Re: [EXTERNAL] Joining black carbon steel with stainless steel piping

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

If you are coming up into a building with the water service to a double check 
the local potable water protection regulations typically do not allow black 
steel prior to the double check. I would have expected the majority of their 
unit installations to not connect to black steel piping. I bet they 90 over to 
some device and really have a ductile iron or such fitting connecting to the 
unit.

> On Mar 3, 2022, at 8:22 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I spoke with a technical rep at Ames earlier in the week regarding this 
> question.  He stated that in all the time they have been offering their SS 
> In-Building-Riser unit, they have not had one reported instance of system 
> failures or corrosion due to connections between dissimilar materials.  He 
> also stated that due to there not having been a problem with the countless 
> installations, they do not require or call for any type of separation 
> assembly.  The majority of their units connect to back steel sprinkler piping.
> 

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

Re: Sprinkler in elevator pit.

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

 Wire cage elevators in industrial settings are often unenclosed. The original 
question, “What constitutes an “enclosed” shaft?”, I think is a question 
asking, “Is not a shaft enclosed by definition?”. That makes sense to me. In 
certain circumstances building codes require a shaft of specific wall 
construction properties to enclose “openings between floors”. That shaft is 
enclosed by definition. Penetrations through the shaft wall would have certain 
properties, but an unenclosed shaft would not be possible. A lift between 
floors has to go through an opening between floors, the hoist-way, so it winds 
up getting shafted in typical circumstances. Remember that the next time you 
ride an elevator. Now the fire sprinkler standard comes along wanting to write 
some rules. Perhaps the sprinkler standard writers decided to say what they 
wanted to say without using the elevator code words and the building code words 
that better define the situation.

> On Feb 25, 2022, at 8:59 AM, Ken Wagoner via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Todd, and Matt,
> 
> Speculating here.
> 
> Some time ago I stayed in a hotel which had a huge multi-story atrium, and 
> along two of the four walls were elevators.  Both elevator "shafts" were open 
> to the atrium for the length of travel, save for the pit at the bottom.
> 
> That might be a shaft which is regarded as not being "enclosed." Just my 
> thoughts.
> 
> sincerely,
> *Ken Wagoner, SET*
> *Parsley Consulting
> 500 West Mechanic Street
> Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235*
> *Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
> *Visit the website 
> *
>  
> On 2/24/2022 9:14 PM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum wrote:
>> Todd,
>> 
>> Your question makes me think that you have run across something unusual...
>> 
>> Have you encountered a "non- enclosed" shaft?
>> 
>> Matt Grise
>> Alliance Fire Protection
>> 130 w 9th Ave
>> North Kansas City, MO
>> 913.526.7443
>> 
>> sent from mobile device
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Original message 
>> From: Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
>> Date: 2/24/22 9:03 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: Sprinklerforum
>> Cc: Fpdcdesign
>> Subject: Sprinkler in elevator pit.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   NFPA 13 (2013) section 8.15.5.2 says that sprinklers may be omitted in 
>> elevator pits for “enclosed, non-combustible…” elevator shafts. What 
>> constitutes an “enclosed” shaft?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Todd G Williams, PE
>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>> 
>> Stonington, CT
>> 
>> 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
>> 
>> 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
>> 
>> 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,ExS8p1y0Hr1gez_4FheG_PCYrYK5u7gB3u2dXqKeFW0ElN5FapcOv2AUonWa20Nzx11YndVwKfEQ3bNXV2NYUcMqO0PubiOKaEuqw3sYI-Y4eg6Kww,,&typo=1
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
> ___
> 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: 8 inch sprinkler pipe fall from factory ceiling

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

The are lots of things interesting about this, including how long ago the event 
was, but in my opinion the description lacks some details and requires one to 
guess as to what the conditions were and to guess as to the piping arrangement, 
which of course is critical to this event since it is described as piping 
“separations”. For example there is no mention of a fire pump in the first 
post. A manifold is mentioned, but a manifold does not mean there is a pump.
Just guessing from the bit and pieces it sounds like there is a fire pump that 
has a manifold of five pipes where this 8” main rises up about 50ft(!) in 
height where it then 90s off to travel 250 feet to “a riser”, which I interpret 
to mean the 8” main descends back to floor level to a (or some) system valves. 
This 250 feet or so of 8” main has about eight 90s in its travel. One of these 
90s, described as a midspan 90, did not have a hanger. This said midspan 90 is 
part of 150 feet of 8” main that fell to the floor. Presumably all of the 
collapsed 8” main was continuous piping but whether or not is was some distance 
from the riser from the pump manifold is not clear because it seems like there 
was a separation at the first 90. Plus, “the manifold that also separated”, 
means ... what?
The piping is grooved steel schedule 10. The only flexible fittings are 
presumably the 90s at the transitions from vertical to horizontal. The first 
flex above the pump’s manifold popped loose, but so did the flex at the distant 
riser? The other fittings were rigid Vics. It sounds like the piping that fell 
had only one 90, the midspan 90, and that midspan 90 on its two piping lengths 
stayed intact. It is not mentioned whether or not the straight fittings stayed 
intact. Vic’s sales engineers, as perhaps we all know, like to mention their 
fittings are stronger than the attached piping. I cannot tell if this event 
supports that, but it sounds like it may.
The piping hanger attachment did not fail. Instead the structural flanges 
deformed because the hangers were the type that load only one flange edge. The 
attachments slipped off the deformed flange edge. There should not have been a 
progressive failure. It looks like there is a mistake here of some type. Part 
of the mistake might be part structural in that the structural bottom flange 
(assumed to be the attachment point) was already rotating. Is this 8” main near 
an outside wall? Is this tilt up construction?
System pressure is not mentioned. Lets just assume is it 100 psi when all 
puffed up by the maintenance system. An 8” pipe at 100 psi would have an end 
thrust topping 5,000 lbs. In other words at any joint in the system, even when 
no water is flowing, the incredible hulk would need to apply 5,000 lbs of force 
with each arm to hold the joint together. Ronnie Coleman would say nothing but 
a peanut, but you can fully understand there would be a lot of movement going 
on the instant a fitting pops loose. I might expect excessive pipe snaking in a 
long straight section where there is not lateral restraint. It is mentioned the 
fire pump was not involved, but surely it would have kicked in after the first 
fitting opens up. Then there would be some dynamic forces going on.
I suspect Vic might be able to prove the force required to pop a properly 
installed Vic fitting is far beyond what forces that might have been a result 
of the facility conditions. Therefore the initial cause might be due to piping 
defect or an improper fitting installation. The subsequent progressive failure 
resulting in 150 feet of piping falling to the floor could be a separate issue. 
I have a hunch a sudden free end of water filled 8” piping should not result in 
a progressive failure. In a gross sense each hanger carries the load of the 
filled piping halfway to the next hanger. A sudden free end only adds about 50% 
more load. A hanger’s maximum allowed load is no where near its ultimate load. 
Something maybe rotten in Denmark here.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Feb 24, 2022, at 3:39 PM, Gary Howard, P. Eng. via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ken
> 
> I will check on the Victaulic clamps but I think that they were rigid
> No clamp damage suspected beforehand
> We can get the records prior to the failure
> Can a pressure surge cause the pipe to move?
> No seismic in 10 years here.
> Not sure about maintenance, but will check
> I will check on the test.
> 
> It appears to be a suspension failure that occurred about 2 seconds after a 
> significant lateral and longitudinal pipe movement.
> 
> Trying to figure out what could move the pipe . It was about 2 to 4 inches 
> longitudinally and laterally
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2022, at 4:10 PM, Ken Wagoner via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Gary,
>> 
>> Adding my thoughts here as well.
>> 
>> Were the grooved couplings of the flexible or rigid type?
>> Were any of them damage prior to the fall?
>> Was there any recording of pressure values in the system leadi

Re: swimming pool

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

That is the preferred way to set the AHJ agreement, in distributed meeting 
minutes of course, because the other way it may be set, “provide NFPA 13 
coverage for the deck area only”, means some sprinklers have to be installed 
beyond the pool edge to satisfy the application density transition boundary 
rules. That’s why it is best to be present at that first AHJ meeting, not just 
the Architect like some Architects like to do. The AHJs appreciate being in on 
the design from inception when dealing with odd situations.

> 
> I have seen a pool where it was the AHJ that specifically required NO heads 
> anywhere over a pool because they are impossible to maintain. (municipal 
> facility)
> 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: ESFR obstruction shift

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

How I see this, when the distance between sprinklers varies, the more demanding 
distance is what drives the required minimum discharge pressure. The shorter 
distance gets over discharged but the longer distance gets the application 
called for in the design. So these sprinklers need to be pressurized for 110 sf 
operational area, not 100 sf. I think you are in trouble if there is a 100 sf 
limitation imposed somewhere that is not countered and accepted by using a 
hydraulic design for 110 sf per sprinkler.

A somewhat similar, but perhaps more defendable, condition to this occurs when 
two rooms each having 130 sf/sprinkler designs, but as 10 x 13 in one room and 
13 x 10 in the other room, have the dividing wall between the rooms removed. 
The design in each room worked on its own, including up to its wall, but now 
the design is technically 11.5 x 13 where the wall used to be. It is defendable 
when one considers each sprinkler as having its own operational area, but that 
concept is not normally accepted and has been shot down here without 
discussion.   

