RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans
I agree Scott. A fire official saying it was the water supply is questionable throws red flags up. Even if he said it was questionable after 13 years of being in service it would mean, to me, the contractor should definitely make sure they do their due diligence in make sure that the system is acceptable as life safety. And not assume. -- AMP Fire Protection Design Aaron Peck, SET • Freelance Designer C: (202) 407-9079 NICET Certified NFPA Member **Currently in Manama, Bahrain UTC/GMT +3:00 hours (7:00 Hours ahead of EST)** **Bahrain Number #(+973)39605669 Skype forwards to this #** -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 6:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans This has been an interesting thread. It's a retirement home so the sprinkler system would seem to be essential to me, not that any aren't, but...I’d like to know my parents were living somewhere that had a sprinkler system installed properly and not by cutting corners, or making guesses. And, doesn’t “questionable” water supply bother anyone other than me? The correct and only answer is, 1)take a water flow test in accordance with NFPA 291, not messing around with a main drain. 2)Survey the existing system in accordance with NFPA 13 and determine all of the existing pipe size and as-built routing to the new addition. 3)Calculate the new addition with the existing pipe size and fittings, valves, elevation, and so on back to the flow test location. Anything less would not be minimum standard of care sprinkler system design, would it? Scott Futrell Office: (763) 425-1001 x 12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans I have been asked to extend sprinkler coverage to an addition, 17.5’ long x 13’ across. The ceiling is a cathedral ceiling, 13’ 2” at the ceiling and 9’ 3 “ high at the sidewall. The existing sprinkler piping is behind the 13’ wall, pointing down the 17.5’ length. No body can find plans from the original construction, there is not a hydraulic nameplate on the sprinkler system. The Fire Chief remembers that during construction, the water supply was “questionable”.There is not a forward flow port so I can not get a water GPM/psi measurement. There is a 1.5 “ FDC at the front of the building. There is a fire hydrant across the parking lot, about 75 feet away. The 5 year average for the static pressure is 34 psi and the residual is 27 psi, through the main drain. The building is about 13 years old and is a retirement home. My concern is the lack of information about the water supply. The building is on a hill, about the level of the municipal water tank, which is on another hill. Can I get an accurate reading on the water supply from the fire hydrant, or the 2” main drain? Or should I put a Forward Flow test port in before doing anything else? And if I do get a good water reading, I still will not know what the system demand is. So then do I need to hire someone to crawl the attic and take measurements of the piping? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans
I would recommend doing the test inside the building, even if it means modifying the system such as adding a tee to perform a test downstream of the valves, meters, etc. This will take out the guess work of elevation, unknown friction losses in unknown fittings/valves, etc...especially if the water supply is questionable. On a side note, we put forward flow test outlets on our systems as code requires. Duane Johnson, PE Design Manager Strickland Fire Protection 301-474-1136 Office 301-455-0010 Cell -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 10:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans This has been an interesting thread. It's a retirement home so the sprinkler system would seem to be essential to me, not that any aren't, but...I’d like to know my parents were living somewhere that had a sprinkler system installed properly and not by cutting corners, or making guesses. And, doesn’t “questionable” water supply bother anyone other than me? The correct and only answer is, 1)take a water flow test in accordance with NFPA 291, not messing around with a main drain. 2)Survey the existing system in accordance with NFPA 13 and determine all of the existing pipe size and as-built routing to the new addition. 3)Calculate the new addition with the existing pipe size and fittings, valves, elevation, and so on back to the flow test location. Anything less would not be minimum standard of care sprinkler system design, would it? Scott Futrell Office: (763) 425-1001 x 12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans I have been asked to extend sprinkler coverage to an addition, 17.5’ long x 13’ across. The ceiling is a cathedral ceiling, 13’ 2” at the ceiling and 9’ 3 “ high at the sidewall. The existing sprinkler piping is behind the 13’ wall, pointing down the 17.5’ length. No body can find plans from the original construction, there is not a hydraulic nameplate on the sprinkler system. The Fire Chief remembers that during construction, the water supply was “questionable”.There is not a forward flow port so I can not get a water GPM/psi measurement. There is a 1.5 “ FDC at the front of the building. There is a fire hydrant across the parking lot, about 75 feet away. The 5 year average for the static pressure is 34 psi and the residual is 27 psi, through the main drain. The building is about 13 years old and is a retirement home. My concern is the lack of information about the water supply. The building is on a hill, about the level of the municipal water tank, which is on another hill. Can I get an accurate reading on the water supply from the fire hydrant, or the 2” main drain? Or should I put a Forward Flow test port in before doing anything else? And if I do get a good water reading, I still will not know what the system demand is. So then do I need to hire someone to crawl the attic and take measurements of the piping? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans
