Re: Distilled spirits

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Steve,
 

 
I lost out of a similar job over similar arguments. The exception is that this 
job also had barrels. A couple of points: there was an article in NFPA journal 
from 2018 that did address this. There is supposedly a DISCUS (Distilled 
Spirits Council of the United States) report that has some info on protecting 
this storage. I got booted because they liked what the other guy was saying 
better.  
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Mar 7, 2022 at 4:23 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  All: Picture a small batch, craft distilled spirits storage and distribution 
> facility with 23,500 sq. ft. of fixturized storage. Single and double row 
> pallet racks and also a fixture that is double row, with three levels of 
> tilted roller racking down near the floor. 40-55% alcohol in glass bottles by 
> the case; not sure if they have 1.75L sizes or if its 1L and 750ml 
> exclusively. A.5.6 says these are a flammable liquid and NOT specifically 
> addressed in the standard. By flash and boiling points, 80-proof distilled 
> spirits are a Class 1A flammable liquid, but I have read that the packaging 
> in glass bottles and small container size radically reduce the effective 
> hazard. (I have read passionate arguments against this theory as well.) I've 
> seen tech reports that describe cased spirits as Class 4 commodity. I've seen 
> a tech report that required bottled goods to be protected with the same 
> design criteria as if there were 500 gallon vats of alcohol in the array. I'm 
> looking  for opinions a
nd code citations - what is the appropriate commodity classification for 
distilled spirits in consumer packaging? 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: Joining black carbon steel with stainless steel piping

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 The last dielectric joint I saw was a 9” piece of CPVC
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Feb 28, 2022 at 11:22 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Craig, From literature I have, SS has an anodic index of approximately 0.60 
> V while plain CS has that of 0.85 V. If the environment in which the joint is 
> located is 'normal' or 'controlled', you shouldn't have a galvanic 
> compatibility issue. If the environment is considered 'harsh', the anodic 
> index delta must be smaller (approximately 0.15 V) in which case, some sort 
> of dielectric fitting/sacrificial anode would be needed for joint longevity. 
> As I am not an expert, I suggest reaching out to someone such as 
> www.corrosion-doctors.org for more assistance. Hope this helps, Ryan L. 
> Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns  &  McDonnell Senior Fire Protection Engineer O 
> 612-900-3755 \ M 763-688-4045 \ F 952-229-2923 rhin...@burnsmcd.com \ 
> burnsmcd.com 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500 \ Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 
> 55437 *Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX,  &  UT **NICET IV - Water-Based 
> Systems Layout -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
>   On Behalf Of Prahl, 
> Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:06 AM To: 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL  
>   Subject: Joining black carbon steel with stainless 
> steel piping I've got a engineer asking about the joining of grooved 
> stainless to grooved black carbon steel and if there needs to be a special 
> dielectric or similar type of assembly used to join the two? I've been 
> hunting on the interwebs and haven't found any type of special coupling or 
> should the connection be flanged? In all my years this is the first time this 
> subject has ever come up. Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire 
> Protection | craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacobs.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C2d6969ca91d4441ae22908d9fad44781%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637816612359587927%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ln%2Ffq9qqoz%2FALwILLnsYh4I62399EES0Jp16yw6U%2FvU%3D&reserved=0
>  1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 CONTACT BY: email or 
> MS TEAMS  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 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C2d6969ca91d4441ae22908d9fad44781%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637816612359587927%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=1HZ7rCOBMvIGnkxdF6EcTJYOIGN1cnyC8cQHktVKb4c%3D&reserved=0
>  ___ 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

Sprinkler in elevator pit.

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Obstructed vs Unobstructed Construction

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Scott, If you go to the definitions of Obstructed and Unobstructed 
construction, it talks about the construction type impeding the heat flow or 
water distribution. Apply that to your situation.
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Feb 16, 2022 at 12:53 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Hi all, I have a question for the group. I've got a storeroom, ceiling is 
> open to structure. The roof structure is solid wood joists, which are fully 
> insulated between each joist. We have installed standard spray upright 
> sprinklers with the deflectors approx 8-10 inches below the bottom of the 
> joist/insulation. In my mind, this is unobstructed construction, because per 
> "A.8.5.4.1 Batt insulation creates an effective thermal barrier and can be 
> considered the ceiling/roof deck when determining distances between deflector 
> and ceiling." Chapter 3 defines Obstructed Construction "Panel construction 
> and other construction where beams, trusses, or other members impede heat 
> flow or water distribution in a manner that materially affects the ability of 
> the sprinkler to control or suppress a fire". Now that I look at this again, 
> I'm thinking I am wrong and should be obstructed construction because 
> although the batt insulation creates a thermal barrier (similar to a smooth 
> ceiling) the struct
ure is still the same, so I would need to keep my upright sprinklers max 
6-inches below the bottom of structure? Would appreciate input from the group. 
Thanks, Scott Harvey, CET ___ 
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: infrared heaters

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 I would treat them as is they are a standard unit heater
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Feb 14, 2022 at 11:20 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  I have a question for the forumites regarding infrared heaters. We have a 
> project that have several infrared heaters located at the ceiling level 
> (flush with ceiling) in each bay of construction. Due to spacing and 
> hydraulics, we are approximately 1'-6" from the ceiling mounted heaters with 
> our concealed dry pendants. The HVAC contractor is swearing these will not 
> set off the sprinklers, since the heaters only heat people. I haven't found 
> much information online regarding this, and was wondering if anyone else has 
> come across this. Thanks again, Jamie Seidl 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
>
>  
 
 
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: NFPA 13, 1978 Table 2.2.1 (B)

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I have 1980 if you need that. There was a minor change between 1975 and 1980 
in the tabular data, but other than tat, they are the same.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Feb 8, 2022 at 8:56 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I'm in the middle of a whse renovation project study and the original design 
> used NFPA 231, it references 1978 NFPA 13, Table 2.2.1(B). Would anyone have 
> a copy of the 1978 NFPA 13 and could send me a snapshot of that Table? I've 
> looked on the NFPA site and they don't have versions available that far back. 
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, 
> South Carolina 29606 CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS 
>  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: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  The track, basketball and tennis courts themselves would be Light Hazard. For 
the climbing wall, take a look at the construction (and beware of concealed 
spaces). One of the things about Field Houses is that they can become multi-use 
facilities. You may want to take that into consideration.  
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Feb 7, 2022 at 8:45 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  NFPA does not define Field houses. Indoor Track, Basketball Courts, Tennis 
> Courts and Climbing Wall. The new building will be 37'-0 high to the peak of 
> a flat roof. Would it be safe to use Light Hazard Occupancy? Regards, G. Tim 
> Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician 
> Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - 
> Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638    
> tston...@comcast.net ___ 
> 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: Maker Space

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Matt,
  

  
I am in the process of getting details. This is at a university. The 3D 
printers are desktop. (My Alma Mater 3D printed a 25 ft boat, this won’t be 
happening here.). I don’t see a big concentration of combustibles.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jan 25, 2022 at 11:14 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Do you have any info on what exactly they will be doing? There is a "maker 
> space" at my kid's elementary school that could probably still work for light 
> hazard. Matt -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of 
> Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:10 AM To: 
> Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Cc: Fpdcdesign  
> mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com)>  Subject: Maker Space I 
> am working on a project where an existing building (Light Hazard) is being 
> converted to an Innovation Lab and Maker Space. I thinking that this is going 
> to need to be upgraded to Ordinary Hazard. Not sure at this time about 1 or 
> 2. What have others been doing with these spaces? Todd G Williams, PE Fire 
> Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT  860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  
> (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc)  860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054)  (tel:860-554-7054) 
> (fax)  860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (tel:860-608-4559) (cell) 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,e9j9Zu3wFOWyDZ9IzCr6jshun2ezZw4mVMOmpdkcJlyF9zL_uoifoJv0yI_rcnoanbkTtE8H66cRoYcKZqEAiLpAcEn0J5muAZyDm_wnPTUc6yhn4wGVLwPIjjVM&typo=1
>   ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
>  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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

Maker Space

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  I am working on a project where an existing building (Light Hazard) is being 
converted to an Innovation Lab and Maker Space. I thinking that this is going 
to need to be upgraded to Ordinary Hazard. Not sure at this time about 1 or 2. 
What have others been doing with these spaces?
 
 
 
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Food trucks inside a building

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  When I saw this, my knee-jerk reaction was EH2 for shielded fire. However, I 
was on a job site and had a 1:15 ride back to think about it.   
  

  
Most automobiles are enclosed and any fire started inside would be “shielded”. 
But a parking garage has been OH1 for a long time (although that may be 
reassessed). Also, the examples in NFPA 13 of shielded occupancies are very 
large (Modular houses). Where is the cut off between what OH1 would protect and 
EH2 be necessary? Who knows? A pick up truck has a lot less shielded space that 
an SUV. It is most likely a function of the size of the shielded area but how 
do you regulate that?
  