Allan Seidel

> On Jan 18, 2022, at 10:50 AM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Matt,
> 
> I haven't dealt with that situation in real life, but have in theory had 
> several conversations about it. I am in agreement with you that this should 
> be allowable per the code language. You never exceed 110 s.f. and the average 
> ACTUAL FLOOR AREA (not SxL) does not exceed 100 s.f.
> 
> -Kyle M
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:22 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR obstruction shift
> 
> No - since we are moving along the line, when one space goes from 10 to 11, 
> the space on the other side goes from 10' to 9'
> 
> Matt 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:00 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matthew J Willis 
> Subject: RE: ESFR obstruction shift
> 
> Are you not creating a 10x11 situation since you are moving every other 
> sprinkler?
> 
> If so, you may be violating the 100 sq ft per average requirement for moved 
> and adjacent?
> 
> R/
> Matt
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:00 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: ESFR obstruction shift
> 
> I am looking at a warehouse layout where we can get a very nice head pattern 
> by laying the heads out 10ft by 10ft, and then shifting the ones that land 
> near joists 1ft along the line as allowed by NFPA 13.
> 
> The only issue is that we have to shift every other head. Making a 9ft - 11ft 
> pattern along the branch line. As far as I can tell, this meets the letter of 
> the code, but it seems like a stretch.
> 
> Has anyone come across a similar situation where so many heads needed to be 
> shifted to avoid roof structures?
> 
> Matt
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http*3a*2f*2flists.firesprinkler.org*2flistinfo.cgi*2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,l1exGGqk0cDcPNoSdqRWtD1YmZdqStCzx0CUF-Olhi1rqB9Iz8Fn6d7eBTNXNMfF8T-7GZY94qom2OweTyV4Gyin1hiL-CJ82tDF4yhwF7g0ofhpr4fwsNalRZM,&typo=1__;JSUlJSU!!Ba8_KKAT!eogk1pEssHmJtaZHhoNM1xMOrahW4a40OEoiC7xHQPIDjpwV0fnvj8Sfjpv8d1bFGzI$
>  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http*3a*2f*2flists.firesprinkler.org*2flistinfo.cgi*2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,faagUYTvRqNofSbZjC709kxTbRDQVTelhUkbtQ0AWq4V349KeRLZVnCRia1Vjt6yQqBjB_beLshOylNEy-3N0UIJJJFKTWvWeUpRcWUx-0A,&typo=1__;JSUlJSU!!Ba8_KKAT!eogk1pEssHmJtaZHhoNM1xMOrahW4a40OEoiC7xHQPIDjpwV0fnvj8Sfjpv8sH-n2sk$
>  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!eogk1pEssHmJtaZHhoNM1xMOrahW4a40OEoiC7xHQPIDjpwV0fnvj8Sfjpv8Su2SCv4$
>  
> ___
> 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: Group of Pipe Obstruction

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

One should realize what happens when a continuous deluge of water, ie fire 
sprinkler flow, encounters a piping group or an electrical conduit group, 
especially level piping groups. The water flows on the piping surface and then 
drops off the pipe at the pipe’s bottom. What hits the top drops off the 
bottom. Continuous water streams will still be raining on whatever is directly 
underneath the piping, but not in a random distribution. Ask any on site 
challenger to think about if they would get soaked while standing underneath 
the piping group.   

> On Dec 16, 2021, at 1:59 PM, John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> NFPA 13 - 2019 - The answer depends on the hazard and the sprinkler type.
> ESFR and CMSA do have requirements that address this issue.  For light and
> ordinary hazards, as long as the individual widths are 4' or less with some
> separation to allow water to hit the floor,and the sprinkler deflector is
> above the obstruction, no additional sprinklers are needed.
> 
> *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
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> *Our members are at the heart of everything we do.*
> 
> 
> *Are you a member with a technical question? *
> 
> Don't forget one of the most valuable resources that American Fire
> Sprinkler Association provides is technical reviews from our Engineering &
> Technical Services Department. It’s like having an FPE on your staff. Visit
> www.firesprinkler.org/interp
> 
> to
> submit a question today!
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:29 AM Joe Burtell via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> 
>> I apologize if this has already been asked and answered. I could have sworn
>> NFPA addressed this but I am looking for when a group of mechanical pipes
>> are racked and create a wide obstruction, what the minimum gaps between
>> pipe to not consider it a solid obstruction? Can someone point me to the
>> correct section, please?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> *Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
>> 
>> [image: Burtell Fire_Small]
>> 
>> Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*
>> 
>> 116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101
>> 
>> Email: j...@burtellfire.com
>> 
>> Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com
>> 
>> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
>> price is forgotten.**”*
>> 
>> *NOTICE:*  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is
>> intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  This e-mail
>> transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or
>> other information attached to it, may contain confidential information that
>> is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
>> e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it
>> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this transmission or
>> any of the information contained in or attached to this e-mail is strictly
>> prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please
>> immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission and destroy the
>> original e-mail transmission as well as its attachments without reading or
>> saving it in any manner.  Thank you.
>> ___
>> 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.

Re: Paint Booth Duct Protection

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

The Mechanical code standards for exhaust ducts carrying flammable and 
hazardous materials is where fire suppression requirements can be encountered. 
These would apply if the jurisdiction follows that mechanical code. Be sure to 
follow that up. 

> On Dec 2, 2021, at 11:48 AM, Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have a paint booth with a intake and exhaust duct systems.
> 
> When I look at NFPA 33-9.5.1.6 Duct Protection
> 
> It only specific size of duct requiring protection, and doesn't mention 
> "exhaust" until item #2 and #3.
> 
> If larger enough does both set of ducting require protection?
> 
> 
> 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.
> ___
> 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: Best Common Practices

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

The architect has it backwards. The contract documents are where it needs to be 
in writing that the fire sprinkler protection system must be designed and 
installed in a specific manner. That specific manner must be explicitly stated 
in the fire protection documents or be the unambiguous conclusion of the 
document’s interpretation by an experienced fire protection contractor of 
reasonable intelligence. If the specific design manner is somehow present in 
documents excluded from the fire protection contractor, like sometimes happens 
for any number of reasons, then the general contractor has a tit in the 
wringer. You as contractor might be happy to volunteer ideas as to what color 
the architect is going to paint the fire protection system components.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Nov 8, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I know it's common practice to run Mains parallel with the structure and 
> Branchlines perpendicular to it but is that written anywhere? I actually have 
> an architect that would like to see it in writing...
> 
> Brian Harris, CET
> BVS Systems Inc.
> Design Manager
> 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: Seismic joint detail

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

Vic is not testing vertical displacement in these videos and they are also 
taking advantage of lots to space. It would be interesting to know if that 
setup was designed to Vic guidelines where you do not approach the maximum 
coupling deflection so that the pipe or fitting ends never butt each other. 
Having built the pvc model prior to the wager comment I would have reservations 
for your situation. You might win the bet on a technicality but it seemed to me 
one must see one of these in action to fully understand how it must be 
installed to get it to accommodate both lateral/vertical and inline movement. 
Everything inside the outer two fittings has to be able to move anywhere. So no 
hangers or guides. This thing will occupy a blob of space. Lateral and vertical 
displacement are the same thing, just the viewpoint is different. The assembly 
easily does that displacement but there is an inline displacement that happens. 
The assembly needs to do some not so obvious twisting to remove the inline 
displacement. Clamp one pipe end in a vise and makes sure all the fittings are 
well lubed when testing the pvc model. I am sure the Vic sales people would be 
happy to mock one up in small pipe. They do not need to have any elaborate 
machinery. You’re job sounds government, so they cannot be a flat spec, but I 
bet they would be interested since they would also have a shot at the 
mechanical piping systems.

> On Oct 19, 2021, at 3:46 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thank you Tom!   Helpful in that these show the rotational capability of the 
> coupled ells, but the assembly doesn’t really jump up and down vertically as 
> I hoped it might because the tests appear to have been based on applying only 
> horizontal forces.
> 
> SML
> 
> From: Tom Wellen 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:21 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton 
> Subject: Re: Seismic joint detail
> 
> Here are some Victaulic video links of the shake, rattle and roll.
> 
> https://youtu.be/tPaRcqt4qPI
> https://youtu.be/xsG8_Nz-ym4
> https://youtu.be/5ro8SnECHQU
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:54 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
> mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
>  wrote:
> I appreciate the overview and wagering strategy but the SEOR is a friendly on 
> this one and  there's nothing conventional about this application.  It's a 
> tunnel, 40' below the street that communicates from one building to another 
> across two public streets  and an intervening block in DT San Diego.   And 
> crosses a fault, so a high likelihood of short waveform movement if there's 
> ever an event.   So we have the fault zone, the two building basement 
> crossings and some other flexure points that we're trying to resolve.On 
> top of all that,  it's highly secure and there's limited space  above 
> detention-grade ceilings, so the required clearances for movement apparently 
> can't be fully realized.   The contractor has expressed a preference for the 
> multiple 90s on this one because of space constraints and since this is a 
> very sensitive project and everyone is earnestly working to get it right, 
> I've been tasked with establishing what range of vertical movement the detail 
> in the NFPA figure is capable of.  Also trying to verify if it's been field 
> tested (it has, apparently) and whether it's been lab tested or whether there 
> is any particular requirement for vertical movement specifically.   The 
> language of 9.3.3.2 is confusing, with reference made to open and closing of 
> the joint and also to, "...movement relative to the separation in the other 
> two dimensions..."    What "other two dimensions", time and space?
> 
> SML
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
>  On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:02 PM
> To: 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: Seismic joint detail
> 
> If we are referring to the six flexible coupling seismic separation assembly 
> that every contractor finds an alternative, make a sizable wager with the 
> structural engineer that the assembly provides vertical movement. Make sure 
> the winnings cover the cost of six ½” pvc fittings and a four foot stick of 
> ½” pvc pipe. Make the thing up and fool with it for some time before you 
> present your case so that you can move it around to show it off like you know 
> what you are doing, because at first it might look awkward enough that the 
> engineer will cry foul. B

Re: Seismic joint detail

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

 If we are referring to the six flexible coupling seismic separation assembly 
that every contractor finds an alternative, make a sizable wager with the 
structural engineer that the assembly provides vertical movement. Make sure the 
winnings cover the cost of six ½” pvc fittings and a four foot stick of ½” pvc 
pipe. Make the thing up and fool with it for some time before you present your 
case so that you can move it around to show it off like you know what you are 
doing, because at first it might look awkward enough that the engineer will cry 
foul. By the way, the details for this six coupling assembly show vertical 
accommodation in the elevation detail.
 You might obfuscate the demonstration by asking how much differential seismic 
movement this engineer is really expecting. Differential seismic lateral motion 
is due to how easy it is for one structural building section to be different in 
lateral flexibility than the next building section, i.e. across the seismic 
separation joint. Each building section will wiggle differently than the next. 
The difference shows up at the joint. Vertical differential flexibility, in 
other words “pogoing” differently than the next structural section is not 
happening very much, if any. Buildings are relatively much more vertically 
stiff than they are horizontally stiff. I might bet the structural engineer has 
not tried to calculate this. What might be the case, like this building is in 
Houston Texas which I believe has more seismic faults going on than any other 
US city, is that the structural engineer knows the building project has to span 
a known fault and so the structure is actually anticipating differential 
vertical movement at the joint.
Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO  

> On Oct 19, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> A question was raised by a project structural engineer about the NFPA 13 
> seismic joint detail shown in Fig. A.9.3.3(a), 2016 edition for reference.
> Does anyone know if this configuration has ever been tested/measured?   Has 
> it been verified as an acceptable OMNI-DIRECTIONAL solution?The engineer 
> in question is looking at the detail and in his judgement, it's only a 2D 
> solution.   There are lateral and longitudinal movements shown, but not a 
> vertical one.If there are installation or hanger/bracing committee people 
> who can chime in, I'm wondering if this figure has been vetted and that's why 
> it's still in the standard.   Bottom line:  Is Fig. A.9.3.3(a) equivalent to 
> a listed seismic loop?
> 
> 
> Steve Leyton, President
> Protection Design and Consulting
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
> www.protectiondesign.com
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
> Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: Fire Pump Backflow

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

“Not any back flow” is being too loose with terms. Temperature differences 
alone will circulate water with the tank. Basically you have a fire pump in the 
domestic water system. All the piping materials and components in the system 
and connected to the system up to and including the double check should be 
suitable for being part of a domestic water system. That is doable. You might 
run into some conversations between fitters and plumbers about whose work is 
what if you are in a union town.