So anyone would take the word of a fire official? Really? Sure there are a few that know what they are talking about but the vast majority not so much. Oh and OP said Fire Chief, not fire official , even less credibility on average. And questionable water is a dumb statement IMO any way. Nearly all systems have about 5-10 psi safety margin, right? So it doesn't matter if there is 20 psi in the street or 120 psi in the street they ALL are questionable the day they were put in. And what does questionable even mean, so there is no ability to add a pump on weak water? And you end up with 5-10 psi safety. There are water thieves that steal water from otherwise good tank and pump systems (that originally had 5-10 psi safety)? Did the Fire Chief think the water was involved with organized crime? Maybe they weren't sure it was two hydrogens and an oxygen as the primary constituent? Grain alcohol looks like water. Heavy water or light water because they are near a nuclear reactor of that flavor? I agree, the owner rarely has the original plans. What about the original contractor, sprinkler or general? What about the City? Is it a licensed facility? Licensing agency? This is an addition = new construction. I don't even see the question on determining the water supply and sizing the pipe. Where in NFPA 13 does it say anything but NFPA 291? Where in NFPA 291 does it talk about drain test? If you want to use existing pipe fine, trace it and model the relevant portions. In many cases the plan will only get you in the neighborhood anyway. I'd want you to actually verify the existing piping is as show on the existing drawing in the relevant areas. Let me save you the trouble of asking about the rant portions of the above, YES: Its just one of those days (weeks, months) When you don't wanna wake up Everything is @#%#$% Everybody sux You don't really know why But you want justify Rippin' someone's head off No human contact And if you interact Your life is on contract Your best bet is to stay away @#$#%^^ It's just one of those days!! Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Peck Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 7:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans I agree Scott. A fire official saying it was the water supply is questionable throws red flags up. Even if he said it was questionable after 13 years of being in service it would mean, to me, the contractor should definitely make sure they do their due diligence in make sure that the system is acceptable as life safety. And not assume. -- AMP Fire Protection Design Aaron Peck, SET • Freelance Designer C: (202) 407-9079 NICET Certified NFPA Member **Currently in Manama, Bahrain UTC/GMT +3:00 hours (7:00 Hours ahead of EST)** **Bahrain Number #(+973)39605669 Skype forwards to this #** -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 6:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans This has been an interesting thread. It's a retirement home so the sprinkler system would seem to be essential to me, not that any aren't, but...I’d like to know my parents were living somewhere that had a sprinkler system installed properly and not by cutting corners, or making guesses. And, doesn’t “questionable” water supply bother anyone other than me? The correct and only answer is, 1)take a water flow test in accordance with NFPA 291, not messing around with a main drain. 2)Survey the existing system in accordance with NFPA 13 and determine all of the existing pipe size and as-built routing to the new addition. 3)Calculate the new addition with the existing pipe size and fittings, valves, elevation, and so on back to the flow test location. Anything less would not be minimum standard of care sprinkler system design, would it? Scott Futrell Office: (763) 425-1001 x 12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans I have been asked to extend sprinkler coverage to an addition, 17.5’ long x 13’ across. The ceiling is a cathedral ceiling, 13’ 2” at the ceiling and 9’ 3 “ high at the sidewall. The existing sprinkler piping is behind the 13’ wall, pointing down the 17.5’
RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans
Someone go and take all the Red Bull from Chris. ;) When I have a fire chief or fire official (semantics) tell me the water supply is questionable I take that to mean it's not very reliable or consistent. If he's the guy on the front line actually flowing hoses, and not just some desk jockey with a title, he would have firsthand knowledge of the water supply conditions.He's doing you a favor in pointing out there are issues instead of letting you wander aimlessly to figure this out on your own somewhere down the road in the course of the project. No, not all systems have a safety margin, most designers like to push it to the limit and as long as the results are on the positive side of the curve and not negative, they are done. It's a bad assumption that systems are designed with a safety margin. So why are there no plans and why are there no tags on the risers? Aren't riser tags a requirement of NFPA 13? It would be awesome if a set of plans and calcs were put in a tube and left in the riser room chained to the riser and if the guy filling out the tag actually knew what all those numbers and words meant so that the tag was filled out properly, completely and legibly and not in pencil. So, +1 for the local fire chief for trying to help, -1 for the slack contractor who didn't finish the job. Would there happen to be any inspection tags on the system or a record of last inspection? If yes, that may be a place to start digging for info. Often the installing contractor ends up doing the follow-up inspections or may know who did the original work.If the sprinkler system was put in when the building was built, does the owner know who the General Contractor was? For systems that are designed to protect life and property we have a lot of slackness in our industry and this is a prime example of such. Mediocrity should never be an acceptable level of performance. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: No hydraulic name plate, no existing plans So anyone would take the word of a fire official? Really? Sure there are a few that know what they are talking about but the vast majority not so much. Oh and OP said Fire Chief, not fire official , even less credibility on average. And questionable water is a dumb statement IMO any way. Nearly all systems have about 5-10 psi safety margin, right? So it doesn't matter if there is 20 psi in the street or 120 psi in the street they ALL are questionable the day they were put in. And what does questionable even mean, so there is no ability to add a pump on weak water? And you end up with 5-10 psi safety. There are water thieves that steal water from otherwise good tank and pump systems (that originally had 5-10 psi safety)? Did the Fire Chief think the water was involved with organized crime? Maybe they weren't sure it was two hydrogens and an oxygen as the primary constituent? Grain alcohol looks like water. Heavy water or light water because they are near a nuclear reactor of that flavor? I agree, the owner rarely has the original plans. What about the original contractor, sprinkler or general? What about the City? Is it a licensed facility? Licensing agency? This is an addition = new construction. I don't even see the question on determining the water supply and sizing the pipe. Where in NFPA 13 does it say anything but NFPA 291? Where in NFPA 291 does it talk about drain test? If you want to use existing pipe fine, trace it and model the relevant portions. In many cases the plan will only get you in the neighborhood anyway. I'd want you to actually verify the existing piping is as show on the existing drawing in the relevant areas. Let me save you the trouble of asking about the rant portions of the above, YES: Its just one of those days (weeks, months) When you don't wanna wake up Everything is @#%#$% Everybody sux You don't really know why But you want justify Rippin' someone's head off No human contact And if you interact Your life is on contract Your best bet is to stay away @#$#%^^ It's just one of those days!! Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Peck Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 7:22 AM To:
