Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide Precedence

2019-01-21 Thread Bruce Verhei 
I’m not sure if smoke production would be much higher or not. In a high-rise 
fire control is not the only question. 

Best.

Bruce Verhei 

> On Jan 21, 2019, at 08:02, Kyle.Montgomery  wrote:
> 
> I wasn’t singling you out, Matt, just saying that’s the thought process of a 
> lot of people. 
> 
> And it makes sense, if you’re an Engineer or work for a company that only 
> does design, it costs no more to draw a 6” main than a 3” main (for example). 
> But it costs someone about 4 times as much to install that main. Sure it 
> provides more water and thus “better” fire protection, but what if it’s good 
> enough already? Why make someone buy what they don’t need?
> 
> I realize we can’t change the code directly through this forum, but it’s a 
> good place to discuss and get the ear of the people who can make a difference.
> 
> So, considering that the vast majority of our sprinkler systems will never 
> operate, yet are required to be installed and will at the very least have 
> some inspection and maintenance cost, I feel like the right thing to do as a 
> community is to make them as affordable as possible.
> 
> Which brings me back to my original question: If NFPA 101 allows us to omit 
> sprinklers in closets and bathrooms, for example, why do other codes require 
> them? Is there good data or historical information that suggests systems will 
> be unable to control the fire if those sprinklers are omitted? I certainly 
> want to install systems that work, but don’t need them to do anything more 
> than the “minimum” of controlling the fire to save people and minimize 
> property damage.
> 
> -Kyle M
> 
> On Jan 20, 2019, at 7:30 PM, Matthew J Willis  wrote:
> 
>> Not sure how we got to "crooks" from a moral thought process.
>> 
>> I said getting paid is the hard part.
>> If the book says so, then you have substantiation for payment. How you 
>> handle it, is your business.
>> 
>> Glad I could give you a kick this evening.
>> 
>> R/
>> Matt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my Verizon Motorola Smartphone
>> On Jan 20, 2019 5:57 PM, "Kyle.Montgomery"  wrote:
>> I always get a kick out of the “don’t forget, the code is just the MINIMUM” 
>> comments. Like it’s borderline criminal to use the less restrictive code 
>> requirements and that the contractors who do so are some kind of crooks that 
>> have no consideration for the safety of building occupants or first 
>> responders.
>>  
>> But on a large building, adding sprinklers in every bathroom or closet (for 
>> example) is worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. No one seems to 
>> think it is inappropriate to force that cost upon the owner (of for the 
>> sprinkler contractor to eat it) even though there are standards, such as 
>> NFPA 101 that suggest they should not be required.
>>  
>> So, I’ll ask this question: How many fires have NOT been successfully 
>> controlled because there were not sprinklers in the closets or bathrooms of 
>> an otherwise fully-sprinklered building?
>>  
>> Do we really need the industrial-strength, military-grade version of 
>> everything?
>>  
>> -Kyle M
>>  
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis
>> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 12:30 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide 
>> Precedence
>>  
>> I love the discrepancies.
>> They are the very reason we have a job.
>>  
>> Like we discussed, the most restrictive applies.
>> Even when it does not.
>>  
>> As the Great George Church always said, “How would that sound to a jury?”
>>  
>> As the paid professional, it is your job to follow all. Especially since our 
>> focus is saving lives.
>> Getting paid for it becomes the real challenge. Communication, 
>> Communication, Communication.
>> AHJ does have the final say . But remember Chapter 1. “This standard 
>> represents the MINIMUM .. etc..
>>  
>> R/
>> Matt
>>  
>> Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
>> Design Manager /3-D Specialist
>> Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
>> 1530 Samco Road
>> Rapid City, SD 57702
>> Office-605.348.2342
>> Direct Line-605.593.5063
>> Cell-605.391.2733
>> Fax:-605.348.0108
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Douglas Hicks
>> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 11:27 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide Precedence
>>  
>> Compare NFPA 96, with 40 pages to 506, 507, 508 and 509, 9 pages.   Compare 
>> NFPA 10 to whatever ICC has.  Does   ICC have anything  to compare to 13, 25 
>> or 72 handbooks? First time I heard of ICC was when I asked the Building 
>> Inspector why the contractor put a non-UL access panel on the bottom of a 
>> commercial kitchen exhaust duct.  I was told the duct met code.  I pulled 
>> out my 96, and was told that was not recognized  and leaky grease ducts met 
>> code.  Every service report I generated on that kitchen  mentioned the

RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

2019-01-21 Thread tstone52 
Tom,

 

Thank you very much.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Sorry, 1976 edition. 5.1 and 5.3 500@65 for class 1 (plus the 250 for
additional up to 2500) for 30 minutes.

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of
tston...@comcast.net  
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Tom,

I have no idea which edition of the building code was enforce at that time.

I was curious as to design requirements for Standpipes.

Tim 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Tom
Duross
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

’71, ’73, ’74. ’76, ’78 & ’80.  You’re looking for the adopted edition for a
certain building code, right?