> On Aug 25, 2021, at 3:57 PM, 321 via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I agree with the backflows being on the discharge side of the pumps. If you 
> only have 7 PSI flooded suction, there is not going to be any backflow out of 
> the FP System thru the Pump back to the tank anyway. Figure the extra loss in 
> your calculations. I have done this before with shared water supplies. I 
> think if you look in NFPA 20 you will find where this is allowed.
> Good luck with this.
> 
> John W. Farabee
> 561-707-5150
> 
> 
>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021, 04:25:22 PM EDT, Joe Burtell via 
> Sprinklerforum  wrote:  
> 
> Yes, we have pottable water being taken from the same tanks. This is a
> rural high school and this is their own water system that feeds the school.
> So I need the backflow for that reason.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> *Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
> 
> [image: Burtell Fire_Small]
> 
> Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*
> 
> 116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101
> 
> Email: j...@burtellfire.com
> 
> Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com
> 
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten.**”*
> 
> *NOTICE:*  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is
> intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  This e-mail
> transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or
> other information attached to it, may contain confidential information that
> is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
> e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it
> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this transmission or
> any of the information contained in or attached to this e-mail is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please
> immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission and destroy the
> original e-mail transmission as well as its attachments without reading or
> saving it in any manner.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 1:40 PM cliff--- via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Joe,
>> 
>> Why would you need the BFP if you have storage tanks?  Are there other
>> systems being fed from the same tanks that would necessitate the BFP?
>> 
>> Cliff Whitfield, SET
>> President
>> 
>> Fire Design, Inc.
>> 940 Summerbrooke Drive
>> Tallahassee, FL 32312
>> Ph: 828-284-4772
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> cl...@fire-design.com
>> www.fire-design.com
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On
>> Behalf Of Joe Burtell via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:33 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Joe Burtell 
>> Subject: Fire Pump Backflow
>> 
>> I have a situation with a verticle in-line fire pump fed from water
>> storage tanks. We have a double check backflow installed between the tanks
>> and the fire pump but we don't have enough pressure to open the backflow on
>> the upstream side between the tank and backflow. I talked with Watts about
>> it. They stated there are no backflows with weaker springs. I only have
>> about 7 PSI out of the tanks. Has anyone ran into this situation before and
>> have any suggestions to resolve the issue? The engineer suggested piping
>> the jockey pump before the backflow. Not sure how that would work in theory.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> *Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
>> 
>> [image: Burtell Fire_Small]
>> 
>> Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*
>> 
>> 116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101
>> 
>> Email: j...@burtellfire.com
>> 
>> Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com
>> 
>> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
>> price is forgotten.**”*
>> 
>> *NOTICE:*  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is
>> intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  This e-mail
>> transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or
>> other information attached to it, may contain confidential information that
>> is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
>> e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it
>> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this transmission or
>> any of the i

Re: Clean Agent System

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

You are right. I would assume these are smoke rated spring loaded dampers that 
are building powered open, preferably on an emergency circuit if someone was 
thinking. Therefore they would power fail closed. The clean agent release panel 
would just interrupt the power to the dampers. It is very unlikely the base 
building alarm panel is listed as a release panel to be setup in conjunction 
with a true and possibly different manufacturer release panel this way. If it 
were, no-one would complicate matters like this.

The base building panel should monitor the clean agent panel and to what degree 
it does needs to be brought out into the open for people to understand. The 
problems involved with sharing any FA functions between the clean agent release 
panel and base building panel will eliminate any function sharing. You will 
have both the base building FA annunciation devices and the clean agent system 
FA annunciation devices in the server room. It is not just a technical issue. 
There is also the practical issue of future required scheduled points testing a 
maintenance contractor will need to perform.

It is curious how this problem came about.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis. MO

> On Aug 23, 2021, at 5:00 PM, James Crawford via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> NFPA 2001 (2018)
> 
> We have a clean agent system that is protecting a server room, we have gone 
> in to do the electrical connections and the base building electricians have 
> connected the ventilation dampers to the base building alarm panel
> 
> My understanding is that they should be connected to the release panel for 
> the clean agent system as this is how we have always done this.
> 
> I have always based it on section 4.3.1.1.4 The clean agent suppression 
> system release control panel shall not be dependent or affected by the 
> operation or failure of the protected premises building fire alarm panel.
> 
> Am I missing something or is this allowed, as I cannot find anything else 
> that say otherwise.
> 
> Thank You
> 
> James Crawford
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
> Phone 604-888-0318
> Cel: 604-790-0938
> Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
> Web: www.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

Re: Material Prices !!

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

My hogwash radar alarm went off. So I checked. People in the fire sprinkler 
protection business did time combing through code and standards books. I cannot 
apologize for checking.
US Antitrust laws comprise three acts. One is The Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is 
all about conspiracy in restraint of trade, such as monopolization, attempted 
monopolization or conspiracy or combination to monopolize. Wrong buzzer on that 
one. The second Act is The Federal Trade Commission Act. It bans unfair methods 
of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Wrong buzzer on that 
one also. The third Act is The Clayton Antitrust Act. It is about mergers and 
acquisitions that substantially lessen competition or tend to create a 
monopoly. Wrong buzzer for that one also.
Checking steel prices, the US steel prices are currently 3 to 4 times what they 
where at this time last year. The steel prices in other parts of the world are 
not exhibiting the same degree of out of balance. The true antitrust aspect has 
to do with the price of steel. That alone may not be what this forum is about, 
but a good portion of a sprinkler system is steel. Certainly, business contract 
practices necessary to ensure the proper health of fire sprinkler contractors’ 
businesses so that they can provide and install effective fire sprinkler 
systems is forum material.

Alllan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Aug 5, 2021, at 12:16 PM, Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Just a reminder to the forum that this is toeing the line on
> Anti-Trust Policies. Please refrain from further comment on specific
> pricing of products and proposals.
> 
> Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE
> *Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services*
> 
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> p: 214-349-5971
> w: firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> *Get in the (Fitter) Zone!*
> 
> AFSA's "Fitter Zone" features live webinars designed specifically for fire
> sprinkler fitters. These live presentations are held on Saturdays whenever
> possible, so you don't have to take your fitters out of the field during
> the workweek. If you cannot attend live sessions, these webinars will be
> recorded and can be purchased for on-demand access.  Learn more *here*
> .
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:18 PM JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> 
>> Who all is demanding an escalation clause in contracts right now?
>> 
>> Get Outlook for iOS
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  on
>> behalf of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 10:14:37 AM
>> To: 321 ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
>> Subject: Re: Material Prices !!
>> 
>> Domestic steel prices are through the roof.  Domestic HRB went from around
>> $600 per ton around October 2020 to around $1,966 per ton recently, in
>> pretty much a straight line up.  Make sure you are communicating this to
>> your customers.  Wood has pretty much come back to earth from the recent
>> high, but steel seemingly keeps going up.
>> 
>> 
>> Skyler Bilbo
>> 217-819-6404 Cell
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:44 AM 321 via Sprinklerforum <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I bought almost exactly the same jobs about 5 months ago for less than
>>> half of that!! Where is the "Choke Point" on this ? Is it steel pipe,
>> Iron
>>> Fittings, availability?
>>> On of my best vendors told me this morning that they cant get pipe and
>>> fittings imported because Walmart bought up all the Sea Can Shipping
>>> containers for their use.
>>> A shipping container shortage is snarling global trade
>>> 
>>> 
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |  |  |
>>> 
>>> |
>>> 
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |  |
>>> A shipping container shortage is snarling global trade
>>> 
>>> Nicolás Rivero
>>> 
>>> The shortage of shipping containers is yet another symptom of the havoc
>>> the pandemic has wrought on internationa...
>>> |
>>> 
>>> |
>>> 
>>> |
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I can't pass these cost thru to customers...we budgeted these jobs 6 or 7
>>> months ago with some escalation built in...but not 150% !!
>>> 
>>> John W. FarabeeCertified Lower Keys Plumbing and FireKey West, Florida
>>> 561-707-5150
>>> 
>>> 
>>>On Thursday, August 5, 2021, 11:33:13 AM EDT, Spencer Tomlinson via
>>> Sprinklerforum  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's this way across the board - lead times are increasing as well, for
>>> what used to be pretty standard order items.  I hear there may still be
>>> another 3-5% coming.
>>> 
>>> Spencer Tomlinson, PE
>>> Owner, Fire Protection Engineer
>>> 
>>>

Re: Sprinklers in stairways

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

I’ve never seen a wood framed 3 hour fire rated shaft assembly or partition. A 
quick look at a USG Fire-Resistant Assembly catalog does not list one. This 
stairwell may not end up being built as you describe. Out of curiosity, can you 
tell us how this shaft is constructed and provide a tested listing number?

Allan Seidel
St. Louis. MO 

> On Jun 24, 2021, at 5:16 AM, Bruce Hermanson via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> We have a wood framed building where the stair shaft is made of wood with
> drywall that gives it a 3 hour fire rating. The stairs are steel and
> concrete.
> 
> I have been asked if we need to provide sprinkler heads at each level or
> just at the top and below the lowest landing. We are currently in the 2013
> edition of NFPA 13.
> 
> I am a bit confused on the wording in Section 8.15.3.1 where they reference
> sprinklers beneath all stairways of combustible construction. Section
> 8.15.3.2.1 references non combustible stair shafts  having non combustible
> stairs with non combustible or limited combustible finishes requiring
> sprinklers only at the top and under the first accessible landing. I would
> be interested in the forum's opinion on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce Hermanson
> 
> President TSFP Holdings Inc.
> 
> (734) 454-1350
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

Having the fire pump system ahead of the site hydrants obfuscates the hydraulic 
situation that the two setups are identical in performance. It leaves you 
scratching your head wondering if the hydrant demand should be part of the fire 
pump selection when it should not if the municipal supply already handles the 
hydrant demand. This is a design setup one should avoid so to not be dragged 
into proving hydraulics that few understand. I know from experience most 
people, including those who should know better, have a very difficult time 
understanding basic concepts. To most people this is understandably black 
magic. That is partly why the “sprinkler” person (contractor) is rarely 
questioned in a construction project. My former employer, the head of now 
former MEPF company, shocked me once by not believing a fire pump would just 
pump in a circle if there was not a check valve in an open pump bypass circuit. 
I was told I better be able to prove that.