  
Most food trucks are little more than delivery vans with kitchens and a side 
window. If 6 regular delivery vans were parked there, how would you protect it? 
  
  

  
I would lean toward EH2 because of the combination of the shielded space and 
the kitchen inside.
  

  
To Ron’s point, there are a lot of other health and safety regulations 
(commercial kitchen without adequate ventilation, etc) that make this whole 
occupancy sketchy to begin with.   
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jan 13, 2022 at 10:08 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I'm working on a small project (approx. 7,200 sf) that is a noncombustible 
> structure used for parking operating food trucks indoors. The plan shows 6 
> trucks spread out near the perimeter with the middle of the building open for 
> pedestrian traffic (maybe tables?). Ordinary Group I hazard (parking garage) 
> seems very inadequate. Extra hazard group II (manufactured home assemblies) 
> seems a bit strong. Thoughts? Ed K 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Thread connection holding on one thread only

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 I wouldn’t think one is sufficient. Any motion due to pressure fluctuations 
could create a problem.   
  

  
That being said, I would sit across the street in a lawn chair with a couple of 
beers and watch the 200 psi test.   
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Jan 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I do not believe one is sufficient. I recall a project where the 
> specification limited the maximum number of exposed threads to 2 or 3. I'd 
> have to do some research to find the product/installation standard that was 
> referenced. Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE Coordinator, 
> Engineering and Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association  
> kh...@firesprinkler.org (mailto:kh...@firesprinkler.org)   214-349-5971 
> (tel:214-349-5971)  On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 2:16 AM Dan Arbel via 
> Sprinklerforum  <   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:  >  Dear Forum 
> Members  >   >  I have a case where 1.25" NPT pipe nipple was connected to 
> 1.25" BSP (as  >  per British standard) pipe.  >   >  Sprinkler System in 
> interstitial space.  >   >  There was only 2 threads engagement.  >   >  
> After about 15 years somebody touched the a pipe and the connection  >  
> disengaged.  >   >  I would appreciated the members opinion on the allegation 
> that even one  >  thread engagement is sufficient providing sufficient 
> strength.  >   >  Dan Arbel  >  Dan Arbel Risk Engineering Ltd  >  Mail:  
> d...@riskmanage.com (mailto:d...@riskmanage.com)   >  WEB SITE:  
> www.riskmanage.com (http://www.riskmanage.com)   >  Mobile:  +972-52-6611337 
> (tel:+972-52-6611337)   >  Tel:  +972-4-8243337 (tel:+972-4-8243337)   >  
> ___  >  Sprinklerforum mailing 
> list  >   Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   >   >   
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org  
>  >  ___ Sprinklerforum mailing 
> list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Airing of Grievances

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Steve, that stuff happens on the other coast, too. A few years ago I had 
someone come in at half the design price I quoted. I told the client I can’t 
come near that, so the other guy got it. A few months later, the low bidder 
called to hire me to get the plan through review. I told him I know what he 
took the job for and he can’t afford me.   
  

  
We have another guy out here, who may or may not be NICET certified, who bids 
on the spec jobs at shop drawing prices. He has a McDonalds PE (buy him 
breakfast at McDonalds and he will stamp your drawings) that will stamp them 
and everyone thinks they are getting PE specified plans. It has effectively 
killed making money in any small/medium sized spec jobs. The big stuff goes to 
the big name firms so guys like me are SOL.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Dec 28, 2021 at 2:45 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Since it's Festivus season, I thought I'd share this with the group. Our 
> firm is scaled and resourced as a consulting engineering business model and 
> not a "free-lance" drafting/design service. As such, we have direct and 
> overhead costs that push our fees to the limits of what contractors typically 
> budget for design, so the majority of our work is for architects and 
> developers. But there's a market for what we're doing and I know that our 
> fees are fair for the service we provide. Still, we have tried to sharpen the 
> pencil the past couple years because we've partnered with contractors on a 
> few design/build projects and I know that there's huge opportunity for us as 
> 3rd party designers working under the FP sub. So I was intrigued by a 
> proposal request that we got last week for a mixed use podium project in Los 
> Angeles where the contractor reached out and dangled this and another 
> project, the other one being a 20-story high-rise. To set the table, the 
> building is 6-stories over  two basement levels and about 165,000 GSF. It 
> will utilize steel pipe throughout as it's poured in place concrete with 
> cloud ceilings and no ceilings in the dwelling units. Three standpipe risers, 
> one of which is partial height so multiple SP and sprinkler calc's. It will 
> also require booster pump for which no designated room or space is shown on 
> the plans and one side of the building requires water curtains at balcony 
> openings that I assume are too close to the adjacent building or property 
> line, so another calc there plus the additional drafting and coordination. 
> And no two floors are typical to one another. Although it's still not rocket 
> science, there's some thinking involved and for those not familiar with 
> SoCal, wages in LA are probably in the top 5 nationwide and City of LA is a 
> wicked AHJ. So I'm guessing that the FP contract is probably worth between 
> $650-$700K. Oh, and of course they need this absolutely, positively ASAP. We 
> looked at every task, optimized the hours for repetitions in the floor plans 
> where we could, and crunched the numbers. Our proposed fee was 18¢/SF and I 
> thought that was fair. The client came back and said that he's got another 
> proposal for $5,000. Five. Thousand. Dollars. Now some of you may think I'm 
> the one with the wrong perspective but here's the thing: our industry 
> continues to basically give away its collective expertise and drag the value 
> of its own work down. No right-minded person would take this project at that 
> fee in this market and this contractor is going to get their ass handed to 
> them in both plan review and inspection, guaranteed. When I mentioned the 
> water curtains, the guy even said that there weren't any that he saw and he 
> didn't include any "extras". He doesn't have a flow test yet, doesn't have 
> the CAD backgrounds ready to send and isn't even familiar with the complete 
> set of work. On top of that, he's inclined to accept the $5K proposal but 
> wondered if I could cut my fee in half because he, "...would rather deal with 
> a firm like (ours)..." than a moonlighter. He actually seems like a pretty 
> nice guy, albeit one who's now stuck in a mud bog up to his waist and wearing 
> sunglasses at night. My primary hope for 2022 is that our country stops 
> fighting with itself. My second one is that Covid somehow gets out of the 
> way. But my third hope is that our industry wakes up to the fact that what we 
> do takes a certain amount of time and energy to learn what we know and that 
> underselling (or in some cases giving away) our intellectual property is 
> foolish and simply perpetuates the downward pressure on our market that's 
> applied by developers, contractors and architects who know that if they kick 
> far enough down the alley, they'll

Re: NFPA #30 Containment

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 This occupancy needs an FPE to determine criteria.  
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Dec 15, 2021 at 9:26 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  James, I'm curious what is your plan for sprinkler protection of these 
> materials? For many in the IB category water alone is virtually of no affect. 
> Especially when it comes to those classified as hydrocarbons. I do hope the 
> owner or someone provided you with SDS info on the materials. Craig Prahl | 
> Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |  craig.pr...@jacobs.com 
> (mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)  |  www.jacobs.com (http://www.jacobs.com)   
> 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://4)  CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS -Original 
> Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of James 
> Crawford via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 7:11 PM To:  
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: James Crawford  
> mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca)>  Subject: [EXTERNAL
] RE: NFPA #30 Containment Sorry !b  &  1C in 55 gallon metal drums Thank You 
James Crawford Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. Phone  604-888-0318 
(tel:604-888-0318)  Cel:  604-790-0938 (tel:604-790-0938)  Email  
jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca (mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca)  Web:  
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.phaserfire.ca__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!Qog8N_3kOpQb_QHO9MEITHFXIty3QD8SA6N_eb_RLNPumgsVoqpTvyL7ElJlm6SVwA$
  -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of James 
Crawford via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 4:09 PM To:  
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: James Crawford  
mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca)>  Subject: NFPA #30 
Containment Hope some can help, I seem to remember there was a time frame of 
the sprinkler demand plus largest container in order to figure out the amou
nt of containment requires for a flammable storage room, but cannot seem to 
find it. Can only find the 20 minutes for plastic containers. Can someone point 
me in the right direction. Thank You James Crawford Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. 
Phone  604-888-0318 (tel:604-888-0318)  Cel:  604-790-0938 (tel:604-790-0938)  
Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca 
(mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca)  Web:  
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.phaserfire.ca__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!Qog8N_3kOpQb_QHO9MEITHFXIty3QD8SA6N_eb_RLNPumgsVoqpTvyL7ElJlm6SVwA$
   
  ___ Sprinklerforum mailing 
list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!Qo
g8N_3kOpQb_QHO9MEITHFXIty3QD8SA6N_eb_RLNPumgsVoqpTvyL7ElIMjsYcdg$  
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!Qog8N_3kOpQb_QHO9MEITHFXIty3QD8SA6N_eb_RLNPumgsVoqpTvyL7ElIMjsYcdg$
   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 (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firespri
nkler.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

Obstructions below ESFR sprinklers

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I am working on a project with an ESFR system and we have some ductwork 
installed below it. The duct system is T shaped with 24” wide section 50 ft 
long and 30” wide section 12’-6” long protruding from the center of the 24”. 
The top of the duct is 3’-8” below the sprinkler deflector. Section 8.12 (2013 
edition) is kind of vague on obstruction distances below the ESFR sprinklers. 
Does anyone have any insight or experience that they would like to share on 
this? Thanks.
  
