Re: [External] Re: Does a remote free standing FDC require a valve pit?

[John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum]

Tom - you stated "What happened to the balanced supplies?  FDC's must equal
tank or city in capacity.  One inlet for every 250 demand.  Stuff went
south, maybe southwest"

Can you clarify what you meant?   Is this about sprinkler or standpipe
FDCs?  Once I have some more information, I will respond.


Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Our members are at the heart of everything we do*


*Expand your business with ITM*
Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector
Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended
learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry
leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now
enrolling for Spring 2021 .




On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:07 PM Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> 150 should be the base for non high-rise FDC's unless placarded for higher
> required pressures.   Then maybe 50 over?
> I give many FDC's a pass, just me, when they leak, and a lot do.  If
> they're fitted with plastic or aluminum covers, and changed to plugs, some
> hold but many don't.  I get a hold of 30 minutes before leaking back BUT
> how many of these leak during 5 year tests?  A lot.  If I can attribute the
> leakage to the swivel, and only the swivel, OK, you pass.  Keep in mind
> many buy cheap chinese tin hats for supplying their systems and they don't
> hold anything.  Even some of the flush style are cheap junk.  Once the
> covers are removed, the swivels being put against pressure (some for the
> first time) from an aluminum or brass plug, all you have is the gasket.
> Even replaced, some don't hold.  Getting back, yes to the pit.  Who's going
> to bring a shovel and dig up a checkvalve? Bueller?
> What happened to the balanced supplies?  FDC's must equal tank or city in
> capacity.  One inlet for every 250 demand.  Stuff went south, maybe
> southwest.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:11 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Denhardt 
> Subject: Re: [External] Re: Does a remote free standing FDC require a
> valve pit?
>
> Once NFPA 25 2022 edition is finalized, I would expect new/revised
> language for hydrostatic testing criteria of fire department connections
> for ITM.
>
> NFPA 13  - requires the fire department connection pass a hydrostatic
> test.  200 PSI minimum with no drop in pressure or no visible leakage.
>
> NFPA 13 -2019 edition states:
>
> 28.2.1.7 Piping between exterior fire department connection and the check
> valve in the fire department inlet pipe shall be hydrostatically tested in
> the same manner as the balance of
>
> the system. After repair or replacement work affecting the fire department
> connection, the piping between the exterior and
>
> the check valve in the fire department inlet pipe shall be isolated and
> hydrostatically tested at 150 psi (10 bar).
>
> *The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal
> interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee
> Projects. This is provided with the understanding that the AFSA assumes no
> liability for this opinion or actions taken on it and they are not to be
> considered the official position of the **AFSA, and/or NFPA or its
> technical committees.**AFSA cannot provide design or consulting engineering
> services, and this opinion should therefore not be considered, nor relied
> upon, as such.*
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> John August Denhardt, PE
> *Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> m: p: 301-343-1457
> 214-349-5965 ext 121
> w: firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/
> >
>
>
> *Our members are at the heart of everything we do*
>
>
> *Expand your business with ITM*
> Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector
> Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended
> learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry
> leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling
> for Spring 2021 .
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:57 AM Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum <
> 

RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Flow switches as a standalone vs flow switches in a listed assembly.  This is a 
new arrangement I've not seen before, but so called "ready riser" type 
assemblies have been sold for years that have much smaller distances between 
the flow switch and other devices than the stand alone listing of a physically 
identical switch.  Frankly the only issue I've ever seen with flow switches is 
air entrapment false alarms and the odd failed switch.  I've seen tons of them 
installed with less distance than the listing required and at least for ITM 
purposes they worked correctly in spite of it.  I'd be curious if the listing 
requirements aren't just a compromise/how we've always done it type scenario 
that just isn't worth testing against as there isn't t hat much call for 
something listed for smaller distances when installed as a standalone device.

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager • Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991
email mmo...@shambaugh.com



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 6:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I would as well.

What happened to the "not within 24" of a drain or valve?"

A check valve is a valve.. Right?

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: Check Valve After Flow switch?

I would like to know why this is the "best way" for the installation.  I am not 
stating it is not, just not sure why one way is better especially since we have 
done it a certain way for years.

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!IpNMJuMDBwLFax2AF8_7R2sl6gZj3K63RWbcheyp7z-WDyYhjZtyVZhQewzwuc78$
 
 

   


*Our members are at the heart of everything we do*


*Expand your business with ITM*
Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector 
Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended 
learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry 
leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for 
Spring 2021 
.




On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:05 PM Henry Fontana via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> This is not a code change. Both manufacturers (one of them I work for) 
> state that this is the best way for installation and will not cause a 
> nuisance alarm. Ever since Globe came out with theirs I have 
> questioned why it’s designed this way.
>
> Henry Fontana
> Operations Manager (NYC)
> Johnson Controls Fire Protection
> 100 Lighting Way| St#402|Secaucus|NJ
> 07094
> Cell: 201-210-9873
> henry.font...@jci.com
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2021, at 5:01 PM, Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> I've just received a second product sheet from a different suppliers 
> for a pre-built riser where the check valve is located above/after the 
> flow switch. Is this arrangement a new change coming is the code?
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the 
> sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may 
> be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this 
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete 
> the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this 
> communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
> 

RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Kind of along the lines of the pre-assembled dry valves with tapped butterfly 
valve and no means of FDC supply between butterfly and dry valve.  We got some 
push back in Boston about this because they check (no pun) the routing of the 
FDC line and interconnection point in standpipe systems when commissioning.  
They originally didn't allow supplying through the tapped butterfly but since 
it's a listed assembly have passed it.
TD


Yeah, I get the listed assembly.

Just begs the question,
If it's good for the goose..

I know jurisdictions that reject if you do not have the 3psi loss on your calcs.

Sure they have a listing, but there are folks out there that think only a 
listed can be installed.
When in reality, listed devices need only need installed.

Matt


Steve is correct. The flowswitches on the listed preassembled manifolds and 
risers are part of a listed assembly and are tested as part of that assembly.
The recommendations on the Potter literature are recommendations, not code 
requirements. The purpose of the recommendation is to try to prevent people 
from installing the flowswitch too close to a valve or change in direction that 
could cause enough turbulence to prevent the flowswitch from operating when a 
calibrated flow test is conducted. The installer would then have to relocate 
the flowswitch.

Kind Regards,

mike

Mike Henke CET
Sprinkler Product Manager


If an assembly is tested and listed as a unit, and passes the required tests as 
configured, then the listing supersedes such restrictions.   I remember asking 
this question when Resi-Risers first came out.

Steve L.


I would as well.

What happened to the "not within 24" of a drain or valve?"

A check valve is a valve.. Right?

R/
Matt


I would like to know why this is the "best way" for the installation.  I am not 
stating it is not, just not sure why one way is better especially since we have 
done it a certain way for years.

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*


On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:05 PM Henry Fontana via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> This is not a code change. Both manufacturers (one of them I work for) 
> state that this is the best way for installation and will not cause a 
> nuisance alarm. Ever since Globe came out with theirs I have 
> questioned why it’s designed this way.
>
> Henry Fontana
> Operations Manager (NYC)
> Johnson Controls Fire Protection
> 100 Lighting Way| St#402|Secaucus|NJ
> 07094
> Cell: 201-210-9873
> henry.font...@jci.com
>
> I've just received a second product sheet from a different suppliers 
> for a pre-built riser where the check valve is located above/after the 
> flow switch. Is this arrangement a new change coming is the code?
>
> Jerry Van Kolken

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