RE: Is calcing back to the riser gauge acceptable ?

[Mark A. Sornsin, P.E.]

I would say you can calc your system back to the gauge on the riser only when 
you have completed a flow test where the effective point of the test is the 
gauge on the riser.  E.g., you have a backflow test connection that ties to the 
riser at or near the point of connection of the gauge.

Otherwise, I could have a riser with a gauge that reads 50 psi.  I look down 
and follow the 4" pipe to the ground and it disappears.  For all I know that 4" 
ties into a 75 year old 6" coast iron pipe that has deteriorated to the point 
that it is effectively a 2" diameter pipe.  The flows available through that 6" 
pipe are miniscule compared to a new 6" with a c-factor of 140 or 150.  Yet I 
still have a static pressure on the riser of 50 psi. The point being, as Craig 
said, we don't know anything about the water supply to that riser by simply 
reading the static pressure on that gauge.

Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | 
Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | 
http://www.kfiengineers.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Sean Lockyer
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Is calcing back to the riser gauge acceptable ?

Quick question for everyone here. When the situation prevents one from being 
able to provide a calculation back to the U.G. connection at the street when 
can you calculate the system back to the gauge on the riser ?

For example, if you have, say, 50 psi city pressure (worst case) on a system at 
the riser gauge couldn't one calc it to the base of the riser, add in your hose 
allowance and call it a day as long as your system demand is less than the 
lowest "day pressure" in the system ?

In addition, if there any mention on this in NFPA 13 ?


  Sean Lockyer
  Project Designer   4617 Parkbreeze 
Court
  Cell386-279-1197  Orlando, 
Florida 32808
  slock...@aitlifesafety.com  Phone:  407-816-9101
  www.AITLifeSafety.com   Fax: 
407-816-9104


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
__

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Composite Wood Joists

[James Crawford]

Thanks Roland

But my coffee has not kicked in, So I agree with 8.15.1.2.6 allows the omission 
of the sprinkler heads as we meet those requirements, and  11.2.3.1.4(4)(j) 
allows us to not use a 3000 sf design area if we firestop the joist channels 
into 160 cu ft blocks, or in our case about every fourth joist channel and the 
firestop material needs to be 1/2" gypsum or equal


Thank you


James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone  604-888-0318
Fax 604-888-4732
Cel 604-790-0938
Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:23 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Composite Wood Joists

Allow me a bit of a long winded response instead of a simple yes or no.

First off, although your question is not about whether you can omit sprinklers 
but whether you have to have a 3,000 sf remote area (not stated but understood 
since you are referencing chap 11), let’s start in 8.15.1.2.6 that allow the 
omission.  It states - the joist channels are firestopped into volumes EACH not 
exceeding 160 cu ft.  Obviously the volume is per individual channel.  Now 
jumping to 11.2.3.1.4(4)(j) it states - provide the adjacent joist space 
channels are firestopped into volumes not exceeding 160 cubic feet.  I could 
stop here but the coffee is kicking in.  IF it were meant to be a single 
channel, the text would have been copied as stated in 8.15.1.2.6.  Stating 
“adjacent channels” when read without the preconception from 8.15 is pretty 
plain but it was known that the per channel was well ingrained so Annex 
material was provided.  It states - restrict the ability for fire to spread 
beyond 160 cu ft zones covering MULTIPLE joist channels.

Prior to the 2010 edition, you ALWAYS had to use a 3,000 sf remote area with 
unprotected spaces of composite wood joists.  By breaking the overall space 
into volumes of NMT 160 cu ft, it presents a similar risk that that of solid 
wood joists with bigger individual channels.  For our sprinkler scientist, yes 
it is a slightly bigger risk since TJI's burn more vigorously and fail more 
quickly than solid wood joist (thus the prior difference) but for driving the 
need for a bigger remote area, the difference is insignificant.