  
  
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Wood Frame structure question

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 Spacing of trusses?
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Dec 8, 2021 at 3:27 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Hi, I am working on the wood frame building with Flat roofs. Open Web Wood 
> trusses are the overhead structure, The roof Deck above is insulated. There 
> is going to be a suspended ACT ceiling system below. The combustible 
> interstitial space ranges from 4' to 5' high between roof deck and finished 
> ceiling. The floor in question is 4900 SF. Sprinklers listed for interstitial 
> spaces can't be used. The Open web joists members are in vertical position, 
> 2x6 top and bottom cord with 2x4 braces, vertical and angled. The 18" tall 
> joists do not have big openings in them. (I have cuts sheets I can share with 
> you). I would like to think I can treat them as obstructed construction. That 
> would allow for heads installed 1"-6" below bottom of joist. Your thoughts 
> would help. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level 
> III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting 
> Services  117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct (x-apple-data-detectors://3).,  VT. 
> 05452 (x-appl
e-data-detectors://4/0)  CELL:  (802) 373-0638 (tel:(802)%20373-0638)   
   tston...@comcast.net 
(mailto:tston...@comcast.net)  ___ 
Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto: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: going paperless

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Are the fitters using the iPads to just to mark ups or for actually doing the 
install? I have been using Foxit on my iPad for surveys for 5+ years. It is far 
from perfect but is not bad. I mark up the plan using an Apple Pencil. I load, 
backup and store in Dropbox. From there I will copy into the job file on my 
design PC.  
 

 
Programs like Bluebeam are great for sharing and interacting with other project 
partners, assuming they are using the same software. That is always worth 
checking before making an investment.  
 

 

 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Nov 17, 2021 at 5:17 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Ok hopefully this is allowed, if not I apologize. So our company is in 
> the process of going paperless and we are trying to find software (compatible 
> with iPads) where we can share files/plans between the office staff and our 
> fitters. We would like to have them be able to edit the files or mark up 
> plans. We have tried to reach out to plan grid but they have been 
> unresponsive... any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated Thank 
> you! Rocci Cetani III, CET Senior Designer Water-Based Fire Protections 
> Systems Layout, Nicet Level III Northern California Fire Protection Services 
> Inc.  16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A Morgan Hill, CA 95037 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://6/0)  P-(408)  776-1580 EXT.1010 
> (tel:776-1580;1010)  F-(408)  776-1590 (tel:776-1590)   roc...@norcalfire.com 
> (mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com)   
> www.norcalfire.com (http://www.norcalfire.com)  
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may 
contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is 
intended only for the use of individual or entity named above. If you are not 
the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please 
immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents. 
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto: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: 13R Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential Occupancies

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 Is there a Code information sheet from the architect? Check to see what 
allowances have been taken.  
 

 
Is the separation enough for this to be treated as two buildings or is it a 
single building?
 

 
My gut answer says no to 13R but the differences in construction could make a 
difference.  
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Nov 9, 2021 at 3:42 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Am I reading the Scope of 13R correctly? I am designing a Sprinkler system 
> for a building which is five stories in height. Each floor is about 5,500 SF. 
> The Ground floor is a parking garage of concrete  &  steel (Type 1a 
> construction) with 4 stories of Residential above which constructed of wood 
> (Type 3B Construction). The parking garage shall be protected by a Dry Pipe 
> System designed in accordance with NFPA 13. There is a 2 hour Occupancy 
> Separation between Garage  &  The Second Floor. The Second thru Fifth levels 
> are to be protected by a NFPA 13R Sprinkler System. The overall building 
> height measures less than 60' above grade. NFPA 13R Scope: states this 
> standard shall cover  "residential occupancies up to and including four 
> stories in height in buildings not exceeding 60 ft. in height above grade 
> plane." Due to the phrase "in Buildings" am I interpreting this correctly? 
> Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III 
> Engineering Technician Fire Protectio
n Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services  117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct 
(x-apple-data-detectors://3).,  VT. 05452 (x-apple-data-detectors://4/0)  CELL: 
 (802) 373-0638 (tel:(802)%20373-0638)  TEL:  (802) 434-2968 
(tel:(802)%20434-2968)      tston...@comcast.net 
(mailto:tston...@comcast.net)  ___ 
Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto: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

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Making clients trapeze branch lines is a good way to piss them off.
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Nov 8, 2021 at 11:22 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Thanks John. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc.  bvssytemsinc.com 
> (http://bvssytemsinc.com)  -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of  321 
> via Sprinklerforum (x-apple-data-detectors://7)  Sent: Monday, November 08, 
> 2021 11:16 AM To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: 321  
> mailto:tcf...@bellsouth.net)>; Brian Harris  
> mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com)>  Subject: Re: 
> Best Common Practices I recall from almost 50 years ago it was in our old 
> "Automatic Sprinkler Corp" Design Manual. It was originally set up that way 
> to eliminate "Trapeze" Hangers but it usually cut down on the number of 
> Branch Lines. The idea being that from a labor point of view you were 
> reducing the number of trips across the building. As Hydraulic Calculations 
> became more of a factor 
in our design, sometimes we could save a pipe size in the lines by using more 
lines...especially in a Grid. I don't think its written anywhere in the 
standards that I recall. John W. Farabee  561-707-5150 (tel:561-707-5150)  On 
Monday, November 8, 2021, 10:21:43 AM EST, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum  
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  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 (http://bvssystemsinc.com)  Phone: 
 704.896.9989 (tel:704.896.9989)  Fax:  704.896.1935 (tel:704.896.1935)  
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   http://lists.firesprink
ler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org  
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org  
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto: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: Display vs. storage

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 I think I have posted on this in the past. “Mercantile” is too broad a term 
for today’s environment and does not reflect what is going on. You almost need 
to have a Mercantile 1, Mercantile 2 and Mercantile 3 to adjust for different 
hazards
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Oct 28, 2021 at 1:48 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Here's a discussion topic: Today's Retail Environment As "stores" morph into 
> "boxes", we are seeing more and more "industrial" displays, with unadorned 
> shelving and in some cases rack fixtures (I'm thinking PetSmart among others) 
> where merchandise is displayed for sale within reach of customers on the 
> floor, but also where backstock is kept above those levels, sometimes driving 
> up the interpreted "height of storage" to the point where the question arises 
> as to whether this is still OH2 mercantile use or if we've pushed into 
> Chapters 14-17. PetSmart uses racking, Bed Bath  &  Beyond is one of many who 
> use wide gondolas, Party City is just a box full o' plastic... there are 
> seemingly endless permutations of "retail" and of course we now have §20.3 as 
> an option where it applies. But what about stores on the lower end of the 
> occupancy hazard class where it may or may not be so cut and dried? Discount 
> shoe stores, loaded with synthetics for sure, but if they display shoes in 
> boxes on shelves to 8'-0" or 10'-0" in only part of the store, does this 
> retail store (that doesn't have a stockroom and keeps all its merch on the 
> sales floor) really represent a "storage" use? What triggers the post is a 
> Burlington store in SoCal where the fire authority has requested a technical 
> report to justify keeping an older OH 2 or 3 system in place in lieu of 
> upgrading to protect "storage of plastics to 8'-0" AFF". There are just a few 
> shelving fixtures in this 40,000+ sq. ft. store that hold merch up to that 
> level and not all of it will be synthetics. It begs the question: When does 
> retail display become storage when it's not exclusively representative of the 
> use? Does a row of comforters at 7'-0" in the bedding section require 
> specific address? Or the closeout wall in the shoe department? It's much 
> easier when the entire store is typically fixturized (back to PetSmart) to 
> say, "storage" but what if it's mostly on floor and low fixtures? For new 
> builds it's easier because we can use EC-25 options, higher densities, 
> whatever but the impact to existing stores is potentially significant and 
> intrusive. I'm not saying we should look the other way because of concerns 
> over cost or convenience but these are often last-minute catches on 
> inspection and schedules can get vaporized in an instant. I've proposed a 
> double-density approach in the past for uses like self-storage and §20.3 
> suggests that's a sound approach, but what in retail stores that may only 
> have a handful of locations where this is even an issue? I'm curious as to 
> whether there are regional best practices that have been undertaken or 
> whether there's been any additional work done by consultants or industry to 
> help establish a lucid benchmark for when a "store" crosses the line with 
> regard to occupancy hazard class. Steve Leyton, President Protection Design 
> and Consulting T |  619.255.8964 x 102 (tel:619.255.8964;102)  |  
> www.protectiondesign.com 
> (http://www.protectiondesign.com)   2851 
> Camino Del Rio South | Suite 210 | San Diego, CA 92108 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://6)  Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | 
> Planning | Training ___ 
> Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Attic Piping