AKS

> On Apr 23, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> I've got a picture in my head of the fire service lateral entering the pump 
> room, supplying the pump suction and also bypassing the pump, then conjoining 
> and exiting the pump room and connecting to both hydrants and the building 
> system(s) downstream.   Here's a what if:  What if the fire main bypassed the 
> pump room entirely and continued downstream independently because the city 
> water is adequate to supply the hydrants?  There would be no question that 
> the pump can be sized to serve sprinklers only because the city water is the 
> primary supply for hydrants.   And if hydrants were flowing concurrently with 
> the fire pump, the suction supply would be reduced as you describe any way; 
> that doesn't change whether the hydrant supply is completely independent our 
> routed through a bypass.
> 
> Steve
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
> 
> First of all to answer the question about what happens when a pump upstream 
> of the operating fire pump system is also drawing water and the fire pump 
> system has an open and flowing bypass system one just needs to go back to 
> basic hydraulics. Where the fire pump discharge piping joins back to the 
> bypass piping the pressures in the fire pump discharge and bypass discharge 
> have to be equal in both pipes, period. That pressure is whatever the 
> municipal supply can provide for the total flow to that point. In other words 
> the fire pump cannot be operating on its curve at a discharge pressure higher 
> than the municipal supply because if it were then the bypass check would be 
> closed to prevent the fire pump from pumping in a circle through the bypass.
> Start with the flow condition of the fire pump operating with water flowing 
> somewhere but not at a site hydrant. The fire pump is sitting on its pump 
> curve somewhere at a discharge pressure higher than the municipal supply, and 
> so its bypass check is being held closed. It can only be sitting on its curve 
> since that is what a centrifugal pump does. A site hydrant is now opened with 
> water flow. Flowing more water the fire pump rides its curve according to the 
> total flow. Its discharge pressure goes down and will keeping going down as 
> more water is drawn from the site hydrant, which as we should now understand 
> can only flow as the municipal supply flows when the fire pump rides its 
> curve down to where the municipal pressure equals the fire pump discharge 
> pressure. Note that the water pressure in the system at this time would be 
> less than what the building sprinkler system design pressure is supposed to 
> be because the municipal system is flowing more water than the demand for 
> which the fire pump was selected. The water pressure at the hydrant is at 
> whatever it is and may or may not be being boosted by a fire department pump, 
> but that pump has no bearing to this system hydraulics, so forget about it.
> We already know, from being told, that the site hydrants are perfectly fine 
> by themselves. Now you can see that the situation is not hydraulically 
> different from the more typical setup where a building fire pump system draws 
> from a site hydrant system. That fire pump system would have been selected 
> based upon the sprinkler demand and some external hose allowance affecting 
> the supply pressure. The sprinkler system would be affected by increasing 
> site hydrant beyond that of the external hose allowance and we would be 
> thinking nothing wro

Re: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

First of all to answer the question about what happens when a pump upstream of 
the operating fire pump system is also drawing water and the fire pump system 
has an open and flowing bypass system one just needs to go back to basic 
hydraulics. Where the fire pump discharge piping joins back to the bypass 
piping the pressures in the fire pump discharge and bypass discharge have to be 
equal in both pipes, period. That pressure is whatever the municipal supply can 
provide for the total flow to that point. In other words the fire pump cannot 
be operating on its curve at a discharge pressure higher than the municipal 
supply because if it were then the bypass check would be closed to prevent the 
fire pump from pumping in a circle through the bypass.
Start with the flow condition of the fire pump operating with water flowing 
somewhere but not at a site hydrant. The fire pump is sitting on its pump curve 
somewhere at a discharge pressure higher than the municipal supply, and so its 
bypass check is being held closed. It can only be sitting on its curve since 
that is what a centrifugal pump does. A site hydrant is now opened with water 
flow. Flowing more water the fire pump rides its curve according to the total 
flow. Its discharge pressure goes down and will keeping going down as more 
water is drawn from the site hydrant, which as we should now understand can 
only flow as the municipal supply flows when the fire pump rides its curve down 
to where the municipal pressure equals the fire pump discharge pressure. Note 
that the water pressure in the system at this time would be less than what the 
building sprinkler system design pressure is supposed to be because the 
municipal system is flowing more water than the demand for which the fire pump 
was selected. The water pressure at the hydrant is at whatever it is and may or 
may not be being boosted by a fire department pump, but that pump has no 
bearing to this system hydraulics, so forget about it.
We already know, from being told, that the site hydrants are perfectly fine by 
themselves. Now you can see that the situation is not hydraulically different 
from the more typical setup where a building fire pump system draws from a site 
hydrant system. That fire pump system would have been selected based upon the 
sprinkler demand and some external hose allowance affecting the supply 
pressure. The sprinkler system would be affected by increasing site hydrant 
beyond that of the external hose allowance and we would be thinking nothing 
wrong about it. The fire pump setup here does add additional ways to interrupt 
the site hydrant situation via valves in the pump bypass and the general need 
for system maintenance that could shut off water during times of an extreme 
maintenance procedure.
AKS   

> On Apr 23, 2021, at 11:06 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Let's change the context to a similar demand scenario where a wet-manual 
> combined standpipe/sprinkler system requires a pump to meet the sprinkler 
> demand.  In that case, the pump can be sized for sprinklers only as the 
> primary water supply for the standpipe demand is pumped to the FDC.In 
> this case, you said that there is a bypass from city water around the pump: 
> does the city water supply meet the hydrant demand in this configuration?  If 
> yes, then you do NOT have to size the pump for hydrant flow because the pump 
> isn't the primary water supply for the hydrants.   They will over-perform if 
> the pressure in the discharge main drops during a hydrant flow scenario and 
> the pump kicks in because it will pressurize the line to its rating - this is 
> a good thing.  But you do not have to size the pump for the hydrants if the 
> primary (city) water supply can meet the demand. 
> 
> 
> The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 13 
> and 24 Technical Committees, nor is intended to serve as an interpretation of 
> the standard.
> 
> 
> Steve Leyton
> Protection Design & Consulting
> San Diego, CA 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 7:51 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
> 
> So NFPA 13 11.1.5.3 does require the fire pump to be sized for the demand 
> that is on the discharge side of the fire pump regardless of whether it is 
> site demand or fire sprinkler demand or both.  If the fire pump is supplying 
> both a 2000 gpm site demand and 900 gpm fire sprinkler demand, the fire pump 
> would have to be a minimum of 2000 gpm.  (2000 gpm x 150% + 3000 gpm).  
> Correct?  
> 
> My original question wasn't meant to determine if site and fire sprinkler 
> demands need to be added together.  Just if a fire pump supplies both per 
> NFPA 13 11.1.5.3, then fire pump gpm has to be ab

Re: [EXTERNAL] Standpipe Testing

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

Mark's way to explain what is going on is very good in my one half cent’s 
worth. Scot’s reasoning does have its uses. For example when using it one would 
arrive at the same supervisory air compressor choice indicated by a 
manufacturer’s selection table. But there is a needed correction! The P1 and P2 
values used in the gas law rule have to be absolute pressures. 

P2 as absolute pressure is 14.7 psi or 1 atm. That part is OK.  P1 as absolute 
pressure is (200 psi + 14.7 psi) or 214.7 psi, not 200 psi. So in atm units it 
would be 214.7/14.7 or 14.6 atm, not 13.6 atm. Not converting the 200 psi to 
absolute pressure in this case results in a significant difference. Perhaps the 
source for the error here is thinking that atm units is absolute pressure.

A Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Apr 16, 2021, at 11:32 AM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Scot,
> Long time no argue with 😊!!  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn’t that called 
> the "Gas Laws" and for good reason, it's different from Hydraulics? If you 
> fill a standpipe system from the bottom and vent the system at the top to 
> evacuate the air (gas), you could achieve a hydraulic lock in the system. 
> Introducing a very small volume of water or high pressure Nitrogen would then 
> raise the pressure accordingly. If you fill the system as described without 
> venting it you could easily use the gas laws to calculate the volume of water 
> necessary to raise the pressure to 200 PSI.  As for the "relationships" 
> comments, I'll reply with a quote from Sargent Friday, " Just the facts 
> ma'am", so yes, I agree.
> 
> How are you? Are you living in the CR, working on some interesting new 
> project? 
> 
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of å...  via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 1:27 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: å...  
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Standpipe Testing
> 
> To answer your question:
> 
> *P1 *V1*=  P2 * V2when tested at close to the same temperature.
> V2  =(P1*V1)/P2  where  P1 = 200 psi/14.7 psi = 13.6 atm,  V1 =
> volumen of your pipe system,  P2 is  1 atm.
> V2 =  13.6 * V1
> If we have a 4 gpm pump, replace V2 with  (4 gpm * x min), rearrange to solve 
> for minutes.  If we have 2 pumps operating in parallel, we use the flow rate 
> of the pump with the lower developed-pressure.  V1 is in gallons.
> 
> X minutes to fill  =  (13.6 * V1 ) / 4 gpm * FF
> 
> FF is a fudge factor.  It accounts for leaks, the fact that your pump may not 
> be exactly 4 gpm, the fact your pump flow rate will decrease as the pressure 
> it pushes against increases, and FF  accounts for plain and simple
> entropy.   My hunch is FF is about 1.3.   But don't take my word for it,
> record the results yourself and show how bad this hunch is.
> 
> "The inspector came back after the requisite 2 hours and signed it off. It's 
> all about relationships."
> 
> Life is not fair.  But strangely, virtually all mammals[3] (with the 
> exception of some individual humans), some birds[2], some fish and a couple
> of reptiles demonstrate they understand and expect fair behavior.It is
> sad, but it being ' all about the relationships'  is equivalent to working on 
> the premise of  ' we only accept information from reliable sources.'
> Even if sources were ethically reliable, which no resources are all the
> time, sources make honest mistakes too.   It being '...about the
> relationships'  is equivalent to one AHJ jurisdiction I know, saying we only 
> trust one source of information as accurate (e.g. the NFPA).
> 
> Judging life safety decisions should not be this way.  Basing one's judgment 
> upon whom presents the evidence is a fallacy known as Argumentum ad 
> Auctoridad.  While a court of law puts great importance on eye-witness 
> statements,  the truth is ---our ability to judge who and when someone is 
> lying is not much better than ... 50% or blind chance[1].  In science, basing 
> one's judgment on the reputation of the presenter is the undisputed lowest 
> level of evidential quality.  (Scientists are not immune to making wrong 
> judgments based on this Authority fallacy themselves... as witnessed by the 
> widespread belief in a male presented view that a single meteor-event wiped 
> out the dinosaurs... rather than a female presented view with better evidence 
> which indicates long-term volcanic action is responsible for the die offs).
> 
> 
> AHJs should treat taxpayers in their jurisdiction fairly and evenly.  Yes, of 
> course we must make hunches on whose work is accurate, but that should not 
> condone rubber stamping, favoritism, or denying equal opportunity to examine 
> all numerical, falsifiable evidence on behalf of property and life safety.  
> AHJ are paid by taxpayers, and the pupose of government is to serve its 
> people, not play favorites.
> 
> Scot Deal   -  Excelsior Risk and Fire -- gms:  +420 606 872