NFPA 13
Had a question posed to me that I couldn't answer completely. If NFPA 13 was the first document from NFPA why isn't it NFPA 1? Steve ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: NFPA 13
That sounds like something I would ask. Triskaidekaphobia was obviously not a concern. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Smith, Steven D. (CSFD) sdsm...@springsgov.com wrote: Had a question posed to me that I couldn't answer completely. If NFPA 13 was the first document from NFPA why isn't it NFPA 1? Steve ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: NFPA 13
It was but before NFPA was NFPA. Cecil has this down. Ask him. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: That sounds like something I would ask. Triskaidekaphobia was obviously not a concern. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Smith, Steven D. (CSFD) sdsm...@springsgov.com wrote: Had a question posed to me that I couldn't answer completely. If NFPA 13 was the first document from NFPA why isn't it NFPA 1? Steve ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- 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) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 13
Life Safety Code or something similar covered everything in the early days- -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13 It was but before NFPA was NFPA. Cecil has this down. Ask him. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: That sounds like something I would ask. Triskaidekaphobia was obviously not a concern. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Smith, Steven D. (CSFD) sdsm...@springsgov.com wrote: Had a question posed to me that I couldn't answer completely. If NFPA 13 was the first document from NFPA why isn't it NFPA 1? Steve ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- 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) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 13
While it doesn't address the NFPA numbering issue [1 vs. lucky 13...] the following article entitled History Of The NFPA Codes and Standards-Making System is on NFPA website and worth a read if you are into studying the history... http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Codes%20and%20standards/Standards%20development%20process/HistoryNFPACodesStandards.pdf Respectfully, David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFPE, CFI I Chief Engineer Office of State Fire Marshal SC Department of Labor, Licensing, Regulation, 141 Monticello Trail, Columbia, SC 29203 Telephone: 803.896.9800 [Office] 803.896.9833 [Direct] Fax: 803.896.9806 [Office] Email: david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov Website: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ Please note that you can sign up to receive automatic information on SC Division of Fire and Life Safety current events, policies, laws and procedures by visiting our Web site at: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 My 1961 version is NBFU No. 13. Standard of the National Board of Fire Underwriters for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems as recommended by the National Fire Protection Association David Autry Meininger Fire Protection 2521 West L Street, Suite 5 Lincoln, NE 68522 402.466.2616 402.466.2617 fax da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13 It was but before NFPA was NFPA. Cecil has this down. Ask him. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: That sounds like something I would ask. Triskaidekaphobia was obviously not a concern. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Smith, Steven D. (CSFD) sdsm...@springsgov.com wrote: Had a question posed to me that I couldn't answer completely. If NFPA 13 was the first document from NFPA why isn't it NFPA 1? Steve ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- 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) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: NFPA 13
Maybe it's like ordering checks...you never start with number one, usually a higher number. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Blackwell david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov wrote: While it doesn't address the NFPA numbering issue [1 vs. lucky 13...] the following article entitled History Of The NFPA Codes and Standards-Making System is on NFPA website and worth a read if you are into studying the history... http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Codes%20and%20standards/Standards%20development%20process/HistoryNFPACodesStandards.pdf Respectfully, David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFPE, CFI I Chief Engineer Office of State Fire Marshal SC Department of Labor, Licensing, Regulation, 141 Monticello Trail, Columbia, SC 29203 Telephone: 803.896.9800 [Office] 803.896.9833 [Direct] Fax: 803.896.9806 [Office] Email: david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov Website: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ Please note that you can sign up to receive automatic information on SC Division of Fire and Life Safety current events, policies, laws and procedures by visiting our Web site at: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 My 1961 version is NBFU No. 13. Standard of the National Board of Fire Underwriters for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems as recommended by the National Fire Protection Association David Autry Meininger Fire Protection 2521 West L Street, Suite 5 Lincoln, NE 68522 402.466.2616 402.466.2617 fax da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13 It was but before NFPA was NFPA. Cecil has this down. Ask him. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: That sounds like something I would ask. Triskaidekaphobia was obviously not a concern. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Smith, Steven D. (CSFD) sdsm...@springsgov.com wrote: Had a question posed to me that I couldn't answer completely. If NFPA 13 was the first document from NFPA why isn't it NFPA 1? Steve ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- 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) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