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I typically use option 2. Sometimes the framing at the peak can be a little 
funky and it is easier to adjust a smaller line. Also, I will put 1” outlets on 
any welded pipe for attic sprinklers, in case sprigs become necessary.   
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Oct 27, 2021 at 7:04 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Seems were seeing more and more wood framed buildings these days and with 
> that comes attics. Just curious what the general school of thought is with 
> running piping in these spaces. Is it better to run the Main high under the 
> ridges with back to back heads (size permitting) or is it better run Mains 
> low and then run smaller Mains up the slope feeding branches at the ridges? 
> I'm working on a job now that kinda resembles a long rectangle with no center 
> (courtyards). I have all the heads laid out with B/B at the ridges, some AP's 
> in the corners  &  throughout as needed. Just looking for ideas from some of 
> you with much more attic experience than I have. Brian Harris, CET BVS 
> Systems Inc. Design Manager  bvssystemsinc.com 
> (http://bvssystemsinc.com)  Phone:  704.896.9989 
> (tel:704.896.9989)  Fax:  704.896.1935 (tel:704.896.1935)  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Gridded dry system

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Look up the definition of a gridded and looped systems in 13. See what fits
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Oct 26, 2021 at 1:32 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Is this sprinkler system a gridded system? I've avoided this type of design 
> in the past for dry systems because it 'kinda' a grid, but not really. Now 
> I'm questioning my questioning. What are your thoughts? Reference NFPA 13 
> (2019) sections 8.2.3.10 and 3.3.206.5.  
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/u2hw3cbvlga4fcq/Dry%20Attic%20System.pdf?dl=0  Ed 
> Kramer ___ Sprinklerforum mailing 
> list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Foam Insulation Spraying

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 What jumps out to me is the spray foam insulation. I’m not sure that the 
requirements for a typical paint spray booth would be applicable. Two very 
different products. I would look for any research or testing done on that 
specific product. Also the MSDS for it as a liquid and a cured product would be 
helpful.   
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Oct 12, 2021 at 5:21 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Does anyone have advice as to how one would calculate a "spray booth" for 
> spraying foam insulation that is approximately 90' tall X 25' diameter with 
> five levels of working platforms? Typically, when I have done paint booths 
> for vehicles (even as large as fire trucks) I have calculated the system as a 
> deluge system because of concerns regarding flames in a vapor cloud opening 
> heads throughout the booth. In this case, there will likely be 8 - 10 
> sprinklers at each level of the working platforms plus 20 sprinklers at the 
> roof (due to structural obstructions). This totals 60 - 70 sprinklers flowing 
> at Extra Hazard Group 2 densities if the system is treated as a deluge system 
> for hydraulic calculation purposes. NFPA 33:9.6.3 (also NFPA 13:26.4.1.4) 
> "The water supply shall be sufficient to supply all sprinklers likely to open 
> in any one fire incident without depleting the available water for use in 
> hose streams." I am wondering about the likelihood of sprinklers at the roof 
> operating simultaneously with multiple levels of sprinklers below the 
> operating platforms. Or, as the Annex to NFPA 33:9.6.3 puts it, what is a 
> "credible fire scenario" for a spray booth such as this? Is it a reasonable 
> assumption that sprinklers installed 15' AFF will operate while the flame 
> front continues to open sprinklers at different elevations up to and 
> including the roof level at approximately 90' AFF? Conversely, is it 
> reasonable to make the assumption that a fire will not open all of the 
> sprinklers? If I had an unlimited water supply I would simply calculate the 
> system as a deluge system. If I had an unlimited budget, I would make each 
> level a separate deluge system with flame detectors at each level. 
> Unfortunately, we do not operate with unlimited water supplies and unlimited 
> budgets. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. David L. Miller, P.E. 
> Engineered Fire Protection, LLC  11920 Richcroft Avenue 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://2/2)   Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70814 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://3/0)   225-273-5040 (tel:225-273-5040)  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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

Break Tank

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  I have never designed a system with a break tank, however I am working on one 
project where this may be a viable option. Is there any good information one 
designing a system with one of these?
 
 
 
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Partial height walls in OH occupancies.

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I am working on the renovation of an upscale bridal store where there a 
several partial height walls being installed. The spaces created by the walls 
are semi-private consulting areas. The top of the walls is 1’-10” below the 
ceiling. The existing concealed sprinklers are spaced at roughly 10 ft x 10 ft. 
  
  

  
NFPA 13 (2016) section 8.6.5.2.2 only addresses Light Hazard occupancies. Since 
the store is Ordinary Hazard 2, that section is not applicable. What is? I was 
looking at A.8.6.5.3.3 but that may be stretching it. Thoughts?
  
  
  
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Definitions

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  The Handbook commentary should be helpful.
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Sep 9, 2021 at 5:29 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Chapter 12 adjacent hazards or design methods, What is meant by "Barrier or 
> Partition Capable." ? (12.3) Is a Draft Curtain as referred to in Chapter 8 
> and 12.1.1 acceptable? I ask this because I would like to separate Tire 
> Storage from the Tire Service Installation area of same building. Thank you 
> in advance. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level 
> III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting 
> Services  117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct (x-apple-data-detectors://7).,  VT. 
> 05452 (x-apple-data-detectors://8/0)  CELL:  (802) 373-0638 
> (tel:(802)%20373-0638)  TEL:  (802) 434-2968 (tel:(802)%20434-2968)   
>    tston...@comcast.net 
> (mailto:tston...@comcast.net)  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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

Pool maintenance area

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  I am working on a project with a therapy pool that is recessed into the floor 
with its own pit. There is a service area (stand up height) in the pit adjacent 
to the pool for maintenance. The walls, ceiling and floor are concrete and the 
pool enclosure is metal. Sprinklers in the service area or no? There is no good 
way to feed them
 
 
 
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Sprinklers in stairways

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Is there any combustible construction within the stairway?
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Jun 24, 2021 at 6:17 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  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 (tel:(734)%20454-1350) 
>  ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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

Corridor issue

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I am doing a renovation of the main corridors in a multi-building complex. 
Standard response sprinklers for any new sprinklers to match the existing to 
remain. Hydraulic calculations are required. There are 2 section of corridor, 
about 35 ft each, that are 16 ft wide and will need two rows of sprinklers. 
Each section has 6 sprinklers as opposed to 3 if the space was 15 ft or less. 
These encompasses 70 ft out of the total 760 ft of corridor being renovated.   
  

  
NFPA 13 (2016) gives design criteria for corridors with a single row of 
sprinklers. However, these two areas have 2 rows, so the calculations would now 
have to be the full 1500 square feet. That does seem like overkill.   
  

  
Has anyone run into this before? How did they/would they handle it?
  

  
I have my recommendation, based on “engineering judgement” (which I will post 
later), but I want to see what others have done.
  
  
  
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Fire Pump intake pipe screen

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 James,
  

  
I’m sure what Craig sent you was pretty thorough, but the Hydraulic Institute 
Standards has a lot of detail on suction pit design.   
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Jun 2, 2021 at 5:06 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  We are working on a project where the water supply is a man made pond, the 
> pond has a 12" pipe that brings the water to the cistern that the vertical 
> turbine pump draws the water from. We are not providing the pond, cistern or 
> supply pipe but mentioned that NFPA #20 requires screening on the intake pipe 
> to keep debris out of the cistern, and we provided the information from NFPA 
> #20 on the size of the openings and the future cleaning requirements to the 
> civil engineer that is looking after this part of the project. The question 
> he brought up was what is this to look like and I was not able to provide any 
> information as most of these type of pump installs have had an underground 
> tank as the water supply. Does anyone out there have any details they could 
> share on the screens required. Thanks in advance. Thank You James Crawford 
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. Phone  604-888-0318 (tel:604-888-0318)  Cel:  
> 604-790-0938 (tel:604-790-0938)  Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca 
> (mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca)  Web:  
> www.phaserfire.ca (http://www.phaserfire.ca)  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: 13 / 13R IN SAME BUILDING?

