.bin ___ 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, WFSC 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/ att achments/20120605/19d8453d/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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ment s/20120606/015d1967/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 -- 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, WFSC 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/20120607/9c8d00e1/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
In a planter it'll pick up all the fertilizer, dog poop, and whatever else is soluble. Assume the FD will dump and flush their tank- likely as much water as the system took to put it out before they got there. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Really RW? We have a few problems with corrosion and MIC in potable water. What else might be in these RW system that is going to eat up our systems or I suppose might be better as a slim chance. Can the chemical makeup of RW change over time and seasons further complicating what is does to our systems? What's the FD going to wash and flush? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
Makes you wonder what we did before all the DCDA, RPZ, etc. Oh, that's right- a single check, sometimes with a cheater meter, and/or an ALV or DPV. Gosh, remember how many people used to get sick and/or die from our sprinkler systems before we added $1200 to $10,000 per system for REAL BFPs? Hmmno, now that I think about it, I don't recall a single one. And I believe we had a tread about it in the Forum's infancy, and no one else did, either. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Really RW? We have a few problems with corrosion and MIC in potable water. What else might be in these RW system that is going to eat up our systems or I suppose might be better as a slim chance. Can the chemical makeup of RW change over time and seasons further complicating what is does to our systems? What's the FD going to wash and flush? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
It's not just the plumbing officials, in one case a local water purveyor required it hot box and all.oh yea 10 mains feed the site. John Drucker -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Makes you wonder what we did before all the DCDA, RPZ, etc. Oh, that's right- a single check, sometimes with a cheater meter, and/or an ALV or DPV. Gosh, remember how many people used to get sick and/or die from our sprinkler systems before we added $1200 to $10,000 per system for REAL BFPs? Hmmno, now that I think about it, I don't recall a single one. And I believe we had a tread about it in the Forum's infancy, and no one else did, either. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Really RW? We have a few problems with corrosion and MIC in potable water. What else might be in these RW system that is going to eat up our systems or I suppose might be better as a slim chance. Can the chemical makeup of RW change over time and seasons further complicating what is does to our systems? What's the FD going to wash and flush? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message-
Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC 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/20120607/315b96da/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: RTI
In our NZ Standard NZS541 a sprinkler with RTI between 50 and 80 is designated a Special Response Sprinkler. These usually have a 4mm bulb. Std Response has a 5mm or larger bulb and the Fast Response has a 3mm bulb. Russell Gregory Ph 03 338 4853 e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 10:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE:RTI correction, meter, not feet. i should have looked in 13 instead of trying to recall and thinking i needed to convert. but i now have another (perhaps stupid) question re the definition of fast response and standard response: if fast is RTI=50 or less and standard is 80 or more, what is in between called? I am really more interested in the reasoning for the DEFINITION in NFPA #13, not some box of heads in RTI limbo. Any TC members out there not totally fed-up with me yet? ___ 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: RTI
Hello Well the alarm guys that put the heat detector in the elevator shaft need to consider the RTI of the sprinkler head in comparison to the RTI of the Heat Detector they put within 24 of the sprinkler head also. Going to be a Pain when the the requirement that anything within 48 of the bottom of the pit meets NEMA 4 to coordinate locations of the sprinkler head with the alarm device.. Thursday, June 7, 2012, 10:34:32 PM, you wrote: In our NZ Standard NZS541 a sprinkler with RTI between 50 and 80 is designated a Special Response Sprinkler. These usually have a 4mm bulb. Std Response has a 5mm or larger bulb and the Fast Response has a 3mm bulb. Russell Gregory Ph 03 338 4853 e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz -- Best regards, Charlesmailto:charl...@mbfsg.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