Re: IEBC and NFPA 14

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

I think this depends on exactly what you are asking. Perhaps you have not read 
through the IEBC enough times. I believe the IEBC instructs code officials as 
to what codes to require when alterations are made to existing buildings. In 
other words it is not a code to now apply to existing buildings not undergoing 
alterations, unless the legislation is also requiring its own modification to 
the IEBC for certain aspects of the code to apply regardless of whether or not 
a building alteration is proposed. 

The IEBC grades the type of building alterations that would require certain 
types of code upgrades. A gut rehab happening on only one floor level is graded 
differently than an elevator system replacement. Adding a new egress stairwell 
system or altering an existing egress stairwell system would most likely 
require NFPA 14 systems for those stairwells. The question as to what is 
required, and equally important what will not be required, is a task 
responsibility that should fall to the architects involved. That responsibility 
is probably in their contract. The task requires objectively going through the 
IEBC to properly grade the proposed work followed by a meeting with the code 
authorities to arrive at a mutual agreement as to what will be required and 
what will not be required. That process should be well documented with copies 
provided to the building owner for careful filing with the building plans. it 
will be extremely valuable in the future much like as-built building plans.

A Seidel
St. Louis. MO

> On Mar 31, 2021, at 8:39 AM, Jose Anibal Castillo via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> ¿Would a legislation that has adopted the international existing building
> code (IEBC) for the first time would be required to comply with nfpa 14 for
> a high rise building.?
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> José
> ___
> 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: Metal Mesh Ceiling tile replacement

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

This is where your client, who might actually be the Architect on this project, 
needs an architectural justification to go with a different ceiling or a thin 
noncumbustible “sound” batting placed on the ceiling panels. How you plant such 
a seed is not easy because sometimes the Engineer is not supposed to have any 
sense for design compared to the Architect client. Sometimes just the question, 
“Would you rather spend money on above ceiling sprinklers and bulkheads instead 
of more enhanced architectural features?”, can be persuasive. In one instance 
where I ran into this same problem even the explanation that all the typical 
light leakage you get above a ceiling from the ceiling mounted light fixtures 
would create distracting artifacts one would see through the perforations did 
not dissuade the Architect. The response was, “I think that will look cool.”. 
It was only after the mechanical engineer said the perforations would mess up 
HVAC return did the Architect change the ceiling concept. I don’t know if the 
mechanical guy said it to save the day, because Architects sometimes will 
believe anything, or whether he actually believed it.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Mar 4, 2021, at 8:53 AM, David Williams via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> We have a community college client that wants to replace standard ACT with a 
> perforated metal mesh tile that is 60% open. My assumption is that change 
> would require installation of heads above the ceiling in the area of the 
> metal mesh, perhaps putting a bulkhead around the area with the mesh panels 
> if they choose not to install them everywhere.
> 
> I also assume that the heads located at the tile face should still be there.
> 
> Of course the spray pattern would be really disrupted by the mesh so I wonder 
> about adjusting the spacing.
> 
> Any other thoughts and are my assumptions sound?
> 
> David Toshio Williams, PE*, FPE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
> (*Registered in MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, ND, VT)
> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
> Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
> LHBcorp.com
> 
> LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.
> 
> ___
> 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: MORE ACTIVITY WEIGHING IN

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

5 lbs/sf collateral load is likely the low bid metal building design. This 
loading is intended to include ALL the MEPF and Arch. loads on the structure. 
The sprinkler contribution to the 5 lbs/sf is maybe 1.5 lbs/sf. This loading 
gets used for sizing the main structural elements. Depending on the piping 
layout, sizes, pipe spacing and max hanger spacing the low bid design purlins 
might be undersized for some systems and max. hanger spacing.

Note, some metal buildings are specified and bid out prior to the building MEPF 
and Arch. loading being determined. Then you have situations where young people 
without adequate supervision are running the metal building software design 
programs. They may not know how lightweight the design is. This might give you 
some context as what is going on. For sure the collateral numbers are average 
loads over the entire roof area. The loads cannot account for where there might 
be a large main and that is just for fire protection. The loading does not size 
for other concentrated loads like HVAC equipment. If there is seismic involved, 
the structure would not necessarily handle system bracing loads at locations 
where NFPA 13 dictates.

> On Feb 16, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> When I have looked at it (usually for pre-engineered metal buildings)- the 
> lbs/sf is just the weight of the water-filled pipe divided by the are it 
> 'covers'. Similar to the coverage of a sprinkler head. 
> 
> Each structural member then has an allowable point-load formula based on how 
> the connections are spaced and how much load it can handle.
> 
> Most of the PEMB designs I come across have a 5 lbs/ft "collateral load" 
> design. We have never had a sprinkler system exceed that.
> 
> Matt 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 1:23 PM
> To: Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
> Cc: Vince Sabolik 
> Subject: Re: MORE ACTIVITY WEIGHING IN
> 
> Offices.
> 
> I'm looking for a table that an architect or engineer would use to figure 
> roof loading.
> I don't think they're that detailed.
> 
> 
> On 2/16/2021 2:17 PM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum wrote:
>> What is a typical system?  Protecting flammable liquids will be a lot more 
>> than an office building.
>> 
>> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
>> Engineering Manager
>> MFP Design
>> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
>> mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com&c=E,1,LWPOkuQfKyi4ROGqKcnbYQjv2Y6W-GC52ALx7gZ_ozT4hvUsEfdfMFU1zDo69tl0F8jhudt85K7GliMneCJSs-0mA2XIq4vv7cNfCaG8A7EfttrZ5KDqiwaXUQ,,&typo=1
>> 
>> Send large files to us via: 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D&reserved=0
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:16 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Vince Sabolik 
>> Subject: MORE ACTIVITY WEIGHING IN
>> 
>> Hello forum -
>> 
>> Does anyone have tables of how much weight per square foot a typical
>> sprinkler system adds
>> to a building?
>> 
>> thanks, Vince
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
> Strongsville, Ohio 44136
> Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876Cell 440 724-7601
> 
> /
> Vince Sabolik /
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,NPrDsZFoJHdeIk_5-R2AUIsPqjilTuTkcD587y6E7Dx0b5oQNOxLX8krqo5dLEReyOSkeIodEc43NE1QVoQjLFnVHztKtqX9EhY213_EzJPT69DC&typo=1
> ___
> 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: potential freezing in ESFR system

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

It is and has been surprising to me when fire protection contractors ask the 
pipe freezing question or when they ask piping support questions in context 
with approval by local AHJ of any kind. The reason for the surprise is because 
contractors have ready access to materials, labor and space to conduct their 
own very convincing freeze tests or load tests.
The pipe freezing question is often asked. The mechanics of why piping systems 
fail due to freezing is documented to be the result of excessive water pressure 
in the unfrozen part of a water piping system. Pipe failure is not due to the 
conventional wisdom idea that ice expands against the piping. The frozen part 
is a solid ice plug that occupies more volume than the original liquid water 
volume that has frozen. Since the unfrozen water is not compressible that 
increase volume change of the now frozen water results in excessive pressure in 
the remaining piping.
Notice where an antifreeze hose cock fails that has frozen because the outside 
hose was never removed for the winter trapping water within the assembly. It 
fails at the assembly part farthest into the building where the assembly was 
the warmest, not at the colder section closer to the building exterior. 
Ask some of your plumber friends, perhaps the older ones, if they have ever 
seen dry ice packed around a water service line as a way to shutoff the water 
when the service tap valve cannot be found or is not functioning. This method 
works well as long as the excess down stream pressure is monitored and is 
periodically removed by cracking a valve open.
A simple experiment demonstrates the freezing mechanics. Here is a link to one 
performed at a university in Wisconsin.
https://www.madisongroup.com/publications/StudyofFreezing.pdf 

Another information source is here from Illinois: 
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/54757 

A fire protection contractor with any doubts (I would have doubts and I would 
want to see it myself.) could easily fabricate a small jungle gym of scrap 
piping, fittings and used sprinklers to setup outside the shop for testing the 
condition of residual water freezing in sprinkler drops.
Regarding load testing, it was common practice many years ago to build a small 
structural part of a building and then load it up with tons of whatever 
material was on hand to prove strength beyond that required for the structure. 
There is not much tech required to tally up the weights applied. Load tests for 
fire protection components would be much less elaborate. For a very simple 
example, if an AHJ questions how strong some twisted wire bracing is, then mock 
up a simple seat suspended by the practice for the AHJ to sit on. Contractors 
also have the means they did not have tears ago to use smart phones to record 
their testing methods.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Diesel Fuel Tank - Leak Protection

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

Make sure there are no electrical conduits or similar leading down through the 
floor to another space that is at a lower elevation. Stuff happens despite what 
others may claim. It is not unlike, "there is nothing to burn”. I’ve seen an 
installation, not a diesel fire pump but an emergency power generator, where a 
failure in the day tank resulted in the above ground diesel tanks siphoning out 
fuel at the generator which then traveled via the electrical raceways down to 
the basement electrical room at the adjacent building. Include planning for how 
the owner would prefer to handle that spill. The facility people often have the 
better perspective. They also have a say in the contract process.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, Mo