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Look under “Scope” in NFPA 13R, both the main part and the appendix.   
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 11, 2021 at 9:33 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I have a fire station retro-fit project in Michigan. The A/E has specified 
> NFPA 13 design for the entire facility and 13R design for only the second 
> floor of the 2-story section which is a sleeping area. This 2-story section 
> is wood frame construction with attic space. The A/E is using the 13R design 
> to avoid requiring sprinklers in the attic space (which would require a 
> dry-pipe system). I believe this is wrong but am having trouble finding code 
> reference to make my case. To phrase this another way, is it acceptable to 
> classify a part of the system as 13R? Any input is appreciated. Thanks Bill 
> Menster WFM Consulting ___ 
> Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Commodity Classification

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Checked the MSDS?
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 6, 2021 at 1:38 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Todd, Owner has indicated all liquid pharmaceuticals are noncombustible. 
> Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III 
> Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting 
> Services  117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct (x-apple-data-detectors://7).,  VT. 
> 05452 (x-apple-data-detectors://8/0)  CELL:  (802) 373-0638 
> (tel:(802)%20373-0638)  TEL:  (802) 434-2968 (tel:(802)%20434-2968)   
> tston...@comcast.net (mailto:tston...@comcast.net)  -Original 
> Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of 
> Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:32 AM To: 
> Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Cc: Fpdcdesign  
> mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com)>  Subject: Re: Commodity 
> Classification Tim, I think this is one of those issues that is going to 
> require engineering judgement and should probably be made by a PE. My first 
> question would be ‘they may be nonflammable , but are they noncombustible?’ 
> See NFPA 30 for the definitions. Next I would look at the specifics of the 
> packaging and try to figure the impact of the PET containers over other 
> types. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT  
> 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc)  860-554-7054 
> (tel:860-554-7054)  (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)  860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559) 
>  (tel:860-608-4559) (cell)  >   >  On May 6, 2021 at 10:21 AM,   via Sprinklerforum (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:  
> >   >   >   >  Warehouse Product Storage: Client is storing nonflammable 
> liquids, pharmaceuticals in 1 Liter PET plastic containers, (Class 1 
> Commodity), in Cardboard boxes on wood pallets. Loads are nonencapsulated and 
> stored on racks. I am looking at Class 2 Commodity. It only lists "Liquids; 
> pharmaceuticals (nonflammable); glass bottles or jars; cartoned" The class 1 
> product stored in cardboard boxes on pallets seems to fall into Class 2 
> definition but Class 2 does not address nonflammable liquid in 1 liter PET 
> containers. I could use some assistance please. Thank you. Regards, G. Tim 
> Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician 
> Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services  117 Old Stage Rd. - 
> Essex Jct (x-apple-data-detectors://23)  (x-apple-data-detectors://7)., VT. 
> 05452 (x-apple-data-detectors://8/0) CELL:  (802) 373-0638 
> (tel:(802)%20373-0638)  (tel:(802)%20373-0638) TEL:  (802) 434-2968 
> (tel:(802)%20434-2968)  (tel:(802)%20434-2968)  <mailto:tston...@comcast.net> 
>   tston...@comcast.net (mailto:tston...@comcast.net)  
> (mailto:tston...@comcast.net) ___ 
> Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  
> (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org  
>  >   >  ___ Sprinklerforum 
> mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Commodity Classification

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Tim,
  

  
I think this is one of those issues that is going to require engineering 
judgement and should probably be made by a PE. My first question would be ‘they 
may be nonflammable , but are they noncombustible?’ See NFPA 30 for the 
definitions. Next I would look at the specifics of the packaging and try to 
figure the impact of the PET containers over other types.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 6, 2021 at 10:21 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Warehouse Product Storage: Client is storing nonflammable liquids, 
> pharmaceuticals in 1 Liter PET plastic containers, (Class 1 Commodity), in 
> Cardboard boxes on wood pallets. Loads are nonencapsulated and stored on 
> racks. I am looking at Class 2 Commodity. It only lists "Liquids; 
> pharmaceuticals (nonflammable); glass bottles or jars; cartoned" The class 1 
> product stored in cardboard boxes on pallets seems to fall into Class 2 
> definition but Class 2 does not address nonflammable liquid in 1 liter PET 
> containers. I could use some assistance please. Thank you. Regards, G. Tim 
> Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician 
> Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services  117 Old Stage Rd. - 
> Essex Jct (x-apple-data-detectors://7).,  VT. 05452 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://8/0)  CELL:  (802) 373-0638 (tel:(802)%20373-0638)  
> TEL:  (802) 434-2968 (tel:(802)%20434-2968)      
> tston...@comcast.net (mailto:tston...@comcast.net)  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Exposed unexpanded Group A plastic storage

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Micah,
  

  
For you to even begin to apply that, they would have to be segregated storage 
racks no more than 12 ft high. If you are talking about just storing the 
plastics in the 25 ft racks but only to 12 ft high, that doesn’t work. See 
section 5.6.1.2 (2016 edition)
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Apr 29, 2021 at 10:38 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I have a warehouse that will store some exposed unexpanded Group A plastic 
> (sheet plastic in rolls). The rest of the storage will be Class III 
> commodities. All stored on racks. Building height is 35 ft and with racks up 
> to 25 ft. NFPA 13 - 17.2.1.3 states, "For storage of Group A plastics between 
> 5 ft and 12 ft in height, the installation requirements for extra hazard 
> systems shall apply." We have the ability in this case to stipulate that the 
> plastic storage be limited to 12 ft or less in height (I understand all of 
> the human behavior questions that arise about warehouse workers actually 
> abiding by this). My question is, does 17.2.1.3 give instruction only for 
> installation guidance (sprinkler spacing, obstructions, etc.) or does this 
> allow me to use AT LEAST extra hazard design criteria for protection of the 
> low-piled plastic? Specifically, if the plastic is limited to 12 ft, could 
> the rest of the warehouse be protected with a protection scheme adequate for 
> the Class III comm   odities and if that scheme exceeds the demands of extra 
> hazard densities, the plastic is considered protected? My gut is that the 
> section refers only to installation procedures and I am stuck with the 
> requirements of 17.2.1.4, 17.2.2, or 17.2.3 for design criteria even is the 
> plastic storage is limited to 12 ft. Thank you, Micah Davis Dynamic Fire 
> Designs, LLC ___ Sprinklerforum 
> mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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 test through flow meter

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 The question is now moot because they went and tested the pump by actually 
flowing water and it ran fine. The problem lies in the testing process and that 
is someone else’s headache.   
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Apr 19, 2021 at 5:05 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I bet if there was a partially closed gate, or a check, or a blockage; that 
> might cause it. Are they’re any good resources about testing a fire pump with 
> a flow meter where it feeds back into the suction piping? I have been given a 
> couple of tests with very screwy results. Thanks Todd G Williams, PE Fire 
> Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT  860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  
> (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc)  860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054)  (tel:860-554-7054) 
> (fax)  860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (tel:860-608-4559) (cell) 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Same size orifice in a room

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  How do you prove the designer did it to balance flow?
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Apr 19, 2021 at 2:31 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  I've had it come up in a review before. An AHJ was arguing with me that I 
> couldn't have a 5.6k sprinkler in an alcove and then EC sprinklers in the 
> corridor. Just ran into similar, but in a very large compartment for a 
> project I am reviewing. Technically, I believe the designer is using it to 
> balance the flow here, but I also think you can put the smaller orifice under 
> a soffit. If I recall, there was a picture in the annex that showed that 
> exact scenario of sprinklers in a high ceiling as ex cov and sprinklers in a 
> low soffit as ssp. I'm hoping to find for reference to help this project. 
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design  
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 (x-apple-data-detectors://6/0)   
> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 (tel:480-505-9271;700)  C:  480-272-2471 
> (tel:480-272-2471)   travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)   
> www.mfpdesign.com (http://www.mfpdesign.com)  Sen
d large files to us via:  
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
 
(https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign%3Chttps://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%3E)
  From: Sprinklerforum  mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of Matt 
Grise via Sprinklerforum Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 11:28 AM To:  
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: Matt Grise  mailto:m...@afpsprink.com)>  Subject: RE: Same size orifice in a room I 
don't think you are going to find that. You are not allowed to vary the 
k-factor along a branch line for the purposes of hydraulic balancing, but the 
heads do not all have to be the same. FM may recommend against it though - you 
might check data sheet 2-0 Matt -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum 
 mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>
  On Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 1:24 
PM To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
  Cc:  travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
(mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)  Subject: 
Same size orifice in a room I'm trying to locate the section in the standard 
about all sprinklers in a compartment to be
 same orifice. Can anyone help point me in that direction? My searching is not 
too productive today. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering 
Manager MFP Design  3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 
(x-apple-data-detectors://24/0)   480-505-9271 ext. 700 (tel:480-505-9271;700)  
C:  480-272-2471 (tel:480-272-2471)   travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
(mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)>
   