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of
tston...@comcast.net  
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

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

RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

2019-01-21 Thread Tom Duross 
Sorry, 1976 edition. 5.1 and 5.3 500@65 for class 1 (plus the 250 for
additional up to 2500) for 30 minutes.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of tston...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Tom,

I have no idea which edition of the building code was enforce at that time.

I was curious as to design requirements for Standpipes.

Tim 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Tom
Duross
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

’71, ’73, ’74. ’76, ’78 & ’80.  You’re looking for the adopted edition for a
certain building code, right?

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of
tston...@comcast.net  
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

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

RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

2019-01-21 Thread Tom Duross 
500@65 for class 1

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of tston...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Tom,

I have no idea which edition of the building code was enforce at that time.

I was curious as to design requirements for Standpipes.

Tim 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Tom
Duross
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

’71, ’73, ’74. ’76, ’78 & ’80.  You’re looking for the adopted edition for a
certain building code, right?

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of
tston...@comcast.net  
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

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

RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

2019-01-21 Thread tstone52 
Tom,

I have no idea which edition of the building code was enforce at that time.

I was curious as to design requirements for Standpipes.

Tim 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

’71, ’73, ’74. ’76, ’78 & ’80.  You’re looking for the adopted edition for a
certain building code, right?

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of
tston...@comcast.net  
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

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

RE: Hydrostatic Test Gauge

2019-01-21 Thread Tom Duross 
Depending on the grade of the gauge he could be assuming only middle 1/3
span accuracy and wanting the pointer there.  They have to be minimum 1% I
think but again depending on the grade the gauge could be 1/3 or full span,
then you could use a 400#.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Mike Stossel
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Hydrostatic Test Gauge

 

I have an New York City inspector stating that it is required by code that a
600psi gauge is used when performing a 300psi standpipe test.  I have looked
at every code book that I can think of and cannot find any such requirement.
Does anyone know of any code requirement for this?di

 

Mike Stossel SET



36 Barren Road

East Stroudsburg, PA 18302

Office: 973-670-2627

m...@knssprinkler.com  

 

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide Precedence

2019-01-21 Thread Prahl, Craig/GVL 
When a situation came up where the Code and the Standard did not agree (even 
though the NFPA Standard had the word “Code” in its title) the AHJ stated that 
the Building/Fire Codes (IBC/IFC) were to be used as the prevailing codes, that 
Codes always trumped Standards.

So whenever there is conflicting direction based on the adopted codes and 
standards, take it to the AHJ as they are the referee when it comes to this 
issue.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:03 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide 
Precedence

I wasn’t singling you out, Matt, just saying that’s the thought process of a 
lot of people.

And it makes sense, if you’re an Engineer or work for a company that only does 
design, it costs no more to draw a 6” main than a 3” main (for example). But it 
costs someone about 4 times as much to install that main. Sure it provides more 
water and thus “better” fire protection, but what if it’s good enough already? 
Why make someone buy what they don’t need?

I realize we can’t change the code directly through this forum, but it’s a good 
place to discuss and get the ear of the people who can make a difference.

So, considering that the vast majority of our sprinkler systems will never 
operate, yet are required to be installed and will at the very least have some 
inspection and maintenance cost, I feel like the right thing to do as a 
community is to make them as affordable as possible.

Which brings me back to my original question: If NFPA 101 allows us to omit 
sprinklers in closets and bathrooms, for example, why do other codes require 
them? Is there good data or historical information that suggests systems will 
be unable to control the fire if those sprinklers are omitted? I certainly want 
to install systems that work, but don’t need them to do anything more than the 
“minimum” of controlling the fire to save people and minimize property damage.

-Kyle M

On Jan 20, 2019, at 7:30 PM, Matthew J Willis 
mailto:ma...@rapidfireinc.com>> wrote:
Not sure how we got to "crooks" from a moral thought process.

I said getting paid is the hard part.
If the book says so, then you have substantiation for payment. How you handle 
it, is your business.

Glad I could give you a kick this evening.

R/
Matt



Sent from my Verizon Motorola Smartphone
On Jan 20, 2019 5:57 PM, "Kyle.Montgomery" 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>> wrote:
I always get a kick out of the “don’t forget, the code is just the MINIMUM” 
comments. Like it’s borderline criminal to use the less restrictive code 
requirements and that the contractors who do so are some kind of crooks that 
have no consideration for the safety of building occupants or first responders.

But on a large building, adding sprinklers in every bathroom or closet (for 
example) is worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. No one seems to 
think it is inappropriate to force that cost upon the owner (of for the 
sprinkler contractor to eat it) even though there are standards, such as NFPA 
101 that suggest they should not be required.

So, I’ll ask this question: How many fires have NOT been successfully 
controlled because there were not sprinklers in the closets or bathrooms of an 
otherwise fully-sprinklered building?