> On Nov 20, 2020, at 8:02 PM, Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm in the Bruce V. camp on this one. If your customer is worried about
> spillage at any point in the system then why not curb the entire pump room
> and raise the batteries, the pump, and all the ancillary stiff that might
> be on the floor above the level of a full spill as you'd do with the
> threshold (or I guess in this case the oilhold)?
> 
> 
> Ron Greenman
> 
> rongreen...@gmail.com
> 
> 253.576.9700
> 
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
> director (1942-)
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:07 PM BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> 
>> I’m mostly impressed you have an owner who cares.
>> 
>> Best.
>> 
>> Bruce Verhei
>> 
>>> On 11/20/2020 4:19 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Our standard for diesel fire pumps is to provide a double-wall fuel tank
>> with leak detection, steel supply and return fuel lines, and of course the
>> connection at the diesel engine is generally a flexible connection provided
>> with the diesel engine from the manufacturer.
>>> 
>>> Anybody doing anything different?
>>> 
>>> Any particular problems with leaks?
>>> 
>>> I've got a client who is particularly concerned about mitigating fuel
>> leaks, but in my experience there is little reason to be concerned about
>> leaks with this arrangement. The client is asking me to look at using the
>> special Kynar double wall pipe made by Flexworks. I guess the advantage is
>> that you would have less connections because it would bend rather than use
>> fittings (90s), but it looks like it would be more easily-damaged than
>> steel pipe. Anyone have experience with this or something similar?
>>> 
>>> We've also discussed possibly adding a curb below the fuel tank to catch
>> leaks, but what if the leak occurs in the line closer to the diesel engine
>> (outside of the curb)? The curb is useless at that point.
>>> 
>>> I feel like the standard method is pretty effective and that any of this
>> other stuff has seriously diminished return value, but I'd be interested to
>> hear from the audience.
>>> 
>>> -Kyle M
>>> ___
>>> 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

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

Re: Window Sprinklers

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

If you are referring to Tyco WS sprinklers, then you do see that it is not 
listed when there is a horizontal mullion but you also see in its installation 
details that there is no maximum distance indicated for the “ceiling” to the 
sprinkler. Yup, go look at. One other aspect to this is that there are 
application instances where the building code requires sprinklers at the glass 
in lieu of a wall fire resistance rating, but not necessarily using Tyco WS 
sprinklers. Such is the case for glazing in atriums where the wall need only be 
1-hour rated. A standard QR pendent would meet the building code requirement. 
If that was the situation then the lower sprinkler would need a multilevel 
shield to comply with an NFPA 13 installation. Right?
So it may be possible to set this up as requested by the Architect but it would 
look like hell if standard black pipe and standard fittings were used. There 
would be a couple of ways to pipe this. I think each way would look ridiculous. 
Every sprinkler person in town would be snap-chatting pictures of it.
Arguments about sprinklers not activating mean nothing. They are akin to saying 
there is nothing to burn. We just jump through the hoops given to us and keep 
moving. The Architect has his or her tit in a wringer. You just need to 
convince them to come up with an appropriate architectural solution that makes 
them look like they know what they are doing. The glazing as they have it now 
has to be architecturally rationalized in their mind to be the wrong thing. 
Somehow seed that thought and get it to grow.  

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Aug 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Joe Burtell via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have an architect that wants to put additional window sprinklers below a
> horizontal mullion. I am absolutely against this idea as it's not listed or
> approved for this. Has anyone run into this situation?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> *Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
> 
> [image: Burtell Fire_Small]
> 
> Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*
> 
> 116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101
> 
> Email: j...@burtellfire.com
> 
> Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com
> 
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten.**”*
> 
> *NOTICE:*  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is
> intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  This e-mail
> transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or
> other information attached to it, may contain confidential information that
> is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
> e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it
> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this transmission or
> any of the information contained in or attached to this e-mail is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please
> immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission and destroy the
> original e-mail transmission as well as its attachments without reading or
> saving it in any manner.  Thank you.
> ___
> 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: Heads Under Conveyors

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

Regarding heads above the conveyor, which I know is not the question, I knew an 
airline baggage manager that opened his forehead skin up on a pendent sprinkler 
that happened to be above a newly installed baggage conveyor. He had cleared a 
baggage jam and was riding the belt on his knees the rest of the way down to 
the baggage handling area when he discovered the sprinkler the hard way. You 
might keep an eye out for similar hazards.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Aug 12, 2020, at 3:04 PM, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> We're working on a recycling plant and in the center of the building is a 
> series of conveyor belts. Originally I was thinking about using upright heads 
> with guards but after searching NFPA-13 the only place I see conveyors 
> mentioned is in the ESFR section and when they're used in coal mines. Anybody 
> have experience with this scenario?
> 
> Brian Harris, CET
> BVS Systems Inc.
> Design Manager
> 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: [EXTERNAL] Unsprinklered Parking Garage

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

First of all, just in case you do not know, you'll probably loose the 
maintenance contract if you take this question to the local AHJ without asking 
your client about doing that. The answer, BTW, is yes to your question "Would 
it be required if this building were being constructed now?". The yes assumes 
there is some sort of modern building code currently required.

Part of the reluctance here to give you a straight answer is the business going 
on. The fire protection contractors would like the job. The consultants would 
like the job to be paid to provide the consulting service, ie answer. The 
owner's business is probably that of developing the capital improvements 
budget. There must be all sorts of things in this building that need replacing 
and redoing. They might hire a consultant to look at a bunch of things, 
including the fire protection, so they have something that includes cost 
estimates to show to the higher ups. The life of this building needs to be 
planned out one way or another. This might include selling the building to move 
somewhere else.

What you describe about this building I am sure raises more eyebrows than your 
own. How it came to be this way might be interesting. I would bet any major 
building alteration the owner plans would have to include some sort of fire 
protection for the garage. That plus a budget estimate would be of interest to 
the owner. Even the deep pocket ones do not necessarily fix things they do not 
have to. 

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Jun 11, 2020, at 3:57 PM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> If that’s the case, why not let him decide if he wants them or not, 
> regardless of whether they would be required in a new build? A requirement 
> has little to do with whether or not they provide additional value or 
> safety/protection.
>  
> -Kyle M
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Ken Haney via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:37 AM
> To: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Ken Haney ; tston...@comcast.net
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage
>  
> All,
> We have an Owner with deep pockets. All we need to know is whether sprinklers 
> and/or standpipe would be required if this was building being constructed 
> now. He can then decide if an upgrade is something he wants to do.
>  
> Ken Haney
> Certified Engineering Tech
> Haney Fire Protection, Inc.
> 610.217.0347
> hane...@rcn.com 
>  
> From: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:26 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: Ken Haney ; tston...@comcast.net 
> 
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage
>  
> Was the system code compliant when installed and the certificate of occupancy 
> issued?  If it was, it doesn’t matter if it meets current code unless there 
> were building changes that according to code required areas or systems to be 
> updated. 
>  
> Most owners are not going to update fire protection systems unless the law 
> requires them to do so.  It’s a huge expenditure with little to no return on 
> investment for property owners. 
>  
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com  | www.jacobs.com 
> 
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  > On Behalf Of Ken 
> Haney via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:07 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: Ken Haney mailto:hane...@rcn.com>>; 
> tston...@comcast.net 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage
>  
> Thanks Guys.
> I do understand we are responsible to inspect the installed system as is. 
> However, if it is not in conformance with current Code requirements, I would 
> like to give the Owner the option to update it.
>  
> Ken Haney
> Certified Engineering Tech
> Haney Fire Protection, Inc.
> 610.217.0347
> hane...@rcn.com 
>  
> From: tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:44 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: tston...@comcast.net 
> Subject: RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage
>  
> To my knowledge that is not an inspection item per NFPA 25. You can ask the 
> owner after you have performed an NFP

Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

All the listed flexible drop installation hardware restrain the sprinkler, but 
not necessarily to the ceiling. Some have gripping hardware supported by 
threaded rod “from the structure above". The gripping hardware is useful when 
the architect has some new fangled, odd ceiling design that does not work with 
the ceiling mounted flexible drop hardware. But the rod length is limited. It 
would be helpful to see added verbiage that opens the door for allowing 
miscellaneous steel to provide “structure” within that limited rod length. This 
needs to allow for something relatively easy for the sprinkler contractor to 
do, such as a judgment letter from the flexible drop manufacturer specific to 
the installation rather than a PE stamped design.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On May 29, 2020, at 11:56 AM, John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I will at the 2022 edition and see if we can add something.  Maybe in the 
> Annex.
> 
> 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   
>     
>    
>  
>   
> Help AFSA “Sound the Alarm” about sprinklers!
> 
> AFSA’s charitable partner the American Red Cross is educating millions 
> through its Home Fire Preparedness Campaign. Help us support the inclusion of 
> fire sprinklers in their messaging.  Donate today! 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:52 PM Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
>  > wrote:
> I'd agree with John for the very same reason he thinks (intent of the 
> requirement) no, but I'll bet there are AHJs out there that will read the 
> rulebook differently, citing no exception stated, and without concern for 
> intent, and say yes, you need to do it. And probably even some that agree 
> that the intent is met when using flex drops but since there is no stated 
> exception it is now enforcing the letter because that's the mandate, or even 
> merely a CYA.
> 
> 
> Ron Greenman
> 
> rongreen...@gmail.com 
> 
> 253.576.9700
> 
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner 
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:40 AM John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum 
>  > wrote:
> In my opinion, no.  The flexible drop assembly is anchored to the ceiling.  
> The point of this requirement is to keep the pendent sprinkler from moving 
> upwards during activation.  The flexible drop assembly accomplishes this 
> requirement.
> 
> 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   
>     
>    
>  
>   
> Help AFSA “Sound the Alarm” about sprinklers!
> 
> AFSA’s charitable partner the American Red Cross is educating millions 
> through its Home Fire Preparedness Campaign. Help us support the inclusion of 
> fire sprinklers in their messaging.  Donate today! 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:28 AM Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum 
>  > wrote:
> Is the hanger on the pipe supplying a flexible drop to a pendant sprinkler in 
> a ceiling still required to one that prevents upward movement?
> 
> Sections 9.2.3.4.4.1,9.2.3.5.2.2
> 
>  
> Thank you,
> 
>  
> Dewayne Martinez
> 
> Fire Protection Design Manager
> 
>  
> TOTAL Mechanical
> 
> Building Integrity
> 
> 
> W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
> Pewaukee, WI  53072
> 
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com 
> Ph:  262-522-7110
> 
> Cell: 414-406-5208
> 
> http://www.total-mechanical.com/  
> 
>
> 
> 
>  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 

Re: Dust Collection

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

On May 22, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:
> 
> . for the record a micron is about the thickness of a sheet of paper.  
> 

No way. Is not a micron a millionth of a meter? A meter is about 39 inches. 
That means an inch is slightly more than 25641 microns. I’ve got an unopened 
ream of printer paper here that is 2 1/8” thick and it consists of 500 sheets. 
Say it is 2” thick to make the numbers easier. So 1” is 250 sheets, not 25641 
sheets. A micron being the thickness of a sheet of paper is two orders of 
magnitude off the mark. You meant to say a micron is about one hundredth the 
thickness of a sheet of paper. A lot of microns can fit on the head of a pin.___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] Anybody hit this wall?