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com&c=E,1,BlHMjOaxmKSFT48qnXqVYsvIk7-uXHLtqAx_cNceEogjNceIIpXgusszAQlFBLcczQ89OUhWAiTACrOYUqwOYtMG4OIDfWHd1_kh9LnAOw,,&typo=1
 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com&c=E,1,BlHMjOaxmKSFT48qnXqVYsvIk7-uXHLtqAx_cNceEogjNceIIpXgusszAQlFBLcczQ89OUhWAiTACrOYUqwOYtMG4OIDfWHd1_kh9LnAOw,,&typo=1%3Chttps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com&c=E,1,BlHMjOaxmKSFT48qnXqVYsvIk7-uXHLtqAx_cNceEogjNceIIpXgusszAQlFBLcczQ89OUhWAiTACrOYUqwOYtMG4OIDfWHd1_kh9LnAOw,,&typo=1%3E%3Chttps:

Re: Same size orifice in a room

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 I’m not sure there is such a section. I’ve had extended sidewalls in parts of 
a room and regular pendants in the other.   
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Apr 19, 2021 at 2:24 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I'm trying to locate the section in the standard about all sprinklers in a 
> compartment to be same orifice. Can anyone help point me in that direction? 
> My searching is not too productive today. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, 
> COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design  3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://3/0)   480-505-9271 ext. 700 (tel:480-505-9271;700) 
>  C:  480-272-2471 (tel:480-272-2471)   travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)   
> www.mfpdesign.com (http://www.mfpdesign.com)  Send 
> large files to us via:  
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>  
> (https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign%3Chttps://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%3E)
>   ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
>  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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

Fire pump test through flow meter

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Are they’re any good resources about testing a fire pump with a flow meter 
where it feeds back into the suction piping? I have been given a couple of 
tests with very screwy results. Thanks
  
  
  
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: "Calculating" a Pipe Scheduled system for Backflow Retro

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 I have done a few of these. I am not sure about 2019, but 2016 main and 
appendix describe how to do this. You are pretty much in the right track
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Apr 13, 2021 at 6:51 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Any takers? Does anyone retrofit backflows onto pipe scheduled systems? On 
> Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 2:43 PM J H   (mailto:design.azfire...@gmail.com)>  wrote:  >  Hello All,  >  We're 
> retrofitting a double check into an existing pipe scheduled system.  >  In 
> looking at NFPA 13 (2019) edition 19.3.2.1 in order to do this we just  >  
> need a hydrant flow test and then subtract the friction losses of the  >  
> double check and the friction loss due to elevation of the highest  >  
> sprinkler from the flow test and make sure the leftover pressure is greater  
> >  than the value of 19.3.2.1. Is that correct?  >   >  JH  >   >  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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 Pressure Loss RPDA

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  OS&Y valves
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Apr 1, 2021 at 5:29 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  M400 or c400 Sent from my mobile device Please excuse spelling, grammar, and 
> auto correction. Mark Phillips Branch Manager Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, 
> Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections  832-101 Purser Drive 
> Raleigh NC 27603 (x-apple-data-detectors://6/0)  Phone:  919-779-4010 
> (tel:919-779-4010)  Fax :  919-779-4014 (tel:919-779-4014)  Cell :  
> 919-268-7587 (tel:919-268-7587)  Email :  philli...@pyebarkerfire.com 
> (mailto:philli...@pyebarkerfire.com)  Web :  www.pyebarkerfire.com 
> (http://www.pyebarkerfire.com)   From: 
> Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  on behalf of  321 
> via Sprinklerforum (x-apple-data-detectors://8)   
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Sent: Thursday, April 1, 
> 2021 5:26:26 PM To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Cc: 321  
mailto:tcf...@bellsouth.net)>  Subject: Fw: Best 
Pressure Loss RPDA [EXTERNAL] - Forwarded Message - From: 321  
mailto:tcf...@bellsouth.net)>To: Sprinklerforum  
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>Sent: Thursday, April 
1, 2021, 04:57:40 PM EDTSubject: Best Pressure Loss RPDA What is the lowest PSI 
loss RPDA Backflow that anyone has found in 6" and 4". I'm doing several jobs 
here in the Keys that I need to feed residential buildings and Ordinary GP 1 
situations. Per Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, all Backflows must be RPDAs 
and have Os&Y Gates. I like and have used the Derringer but they are almost up 
to 12 PSI loss at residential flow levels. Thanks in advance, John Farabee | 
Certified Lower Keys Plumbing and Fire | C:  561-707-5150 (tel:561-707-5150)  | 
F:  305-294-
2462 (tel:305-294-2462)  ___ 
Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org  
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto: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: Head or Not?

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 Also dimensions might help  
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Apr 1, 2021 at 9:31 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  In the absence of language about what that obstruction is, and what might be 
> below it, it seems clear the intent is to allow omission of protection below. 
> Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services Reliable Automatic Sprinkler 
> Co., Inc.  1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC 29657 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://1/1)  Tel:  864-843-5161 (tel:864-843-5161)  
> -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of Brian 
> Harris via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:20 AM To:  
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: Brian Harris  
> mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com)>  Subject: Head 
> or Not? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and 
> know the content is safe. NFPA-13 (2013) Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c) Woul
d a head be required under the soffit if the soffit is over a counter? Floor 
space is protected from heads at the deck. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. 
Design Manager  bvssystemsinc.com 
(http://bvssystemsinc.com)
  Phone:  704.896.9989 (tel:704.896.9989)  Fax:  704.896.1935 
(tel:704.896.1935)  ___ 
Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firespr
inkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7C4716126876ba4cb5f4d708d8f510edd6%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637528800662323066%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2BhasYOpQ%2BZeU9mFCAmWoT4JOa6zK0%2FNbCzKP8a3XyKU%3D&reserved=0
  ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto: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: leaving abandoned sprinkler piping in place

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  The goal is to make it not look like a sprinkler system. The one issue may 
come across is if the pipe is painted red. People may automatically look at 
that as active sprinkler. You may want to consider doing something (paint, 
stripe, etc) to make it contrast the actual sprinkler pipe.   
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Mar 17, 2021 at 10:25 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Thanks to all for the information. Things like this are precisely why AFSA 
> membership is well worth it. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET 
> Engineering Manager MFP Design  3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://6/0)   480-505-9271 ext. 700 (tel:480-505-9271;700) 
>  C:  480-272-2471 (tel:480-272-2471)   travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)   
> www.mfpdesign.com (http://www.mfpdesign.com)  Send 
> large files to us via:  
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>  
> (https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign%3Chttps://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%3E)
>   From: Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of John 
> Denhardt via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:21 AM To:  
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: John Denhardt  
> mailto:jdenha...@firesprinkler.org)>  Subject: 
> Re: leaving abandoned sprinkler piping in place NFPA 13 - 2019 29.2.2 Where 
> all or part of an inactive sprinkler system is abandoned in place, components 
> including sprinklers, hose valves and hoses, and alarm devices shall be 
> removed. 29.2.3 Control valves abandoned in place shall have the operating 
> mechanisms removed. 29.2.4 Sprinkler system piping and/or valves abandoned in 
> place shall be uniquely identified to differentiate them from active system 
> piping and valves. *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 (tel:301-343-1457)   214-349-5965 ext 121 
> (tel:214-349-5965;121)  w:  firesprinkler.org (http://firesprinkler.org)   
> 
>  
> (https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/%3Chttps://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org%3E)>
>
> 
>  
> (https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224%3Chttps://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224%3E)>
>
> 
>  
> (https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/%3Chttps://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-%3E)>
>
> 
>  
> (https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/%3Chttps://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg%3E)>
>   *Our members are at the heart of everything we do* *Expand your business 
> with ITM* Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM 
> Inspector Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a 
> blended learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top 
> industry leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now 
> enrolling for Spring 2021  
>  
> (https://www.firesprinkler.org/itm%3Chttps://www.fires