Roland


Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 





> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:08 PM, James Crawford  wrote:
> 
> We have a project that is using TJI wood joist (composite wood 
> Joists), they are 16” deep spaces 18” on center and are 20’ long. 
> There is gypsum board attached directly to the bottom of the joists 
> along with 3” of insulation at the bottom to reduce sound transmission. The 
> area is about 1400 sq.ft.
> 
> 
> 
> Reference is NFPA #13 2013 edition section 11.2.3.1.4(4)(j)
> 
> 
> 
> Light or ordinary hazard occupancies where noncombustible or limited 
> combustible ceilings are attached to the bottom of composite wood 
> joists either directly or on to metal channels not exceeding 1” in 
> depth, provided the adjacent joist space channels are firestopped into 
> volumes not exceeding
> 160 cubic feet using materials equivalent to ˝” gypsum board and at 
> least 3 ˝” of batt insulation is installed at the bottom of the joist 
> channels when the ceiling is attached utilizing metal channels.
> 
> 
> 
> If each channel space formed by two joist is 40 cubic feet, so the 
> adjacent space is 40 cubic feet, I see no need to fire stop them into 
> volumes less than 160 cubic feet as they are already less than 160. 
> The AHJ is saying that we must firestop every 4th joist space with 
> gypsum to create spaces of
> 160 cubic feet, so we would need to break the space into 12 spaces of 
> 160 cubic feet for the 1400 sq ft area.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I reading this correctly or do we need to break the space into 
> sections of 160 cubic feet?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Crawford
> 
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
> 
> Phone  604-888-0318
> 
> Fax 604-888-4732
> 
> Cel 604-790-0938
> 
> Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Obstructions Against Walls

[Larry Keeping]

I haven't seen any rely to your question, so I'll take a stab.

First, I'm not sure where the 30" obstruction width originated. 

As I understand it, if your obstruction is more than 30" wide you would need a 
sprinkler under it, unless there was at least 18" of clearance from the 
deflector to the top of the obstruction, as illustrated in Figure A.8.6.5.1.2, 
which only came into play in the 2010 edition of NFPA 13.

Possibly, if the obstruction isn't too deep, you can omit the sprinkler below 
if you can comply with Table 8.6.5.1.2 and Figure 8.6.5.1.2(a).

Larry Keeping

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: October-21-15 3:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Obstructions Against Walls

Where does the maximum 30" dimension come from in figure 8.6.5.1.2(b) (2007)? 
What if you have the exact same scenario that's shown there but the width is 
say 36"? Per code I need to then apply 8.6.5.1.2 & 8.6.5.1.2(a) up to a width 
of 48" correct? After that heads would have to be installed under the 
obstruction right?

Just for giggles 8.6.5.1.2(2) comes in handy but where do you draw the line 
with regard to how far the deflector is above the obstruction when you apply 
it? Would you use the 36" limit from 8.6.4.1.1.3 or is there no limit if heads 
are on both sides of the obstruction?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Sprinkler Division
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
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: Composite Wood Joists

[Roland Huggins]

we are in complete agreement on you latest statement (below).

In your originally question though, weren’t you questioning whether or not ch 
11 applied to a single joist channel or multiple channels.  In other words, you 
were asking if the AHJ was wrong in requiring every 4th channel to be 
firestopped.  The only one that doesn’t occasionally go left instead of right 
are those that don’t do anything.  Good question.

On a related note, the firestopping should run parallel to the joists verse 
being perpendicular to them (provided a single channels isn’t greater than 160 
cu ft.  IF they are firestopping i required for BOTH parallel and perpendicular.


Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 





> On Oct 22, 2015, at 11:55 AM, James Crawford  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Roland
> 
> But my coffee has not kicked in, So I agree with 8.15.1.2.6 allows the 
> omission of the sprinkler heads as we meet those requirements, and  
> 11.2.3.1.4(4)(j) allows us to not use a 3000 sf design area if we firestop 
> the joist channels into 160 cu ft blocks, or in our case about every fourth 
> joist channel and the firestop material needs to be 1/2" gypsum or equal
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> James Crawford

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Antifreeze system

[Douglas Hicks]

I figured an open container of fluid would be the same throughout the 
container, or a homogeneous solution.  But I did not expect that a closed 
container would be a homogeneous solution.  So why do we need a test drain 
at the far end of the pipe, and why do we need another test port at 
mid-center,  if the system is 150 gallons or more?  And at what point does 
stratification become important?  Two stories, four or ten stories.  Is 
there a point where we should add a circulating pump to insure the 
antifreeze level is the same through the piping?


I have ordered more glycol antifreeze.  We will drain all the antifreeze 
into clean three 55 gallon barrels.  That will allow us to know the pipe 
capacity. After draining the system, we will connect the vacuum to the 
piping to make sure we have all the fluid out of the piping.  Then we can 
add enough antifreeze to protect the building.  What is left, we will pump 
into the sewer system.  They have their own on-site sewage treatment,  2 
open ponds.


Thanks to those who responed.