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

The elephant in the corner is the required containment if there is that 
building code requirement. How that is accomplished is a function of the fire 
protection application rate. There could be a pretty big oops going on.

> On Feb 17, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Understood.  I wasn’t sure if this was something that got dumped on you as it 
> seems that if the issue has the word “fire” in it, it is assumed to be a fire 
> protection issue.  Sometimes it’s hard to convince others who just don’t know 
> any better that we don’t design, specify or install fire places, fire trucks, 
> fire stops, fire doors, fire dampers, etc., etc.. 
>  
> A 3-hour fire separation requirement under these conditions, wow! 
>  
> Thanks for the kind words on that article.  It was fun to write but difficult 
> in trying to figure out how to jam so much information into a limited number 
> of words.  It was the tip of the iceberg so to speak when it comes to dealing 
> with special hazard conditions.
>  
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com  | www.jacobs.com 
> 
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>  
> From: Vince Sabolik  
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 1:32 PM
> To: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Anybody hit this wall?
>  
> Thanks, Craig -
> 
> First, I'm not going to consult here; I avoid consulting for a variety of 
> reasons. 
> I'm going to do this the old fashioned way and provide a design as specified 
> by the insurance underwriter.
> 
> However, to refresh my knowledge of the process I read your article from 
> Sprinkler Age,  June 2017 
> "Surround and Drown" before I went to the meeting. Thanks for a great read!
> 
> There is an underwriter available here, but the owner indicated that he was 
> told by the architect that
> he had to furnish the 3 hour wall described. I have seen this once, maybe 
> twice in a very long career, hence
> my curiosity of the rating requirement. 
> 
> Thank you for the article and response.
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/17/2020 1:09 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote:
> When dealing with separations and H occupancies, there are numerous factors 
> involved when determining separation requirements.  There is not a simple, 
> short yes or no to your question.  H4 typically doesn’t automatically require 
> a fire rated separation just because it’s an H occupancy.  
>  
> Per the Bldg/Fire codes, S-2 doesn’t require sprinklers, it’s assumed to be a 
> low hazard storage.  H4 is typically health hazards like toxics, highly 
> toxics, corrosives.  No ignitables under H-4, they’d be H2 or H3.  But you 
> could still have ignitables present, just under the Max. Allowable 
> quantities.  If you’re responsible for determining design criteria you should 
> get a chemical inventory.  Also, if the H4 occupancy is driven by corrosives, 
> there is a high likelihood that you could have plastic containers like totes 
> or drums.  Might be good to ask about that and if they plan to store any 
> containers in the H4 area as it could affect the sprinkler design criteria.  
>  
> If there’s an architect involved I’d ask them about the fire rating of the 
> separation wall especially if you have to penetrate it and fire stop your 
> penetrations.  
>  
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com 
> 
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  
>  On Behalf Of Vince 
> Sabolik via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 11:54 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: Vince Sabolik  
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anybody hit this wall?
>  
> Good morning Forum -
> 
> This is a new one on me. 
> 
> A building with two Use Groups, H4, S2 is separated by a wall and is fully 
> sprinklered
> per NFPA.
> 
> Does the separating wall need to be rated?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
> Strongsville, Ohio 44136 
> Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876 Cell 440 724-7601
> 
> Vince Sabolik
>  
> 
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged 
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, 
> copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended 
> recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting 
> it from your computer.
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> 11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
> Strongsville, Ohio 44136 
> Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876 Cell 440 724-7601
> 
> Vince Sabolik
> 
> 
> NOTICE - This communication may 

Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

If it were not a shell space and had the same design would you have used 3/4” 
outlets? How much of the future could the Standard reasonably expect to predict?

The bigger question is should a shell space design be favorable for sprinkler 
adaptation or should it be sacrificial. This question is sometimes answered in 
many ways. Some developers want to spend the least and their Architect client, 
if there is one, want the spending to go into the non shell space architecture. 
What the tenant has to do is not their concern if that aspect of the space sale 
is not of importance. Standard spray shell sprinklers spaced on 15 foot centers 
do not work well with a future 2 foot module ceiling packed with other devices. 
Who knows how the future HVAC distribution system wants to occupy the above 
ceiling cavity if the shell HVAC system is essentially non existent. 

Spring the shell space design question on the next opportunity to see if you 
get a firm answer. Sometimes the answer lies in knowing who might be doing the 
tenant work.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Esteemed members of the fire sprinkler community,
>  
> NFPA 13 (2016 Edition) section 8.15.20 is basically telling us to provide 
> bushed 1” outlets for sprinklers in shell spaces, right?
>  
> Section 23.4.4.8.1(9) tells us that friction loss can be excluded for the 
> fitting directly connected to a sprinkler.
>  
> In your opinion(s), is it the intent of the standard that you have to add the 
> friction loss for a tee into your hydraulic calculation if using bushings, 
> since the sprinkler is no longer directly connected to the tee? Or is it 
> acceptable to consider a tee with a bushing as one fitting for the purpose of 
> hydraulic calculations.
>  
> Kyle Montgomery
>  
> Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
> 21605 N. Central Ave.
> Phoenix, AZ 85024
> Direct: 623.580.7820
> Cell: 602.763.4736
> kmontgom...@aerofire.com 
>  
> ___
> 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: standpipe horizontal exit calculation question

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

Such construction is difficult to reconcile on the FP side when the design 
team, including the structural team, is told the structure between building A 
and building B is essentially a third structure and the two buildings are to be 
built such that one side can burn and fall away without affecting the other 
building.

> On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> This may be what you are looking for if you have horizontal exits.
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
>  
> 
>  
> Peter Schwab
> VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies
>  
> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
> 222 Capitol Court
> Ocoee, Fl 34761
>  
> Mobile: (407) 468-8248
> Direct: (407) 877-5570
> Fax: (407) 656-8026
>  
> www.waynefire.com 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you? 
>  
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  > On Behalf Of Steve 
> Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:38 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: Steve Leyton  >; Zachary Siegrist 
> mailto:zachary.siegr...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: RE: standpipe horizontal exit calculation question
>  
> The standard doesn’t really address this condition, but I think it’s 
> consistent with the intent and firefighting strategies that if you have to 
> add a 250 GPM allowance for a standpipe that’s only serving one side of a 
> 2-hour building separation, you would add it to the demand on the valve side 
> of the separation because that is where they’d be coming from.But 
> ultimately, it might be best to add it to whichever fire area would create 
> the highest demand.The standard informs that when a single structure is 
> divided into two or more “buildings” by such separations, you have to meet 
> all the demands if they are taken as separate buildings.   So if one area is 
> large enough to require three standpipes, then you’d need to prove 1,000 GPM 
> for that area and lower flows for the others.   
>  
> MY OPINION ONLY.
>  
> Steve Leyton
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Zachary 
> Siegrist via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:15 PM
> To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: Zachary Siegrist
> Subject: standpipe horizontal exit calculation question
>  
> In a building recognized as part of separate fire areas, the annex material 
> in NFPA 14 Section 7.10.1.1  states the the total supply 
> can be calculated based on the single bldg/ fire area requiring the greatest 
> number of standpipes.  In this scenario, the physical separation between fire 
> areas is functioning as a horizontal exit requiring a hose valves at the 
> horizontal exit.  One side of the wall meets the 100 ft. + 30 ft. hose stream 
> exemption while the other side does not.  The hose valves will be fed via an 
> independent vertical standpipe riser.
> Is this hose valve located at the horizontal exit calculated as part of the 
> area it is located in or calculated as part of the building it serves on the 
> opposite side of the horizontal exit?   I thought this was addressed 
> somewhere in 14 but I can't locate it.
>  
> Can anyone help me out this afternoon?
>  
> Zach
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> 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: Fire Pump NFPA 20

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

I think you guys are too literal when interpreting the original question 
because there has been no mention regarding the electrical controller when the 
pump is electric. Perhaps someone should also clarify that aspect. 

> On Jan 23, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> FM is acceptable in some cases depending on the AHJ.  Most accept an item if 
> it’s FM  Approved but I’ve run into those who did not.  They insisted on a UL 
> label. 
>  
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com  | www.jacobs.com 
> 
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:30 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Mike Hairfield 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire Pump NFPA 20
>  
> FM Global is acceptable also.
>  
> Mike
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  > on behalf of Parsley 
> Consulting via Sprinklerforum  >
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:26 PM
> To: Luis Perea via Sprinklerforum  >
> Cc: Parsley Consulting  >
> Subject: Re: Fire Pump NFPA 20
>  
> Per the 2019 edition of NFPA 20:
> 4.7.1* Fire pumps shall be dedicated to and listed for fire protection 
> service.
> The identical language was contained in the 2013 and 2016 editions.  
> 
> It would be a good idea to be familiar with the term "listed" as defined in 
> NFPA 20 [also 2019 edition]:
> 3.2.3* Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list published 
> by an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction 
> and concerned with evaluation of products or services, that maintains 
> periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or 
> periodic evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either the 
> equipment, material, or service meets approprite designated standards or has 
> been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose.
> So, it appears the short answer is "yes."
> 
> sincerely,
> Ken Wagoner, SET
> Parsley Consulting
> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> Escondido, California 92025
> Phone 760-745-6181
> Visit the website 
> 
> On 01/23/2020 9:55 AM, Luis Perea via Sprinklerforum wrote:
> Hi Everyone
> Does The Fire Pump needs to be UL to comply with NFPA 20?
>  
> Regards.
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged 
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, 
> copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended 
> recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting 
> it from your computer.
> ___
> 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: Storage Tank High Level Sensor

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

I am just curious regarding the conditions so here are some questions.