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

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  How can you isolate a check valve in a line that specifically excludes 
control valves?
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Mar 11, 2021 at 11:11 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Once NFPA 25 2022 edition is finalized, I would expect new/revised language 
> for hydrostatic testing criteria of fire department connections for ITM. NFPA 
> 13 - requires the fire department connection pass a hydrostatic test. 200 PSI 
> minimum with no drop in pressure or no visible leakage. NFPA 13 -2019 edition 
> states: 28.2.1.7 Piping between exterior fire department connection and the 
> check valve in the fire department inlet pipe shall be hydrostatically tested 
> in the same manner as the balance of the system. After repair or replacement 
> work affecting the fire department connection, the piping between the 
> exterior and the check valve in the fire department inlet pipe shall be 
> isolated and hydrostatically tested at 150 psi (10 bar). *The above is my 
> opinion and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance 
> with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This is provided with 
> the understanding that the AFSA assumes no liability for this opinion or 
> actions  taken on it and they are not to be considered the official position 
> of the **AFSA, and/or NFPA or its technical committees.**AFSA cannot provide 
> design or consulting engineering services, and this opinion should therefore 
> not be considered, nor relied upon, as such.* Thanks, John John August 
> Denhardt, PE *Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services* *American 
> Fire Sprinkler Association* m: p:  301-343-1457 (tel:301-343-1457)   
> 214-349-5965 ext 121 (tel:214-349-5965;121)  w:  firesprinkler.org 
> (http://firesprinkler.org)      
>    
>  
>     *Our members are at the 
> heart of everything we do* *Expand your business with ITM* Professionalize 
> the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector Development 
> Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended learning 
> environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry leaders. 
> Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for Spring 
> 2021  . On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:57 AM 
> Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum  <   
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:  >  I can't speak 
> for contractors, but one approach we've taken is to keep the  >  pressure 
> above the required minimum while visually verifying absence of  >  physical 
> leakage. In one situation the boundary of the test section  >  included an 
> existing closed gate valve. Yes, water leaked past the gate.  >  We told them 
> to run the test pump as needed to keep the pressure above the  >  minimum and 
> inspect the work (all visible) to make sure there are no leaks.  >   >  
> Applying that approach to what you described - if the ball drip is the  >  
> only thing leaking and the test pressure was never allowed to go below the  > 
>  minimum, I'd say it passed.  >   >  My thoughts, Scott  >   >  -Original 
> Message-  >  From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On  >  Behalf Of 
> John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum  >  Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 10:36 AM  
> >  To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   >  Cc: John Denhardt  
> mailto:jdenha...@firesprinkler.org)>   >  
> Subject: [External] Re: Does a remote free standing FDC require a valve  >  
> pit?  >   >  I would like to know how contractors are passing the required 
> initial and  >  the periodic NFPA 25 hydrostatic test of the free standing 
> FDC when an  >  automatic ball drip is installed in the underground piping?  
> >   >  Thanks,  >  John  >   >  John August Denhardt, PE  >  *Vice President, 
> Engineering and Technical Services*  >   >  *American Fire Sprinkler 
> Association*  >  m: p:  301-343-1457 (tel:301-343-1457)   >   214-349-5965 
> ext 121 (tel:214-349-5965;121)   >  w:  firesprinkler.org 
> (http://firesprinkler.org)   >   
>    >   
>    >   <   >   
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/   
> >   >   >      >   >  *Our 
> members are at the heart of everything we do*  >   >   >  *Ex

Re: Group III Aircraft Hangar

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 Who’s stamp goes on the drawing?
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Feb 20, 2021 at 8:17 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  While I agree it is not our “job” as NICET techs to classify the hazard, 
> that doesn’t exempt us from all responsibility. When the EOR classifies an 
> area as light hazard where they are storing group A plastics to 10’ doesn’t 
> mean that we just arbitrarily follow something we know is wrong. When the 
> architect and EOR misapply 13R when 13 is needed, we just don’t follow along 
> blindly. I have never seen a hangar as OH1 and it seems very light. Not 
> saying it couldn’t be OH1, but it doesn’t pass the sniff test on the first 
> pass for me. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager 
> MFP Design  3356 E Vallejo 
> Ct  Gilbert, AZ 
> 85298   480-505-9271 (tel:480-505-9271)  ext. 
> 700  C: 480-272-2471   
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)   
> www.mfpdesign.com (http://www.mfpdesign.com)  Send 
> large files to us via:  
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>  
> (https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign%3Chttps://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%3E)
>    From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  on behalf of Ron 
> Greenman via Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Sent: Friday, February 19, 
> 2021 5:14:02 PM To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Cc: Ron Greenman  
> mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com)>  Subject: Re: Group 
> III Aircraft Hangar I'm tempted to look at the actual hazard rather than what 
> the commodity is called. Airplane house/garage usually means hanger with the 
> associated hazards, but if you just have aluminium tubes with appendages...? 
> Presumably less activity than a typical warehouse, no combustible liquids 
> like in a parking garage and far less transients. Shielding of the floor by 
> the wings but private planes suggests A size aircraft so minimal, and what's 
> the likelihood of a hugely hazardous build-up of debris? I think they may be 
> right. I think it needs questioning but the final say is, as usual, the AHJ. 
> And the usual admonitions to CYA. Defining the hazard is not your call. From 
> SFPE/NSPE/NICET/ASCET/NCEES Joint Position on the Engineer and the 
> Engineering Technician Designing Fire Protection Systems4.2.1 Engineering 
> Documents The Engineer is responsible for the preparation of engineering 
> documents that establish the objectives and design criteria of the system(s). 
> "Identify occupancy type(s), areas to be protected (or omitted), and hazard 
> classification(s)" On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:21 PM Travis Mack via 
> Sprinklerforum  <   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:  >  I have been 
> informed that a design team has classified a Group III hangar  >  as an S-1 
> occupancy. As such, they have indicated this to be designed to  >  OH1. For 
> the life of me, I can't see an aircraft hangar being anything  >  less than 
> EH1. This hangar is about 60k sq ft.  >   >  Has anyone ever found a 
> situation to design an aircraft hangar to OH1.  >  This will only house 
> unfueled aircraft and no maintenance will be performed  >  in the hangars. 
> This it to house "personal" aircraft as I understand it.  >   >  What is the 
> collective thought on this?  >   >  Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET 
>  >  Engineering Manager  >  MFP Design  >   3356 E Vallejo Ct 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://22)   >   Gilbert, AZ 85298 
> (x-apple-data-detectors://23/0)   >   480-505-9271 ext. 700 
> (tel:480-505-9271;700)  C:  480-272-2471 (tel:480-272-2471)   >   
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)   >   
> www.mfpdesign.com (http://www.mfpdesign.com)   >   
> >  Send large files to us via:  
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> (https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign%3Chttps://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign%3E)
>>   >  ___  >  Sprinklerforum 
> mailing list  >   Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   > 

Re: Group III Aircraft Hangar

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 EH1 due in part to the aircraft being an obstruction to discharge.I didn’t 
pull out 409 to check on the specifics of Group III.   
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Feb 19, 2021 at 6:21 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I have been informed that a design team has classified a Group III hangar as 
> an S-1 occupancy. As such, they have indicated this to be designed to OH1. 
> For the life of me, I can't see an aircraft hangar being anything less than 
> EH1. This hangar is about 60k sq ft. Has anyone ever found a situation to 
> design an aircraft hangar to OH1. This will only house unfueled aircraft and 
> no maintenance will be performed in the hangars. This it to house "personal" 
> aircraft as I understand it. What is the collective thought on this? Travis 
> Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design  3356 E 
> Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 (x-apple-data-detectors://2/0)   480-505-9271 
> ext. 700 (tel:480-505-9271;700)  C:  480-272-2471 (tel:480-272-2471)   
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)   
> www.mfpdesign.com (http://www.mfpdesign.com)  Send large files to us via:  
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Activity

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  
>   
>  "George has a warehouse, that is storing nothing, how should he protect it?" 
>  
>   
>   
>   
  
  
  
 Is this a fire official’s definition of nothing or a building owner’s 
definition of nothing?   
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Feb 15, 2021 at 9:04 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   April 12th (x-apple-data-detectors://5)  from his FB page. To know him was 
> to love him. TD Thanks Ron. He is missed. I think we should bring back "Pick 
> on George Month". April I think his birthday was. Hopefully some remember.., 
> "George has a warehouse, that is storing nothing, how should he protect it?" 
> R/ Matt Seems like there's been a resurgence in activity in the list 
> recently. Makes me happy and I know it would have made George Church happy. 
> So in the spirit of George, or perhaps channeling George's spirit, if you are 
> an active participant or a lurker that finds value in this exchange and 
> you're a member, good on you for recognizing the wealth of good AFSA does for 
> you and for supporting the organization. If you're not a member then good on 
> you too for recognizing the value offered here and wanting to enhance your 
> knowledge and professionalism. And if not a member please consider joining 
> AFSA and also your local chapter. Thank you George. You're missed. 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Multiple System Calculation

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 My thoughts exactly, Mr Prahl.   
  