-Original Message- 
From: AKS-Gmail-IMAP

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:33 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Antifreeze system

According to Dow Chemical propylene glycol is completely soluble in all 
proportions in water. It “dissolved" into the water. A liquid dissolving 
into another is a notion we rarely think about. You ended up with about 90 
gallons good for 15F. That is 25% glycol or 22.5 gallons glycol in a 90 
gallon mixture. You had planned for 60 gallons mixed. That would be 22.5 
gallons glycol in 60 gallons total. That is about 37% glycol.  So you must 
have been shooting for about 0 F. In other words the premix was for about 0F 
in order for the numbers to make sense.


Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO



On Oct 20, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Douglas Hicks  wrote:

We installed an isolation valve on an propylene glycol antifreeze loop. 
Unfortunately, we were told the system was about 55 gallons. It was closer 
to 90 gallons.  We only had enough antifreeze for 60 gallons.  We used 
what antifreeze we had, and finished the job with straight water.  My 
thought was to drain the water, monitoring the liquid until we got to the 
antifreeze.  Then we would fill the system with an antifreeze mix.


Today, we returned  to the job site with  30 gallons of antifreeze.  We 
closed the isolation valve and drained out 5 gallons.  The drained water 
tested  to 15°F.  We tested the fluid at the other end of the piping.  It 
also tested 15°F. I thought the antifreeze loop was a closed system.  How 
did the antifreeze and water get mixed in a closed pipe system?


Douglas Hicks
General Fire Equipment Co of Eastern Oregon, Inc
___
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: Composite Wood Joists

[Roland Huggins]

Allow me a bit of a long winded response instead of a simple yes or no.

First off, although your question is not about whether you can omit sprinklers 
but whether you have to have a 3,000 sf remote area (not stated but understood 
since you are referencing chap 11), let’s start in 8.15.1.2.6 that allow the 
omission.  It states - the joist channels are firestopped into volumes EACH not 
exceeding 160 cu ft.  Obviously the volume is per individual channel.  Now 
jumping to 11.2.3.1.4(4)(j) it states - provide the adjacent joist space 
channels are firestopped into volumes not exceeding 160 cubic feet.  I could 
stop here but the coffee is kicking in.  IF it were meant to be a single 
channel, the text would have been copied as stated in 8.15.1.2.6.  Stating 
“adjacent channels” when read without the preconception from 8.15 is pretty 
plain but it was known that the per channel was well ingrained so Annex 
material was provided.  It states - restrict the ability for fire to spread 
beyond 160 cu ft zones covering MULTIPLE joist channels.

Prior to the 2010 edition, you ALWAYS had to use a 3,000 sf remote area with 
unprotected spaces of composite wood joists.  By breaking the overall space 
into volumes of NMT 160 cu ft, it presents a similar risk that that of solid 
wood joists with bigger individual channels.  For our sprinkler scientist, yes 
it is a slightly bigger risk since TJI's burn more vigorously and fail more 
quickly than solid wood joist (thus the prior difference) but for driving the 
need for a bigger remote area, the difference is insignificant.

Roland


Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 





> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:08 PM, James Crawford  wrote:
> 
> We have a project that is using TJI wood joist (composite wood Joists), they
> are 16” deep spaces 18” on center and are 20’ long. There is gypsum board
> attached directly to the bottom of the joists along with 3” of insulation at
> the bottom to reduce sound transmission. The area is about 1400 sq.ft.
> 
> 
> 
> Reference is NFPA #13 2013 edition section 11.2.3.1.4(4)(j)
> 
> 
> 
> Light or ordinary hazard occupancies where noncombustible or limited
> combustible ceilings are attached to the bottom of composite wood joists
> either directly or on to metal channels not exceeding 1” in depth, provided
> the adjacent joist space channels are firestopped into volumes not exceeding
> 160 cubic feet using materials equivalent to ˝” gypsum board and at least 3
> ˝” of batt insulation is installed at the bottom of the joist channels when
> the ceiling is attached utilizing metal channels.
> 
> 
> 
> If each channel space formed by two joist is 40 cubic feet, so the adjacent
> space is 40 cubic feet, I see no need to fire stop them into volumes less
> than 160 cubic feet as they are already less than 160. The AHJ is saying
> that we must firestop every 4th joist space with gypsum to create spaces of
> 160 cubic feet, so we would need to break the space into 12 spaces of 160
> cubic feet for the 1400 sq ft area.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I reading this correctly or do we need to break the space into sections
> of 160 cubic feet?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Crawford
> 
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
> 
> Phone  604-888-0318
> 
> Fax 604-888-4732
> 
> Cel 604-790-0938
> 
> Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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