When you write “electronic water sensor”, do you mean a fully electronic sensor 
of some sort or is the sensor actually a float actuating a mechanical switch?

Are the low and high level sensors surrounded by a something to eliminate waves 
at the water surface?

Is the fill valve float controlled and is that float isolated from waves at the 
water surface?

Does the fill flow splash into the tank?

How many gallons is 12” of tank level at water level sensor heights?

Is the fill valve way oversized for the fill conditions such that it does not 
really have authority over the flow it passes when its seats are close to being 
closed? 
 
Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Jan 17, 2020, at 5:08 AM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I am dealing with an above ground, non-pressurized,  water storage tank (full 
> storage, not a break tank) that has a large visible float gauge on the 
> outside, an electronic low water sensor, and an electronic high water sensor.
>  
> The high and low water sensors are placed so near each other on the wall of 
> the tank that the altitude valve cannot reliably stop in between them (they 
> are separated by 12” on a 28’ water column). If the automatic fill valve is 
> set so that it always fills higher than the low water sensor – it frequently 
> over-fills and trips the high water sensor. If the fill valve is calibrated 
> so that it does not trip the high-water sensor, it frequently stops too soon 
> and does not fill enough to turn off the low water sensor. The valve 
> manufacturer has confirmed that this is the design accuracy of the valve – 
> nothing to be ‘fixed’ with it.
>  
> Also, the tank has an overfill discharge/dump pipe that is much larger than 
> the fill line (2” fill, 4” overflow) so if the refill valve were to jam open, 
> it would dump the water onto a parking lot (not great, but visible, and not 
> damaging to the tank).
>  
> QUESTION: Is it necessary to have the high-water sensor?
>  
> My first thought for a solution is to disable the high-water sensor and 
> calibrate the altitude valve so it always fills enough to satisfy the 
> low-water sensor, but not enough to overflow. That is a wide enough spread 
> that it can hit it reliably.
>  
> I can’t find anything in the code that says the high-water sensor is required 
> at all, but I wanted to run the idea by the forum. What do you think?
>  
> Thanks!!
>  
> Matt
> ___
> 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: Mech. Platform above ceiling

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

Use the standard that applies to a transition boundary between two different 
application densities. You are transitioning between the application above the 
mechanical platform to the zero application above the remaining ceiling cavity 
space. 

> On Sep 6, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Bobby via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have an office building with ceiling throughout, non combustible 
> construction. There is a closet that has no ceiling, walls don't go to deck, 
> and it has a ships ladder that leads to a 20x20 mechanical platform above the 
> ceiling, also of non combustible construction. This platform has 3'-0 knee 
> walls around it. 
> 
> How far past this platform is required to be sprinklered. Because of the open 
> ceiling stairs closet, does 8.15.23.3. truly apply - if not what does?
> 
> Thank you,
>  
> Bobby Gillett
> Seago Fire Protection
> 850-217-3899 Pensacola Area Office
> 
> 850-836-2288 Main Office  
> 850-836-2277 fax
> 
> ___
> 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: N 1.85 graph

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

But the flow axis for a N1.85 is not a logarithmic scale.

When plotting more than two points on an N1.85 graph you are essentially trying 
to eyeball a best fit to a 1.85 power water supply curve. If you are 
cook-booking, i.e. you don’t really know what this N1.85 is actually doing, 
then you might be better off looking at each normal looking 1.85 power water 
supply curves that fit each pair of static and residual numbers you have. That 
way you can get a much better feel of the water supply variance the data is 
theoretically showing. You will also be working with stuff that makes plain 
sense.

> On Aug 30, 2019, at 4:16 PM, David Blackwell via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> So you choose the moral of the story:  “procrastination pays” or “great minds 
> think alike”…
>  
>   ;-)
>  
> Respectfully,
>  
> David Blackwell
>  
> David Blackwell, P.E.
> Chief Engineer
> (803)896-9833
>  
> Office of State Fire Marshal
> 141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203
> http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/ 
> (803)896-9800
>  
> "Our firefighting starts with plan review..."
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 4:59 PM
> To: David Blackwell via Sprinklerforum 
> 
> Cc: Parsley Consulting 
> Subject: Re: N 1.85 graph
>  
> *** SCDLLR NOTICE ***
> 
> ·  This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
> deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
> ·  Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in e-mail 
> text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.
> 
> David, 
> 
> I'm delighted I waited to answer him.  You're entirely correct, and that is 
> exactly what I was going to say.
> 
> Have a great weekend my friend,
> Ken Wagoner, SET
> Parsley Consulting
> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> Escondido, California 92025
> Phone 760-745-6181
> Visit the website 
> On 08/30/2019 1:01 PM, David Blackwell via Sprinklerforum wrote:
>  
> Try this…from a quick Google of “logarithmic graph excel”:
> Decide which axis you would like to make logarithmic: a logarithmic graph 
> makes both axes logarithmic, while a semi-log graph makes only one of the 
> axes logarithmic.
> 
> Double-click that axis. Click on the "Scale" tab, then check the box 
> corresponding to "Logarithmic Scale." Your graph will now become 
> semi-logarithmic.
> 
>  
>  
>  
> Respectfully,
>  
> David Blackwell
>  
> David Blackwell, P.E.
> Chief Engineer
> (803)896-9833
>  
> Office of State Fire Marshal
> 141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203
> http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/ 
> (803)896-9800
>  
> "Our firefighting starts with plan review..."
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  
>  On Behalf Of Jerry 
> Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:43 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us 
> Subject: RE: N 1.85 graph
>  
> *** SCDLLR NOTICE ***
> 
> 
> ·  This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
> deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
> ·  Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in e-mail 
> text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.
> 
> I’d be curious to know if anyone knows how to build this in excel? I ‘ve 
> built the flow test but the graph is a regular curve.
>  
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

It is definitely a challenge to get down to the details for these systems to 
determine the implications for “supply its water from the automatic sprinkler 
system”. I don’t think the system nuts and bolts details are easily available 
online for inquiry. I have seen the installation and controls diagrams for such 
an existing system, which probably was tucked into the control cabinet or 
pasted to its access door. It had two water supply connections. One was for 
cold water and one was for hot water. 

These hot and cold supplies connected to electrically operated valves. The 
control panel switched the water supply between cold and hot as needed for the 
suppression mode and the wash down mode. In this part of the country connecting 
the cold supply to the automatic sprinkler system meant there are two possible 
water supply cross contamination avenues. One is the automatic sprinkler system 
crossing into the kitchen hot water system which may not have had an RPZ back 
flow preventer on its supply line. The other avenue is the wet chemical 
suppression agent somehow backing into the sprinkler system, thus requiring an 
RPZ back flow preventer between the sprinkler system and its water supply. 

New Zealand sounds like it may be sophisticated in its rules regarding these 
systems so that the question regarding supply from the automatic sprinkler 
system is not one that opens a can of worms.

Allan Seidel
St.Louis, MO

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Further to Nicky’s comments I would add that the systems installed as tail 
> end to fire sprinklers do not have the hood washing feature that the Captive 
> Air appear to have.
> Pressure reducing is needed in some cases.
>  
> Russell Gregory
> Christchurch; New Zealand
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Nicky Marshall via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, 16 August 2019 11:43 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Nicky Marshall; Travis Mack
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems
>  
> In New Zealand, we frequently connect them to a sprinkler system as the 
> installation of an approved ‘restaurant system’ permits sprinklers to be 
> omitted from ducts and hoods in our standard.
> We do not allow a cumulative demand.  Although our standard does not 
> explicitly state what you should do.
> When connected to a sprinkler system they are treated much like a ‘tail-end’ 
> pre-action or dry system.  Because sprinkler system compliance is dependent 
> on that system, they are connected with a supervised/monitored valve to warn 
> if closed and they also usually have a flow or operation switch on them that 
> indicates on a fire alarm panel.
> Our suppliers also do the calculations.
>  
>  
> Nicky Marshall <>
> Southern Regional Manager
> PROTECH DESIGN LIMITED
> Specialist Fire Protection Consultants
> Phone: +64 (0)3 579 5577 extn 1  Mobile: +64 (0)21 433 488  Email: 
> ni...@protechdesign.co.nz   Web 
> :www.protechdesign.co.nz
> Address:105A Alabama Rd, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201, NZ Skype for Business: 
> ni...@protechdesign.co.nz 
> 
> “I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. Then I 
> realised I was somebody” Lily Tomlin
>  
>>>  
>>> From: Sprinklerforum >> > On Behalf Of 
>>> Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>>> 
>>> Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G >> >; 'Bruce Verhei' >> >
>>> Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems
>>>  
>>> Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of 
>>> the water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.  
>>> We’ve seen these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for 
>>> domestic because I don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the 
>>> hood supplier will say it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they 
>>> won’t do anything to prove it will work.  They throw that all back to the 
>>> sprinkler guys.  Just been one of those days.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>>> 480-505-9271
>>> fax: 866-430-6107
>>> tm...@mfpdesign.com 
>>> www.mfpdesign.com 
>>> 

Re: Fire Alarms

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum]

The home base will be NFPA 72. Here is one important notion to remember. 
Throughout the NFPA 72 standard are common words that the average lay person 
would take for granted they already know what the words mean but in fact have 
very specific meanings in NFPA 72.  For example the word “alarm” is likely one 
of those words. Constantly reread those NFPA 72 word definitions as you digest 
the NFPA 72 sections. You will bump your nose less often.

> On Aug 13, 2019, at 4:32 AM, John Irwin via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I would guess some of you are pretty familiar with fire alarm code as well as 
> sprinkler code. Our fire alarm division falls under my purview and I really 
> don’t know the first thing about them. They certainly don’t seem to follow 
> the same reasoning we use when determining how we are going to protect a 
> building with sprinklers. The client base isn’t the same, the way they bid 
> and sell them isn’t the same. They seem to have less regard for what’s 
> actually required and more interest in what the bid plans show.
>  
> Are they like sprinklers insofar as … this book says fire alarm yes or no … 
> this book tells you what’s required … this book tells you how to design them… 
> etc ?
>  
> Can anyone recommend where or how I can get some basic knowledge of how 
> alarms should be done? Probably starting with 101, 72 and … 70? Design class 
> or code class? Does anyone have a fire alarm design class like AFSA and NFSA 
> do for sprinklers?
>  
>  
>  
> John Irwin
>  
> ___
> 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