Do we really need the industrial-strength, military-grade version of everything?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matthew J Willis
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 12:30 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide Precedence

I love the discrepancies.
They are the very reason we have a job.

Like we discussed, the most restrictive applies.
Even when it does not.

As the Great George Church always said, “How would that sound to a jury?”

As the paid professional, it is your job to follow all. Especially since our 
focus is saving lives.
Getting paid for it becomes the real challenge. Communication, Communication, 
Communication.
AHJ does have the final say . But remember Chapter 1. “This standard represents 
the MINIMUM .. etc..

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection 
Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108

[cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]

From: Sprinklerforum

Hydrostatic Test Gauge

2019-01-21 Thread Mike Stossel 
I have an New York City inspector stating that it is required by code that a 
600psi gauge is used when performing a 300psi standpipe test.  I have looked at 
every code book that I can think of and cannot find any such requirement.  Does 
anyone know of any code requirement for this?di

Mike Stossel SET
[400dpiLogoCropped]
36 Barren Road
East Stroudsburg, PA 18302
Office: 973-670-2627
m...@knssprinkler.com

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

RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

2019-01-21 Thread Tom Duross 
’71, ’73, ’74. ’76, ’78 & ’80.  You’re looking for the adopted edition for a
certain building code, right?

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of tston...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

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

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide Precedence

2019-01-21 Thread Kyle . Montgomery 
I wasn’t singling you out, Matt, just saying that’s the thought process of a 
lot of people.

And it makes sense, if you’re an Engineer or work for a company that only does 
design, it costs no more to draw a 6” main than a 3” main (for example). But it 
costs someone about 4 times as much to install that main. Sure it provides more 
water and thus “better” fire protection, but what if it’s good enough already? 
Why make someone buy what they don’t need?

I realize we can’t change the code directly through this forum, but it’s a good 
place to discuss and get the ear of the people who can make a difference.

So, considering that the vast majority of our sprinkler systems will never 
operate, yet are required to be installed and will at the very least have some 
inspection and maintenance cost, I feel like the right thing to do as a 
community is to make them as affordable as possible.

Which brings me back to my original question: If NFPA 101 allows us to omit 
sprinklers in closets and bathrooms, for example, why do other codes require 
them? Is there good data or historical information that suggests systems will 
be unable to control the fire if those sprinklers are omitted? I certainly want 
to install systems that work, but don’t need them to do anything more than the 
“minimum” of controlling the fire to save people and minimize property damage.

-Kyle M

On Jan 20, 2019, at 7:30 PM, Matthew J Willis 
mailto:ma...@rapidfireinc.com>> wrote:

Not sure how we got to "crooks" from a moral thought process.

I said getting paid is the hard part.
If the book says so, then you have substantiation for payment. How you handle 
it, is your business.

Glad I could give you a kick this evening.

R/
Matt



Sent from my Verizon Motorola Smartphone
On Jan 20, 2019 5:57 PM, "Kyle.Montgomery" 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>> wrote:
I always get a kick out of the “don’t forget, the code is just the MINIMUM” 
comments. Like it’s borderline criminal to use the less restrictive code 
requirements and that the contractors who do so are some kind of crooks that 
have no consideration for the safety of building occupants or first responders.

But on a large building, adding sprinklers in every bathroom or closet (for 
example) is worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. No one seems to 
think it is inappropriate to force that cost upon the owner (of for the 
sprinkler contractor to eat it) even though there are standards, such as NFPA 
101 that suggest they should not be required.

So, I’ll ask this question: How many fires have NOT been successfully 
controlled because there were not sprinklers in the closets or bathrooms of an 
otherwise fully-sprinklered building?

Do we really need the industrial-strength, military-grade version of everything?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matthew J Willis
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 12:30 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide Precedence

I love the discrepancies.
They are the very reason we have a job.

Like we discussed, the most restrictive applies.
Even when it does not.

As the Great George Church always said, “How would that sound to a jury?”

As the paid professional, it is your job to follow all. Especially since our 
focus is saving lives.
Getting paid for it becomes the real challenge. Communication, Communication, 
Communication.
AHJ does have the final say . But remember Chapter 1. “This standard represents 
the MINIMUM .. etc..

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection 
Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108

[cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 11:27 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential High-rise building: Design Guide Precedence

Compare NFPA 96, with 40 pages to 506, 507, 508 and 509, 9 pages.   Compare 
NFPA 10 to whatever ICC has.  Does   ICC have anything  to compare to 13, 25 or 
72 handbooks? First time I heard of ICC was when I asked the Building Inspector 
why the contractor put a non-UL access panel on the bottom of a commercial 
kitchen exhaust duct.  I was told the duct met code.  I pulled out my 96, and 
was told that was not recognized  and leaky grease ducts met code.  Every 
service report I generated on that kitchen  mentioned the leaky grease duct.

End of rant.

From: å...

Old copy of NFPA 14

2019-01-21 Thread tstone52 
Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

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