  
  

  

  
  
>   
> On Feb 11, 2021 at 3:46 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  If I have 4-heads of OH2 in a 500 sf space I have to calc it and size 
> everything as if I had a 1500 sf design area. Where’s the value? What greater 
> level of Life Safety is provided? You should only have to calculate the 
> actual area up to the prescribed area and not add some fictitious value, 
> “just because”. Maybe we should just design everything using ESFR sprinklers, 
> then you’d get all the flow you need. Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – 
> Fire Protection |  craig.pr...@jacobs.com 
> (mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)  |  
> www.jacobs.com (http://www.jacobs.com)   1041 East 
> Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 (x-apple-data-detectors://6)  
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS From:  travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)(mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)>  Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:22 
> PM To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org);  b...@firebyknight.com 
> (mailto:b...@firebyknight.com)  Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL   (mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)>  Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Multiple System 
> Calculation Tracey Bellamy, I believe, was the one to propose it. It had to 
> deal with a loading dock and then having to grab ESFR sprinklers in the 
> warehouse to get the 1950 sq ft if I recall correctly. I read the report a 
> couple years ago. I see where he was coming from. The intent was good. But, I 
> think there are a lot of unintended consequences from that section. Travis 
> Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design  3356 E 
> Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 (x-apple-data-detectors://15/0)   480-505-9271 
> ext. 700 (tel:480-505-9271;700)  C:  480-272-2471 (tel:480-272-2471)   
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)   
> www.mfpdesign.com 
> (http://www.mfpdesign.com)
>   Send large files to us via:  
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>  
> (https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign%3Chttps://urldefense.com/v3/__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__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!TvpoXWQR2VWz0zxhIEqEFsTPN06eLs2sEswTD03UHaGwK-R8wwW4QPVZv6OcFBfotw$%3E)
>   From: Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>
>   On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, February 
> 11, 2021 1:20 PM To:  b...@firebyknight.com 
> (mailto:b...@firebyknight.com);  
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
>   Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL   (mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)>  Subject: RE: 
> [EXTERNAL] RE: Multiple System Calculation This is something that really 
> needs to be looked at I future editions of NFPA 13. I know we've had this 
> discussion many times. I would love to hear how this came about. It offers no 
> benefit to an owner and only increases cost. Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group 
> Lead/SME – Fire Protection |  craig.pr...@jacobs.com 
> (mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)  |  
> www.jacobs.com (http://www.jacobs.com)   1041 East 
> Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 (x-apple-data-detectors://34)  
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum 
>   (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>
>   On Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, February 11, 
> 2021 2:24 PM To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
>   Cc: Bob Knight   (mailto:b...@firebyknight.com)>  Subject: 
> [EXTERNAL] RE: Multiple System Calculation Joe, The AHJ's interpretation 
> sou

Re: Fire Retardant Coating used in Combustible concealed spaces

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 Flame retardant coatings has to be installed according to strict guidelines 
and the thickness of the coating needs to be verified after installation. Tends 
to be expensive. Most projects I have worked on have junked that idea for that 
reason.  
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Feb 10, 2021 at 10:34 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Project is a 100 year old 6 story Steel  &  Concrete Hotel building. The 
> roof is steel framed with concrete above and the Sixth floor ceiling is 
> Plaster over metal lath. Over the years the building has been added onto with 
> wood framing above the Sixth floor ceilings. As Part of a major renovation 
> started in 2020, the installation of a complete NFPA 13 sprinkler system and 
> Standpipes is taking place. A few substantial combustible concealed spaces 
> have been discovered throughout the building on other floors too. If nothing 
> is done the sprinkler design areas would need to be increased to 3,000 SF as 
> outlined in Chapter 11.2.3.1.5. The sprinkler contractor and I have suggested 
> filling these spaces with noncombustible Insulation. The architect and 
> builder are discussing Flame Retardant Coating to be applied to the wood 
> framing in order meet the Non-Combustible and Limited Combustible concealed 
> space definition. In reviewing Chapter 11.2.3.1.5.2 I don't see where Flame 
> Retardant Coating
 is an option in order to reduce the  design area. I believe In order to reduce 
the Design areas these combustible spaces need to be filled with noncombustible 
Insulation. Would "Flame Retardant Coating" be considered an option as outlined 
in A.8.15.1.2.11 (commentary text) the equivalency provisions in Section 1.5? 
Thank you for your imput. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC 
NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and 
Consulting Services  117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct 
(x-apple-data-detectors://3).,  VT. 05452 (x-apple-data-detectors://4/0)  CELL: 
 (802) 373-0638 (tel:(802)%20373-0638)  TEL:  (802) 434-2968 
(tel:(802)%20434-2968)      tston...@comcast.net 
(mailto:tston...@comcast.net)  ___ 
Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f
iresprinkler.org  
>
>  
 
 
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing Dry System

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 What liability do you assume by removing an existing, operating sprinkler 
system?
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Feb 4, 2021 at 1:42 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  One approach that I have seen in a similar situation: If the are not 
> separated enough to classify as 'separated' (2 hr, I think?) then each area 
> must be protected according to the portion that requires the most protection 
> - so 13R for the lower area. Which would basically be 13 for the lower area, 
> since it is outside of the dwelling unit areas. Matt -Original 
> Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of 
> Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 12:19 PM 
> To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: Kyle.Montgomery  
> mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com)>; John O'Connor  
> mailto:jocon...@nfspk.com)>  Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: 
> Existing Dry System I think the OP is the AHJ. I just want to say that I 
> think it's cool that a plan reviewer/inspector would co
me here to get the industries opinion about something like that. We are all on 
the same team. Looks like Dane beat me to it, but I do think there is a fire 
separation required. Also, why someone would remove an existing fire sprinkler 
system? Is the maintenance becoming a problem? -Kyle M -Original 
Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of John 
O'Connor via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:44 AM To:  
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: John O'Connor  
mailto:jocon...@nfspk.com)>  Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 
Existing Dry System You may want to run this by the AHJ. His requirements will 
trump the architect's. John R. O'Connor, SET, RME National Fire Sprinklers, 
Inc.  2601 Elm Hill Pike, Suite J Nashville TN 37214 
(x-apple-data-detectors://10/1)  Office  615-885-1301 (tel:615-885-1301
)  Fax  615-885-7505 (tel:615-885-7505)  Cell  615-519-1118 (tel:615-519-1118)  
 jocon...@nfspk.com (mailto:jocon...@nfspk.com)  In God We Trust -Original 
Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of Thomas 
Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:19 AM To:  
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: Thomas Reinhardt  
mailto:thomas.reinha...@skokie.org)>  Subject: 
Existing Dry System Question for the group. I have an existing three story B 
occupancy with an open parking underneath. The only sprinklers is a dry system 
protecting the parking area only. The building is going to be converted to a R2 
occupancy. The whole residential area will be sprinklered with a 13R system. 
The architect informed me that he will remove the dry system from the parking 
area. I have reviewed op
en parking facilities before, and am aware that sprinklers are not 
required.(S-2). I say that the system must remain. I'm using the International 
Fire Code Chapter 9 section 901.4, which relates that fire protection systems 
shall be maintained. Any thoughts. Tom Reinhardt Skokie Fire Prevention Bureau 
Plan Review/Fire Inspector  7424 Niles Center Road Skokie Fire Department 
(x-apple-data-detectors://17/0)  Skokie, IL 60077  847-982-5342 
(tel:847-982-5342)   thomas.reinha...@skokie.org 
(mailto:thomas.reinha...@skokie.org)  
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3dZ_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A%
26m%3dKDx4qSNGFJHpv0Coku0i9pKpkxL0vEX70lpxsEIzWuo%26s%3dBCBEUlDzVl4D8GGgUkXKLHw4uRKJkuse7LZSCTmTMe4%26e%3d&c=E,1,IMrb7IMEJdMDhDBPW0QNCpGL_5qIIzm7VVb64fLGd6yRk869jtvPcd66G0YA8TFnldm_qU0H1DJVpYfGL2kGpzPVdOYkIU02j6c15mirpktMVMmVOBEHeR95kDWo&typo=1
  ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3dZ_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A%26m%3dKDx4qSNGFJHpv0Coku0i9pKpkxL0vEX70lpxsEIzWuo%26s%3dBCBEUlDzVl4D8GGgUkXKLHw4uRKJkuse7LZSCTmTMe4%26e%3d&c=E,1,vkrHjIvmLmqfJIpzvw0jRYEH07mqZMxKSWqVJScBliE7UPU8jpPcoUNGu3gcyqsLhQNmC4PVoEyksrr4eowMsDi1MCg69BBYFuXSyMFu1kWawxYXLKtpgJqETzQ,&typo=1
  __

Re: Pan-Type Construction

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Is this is what you are looking at?  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Feb 1, 2021 at 4:52 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Would anyone know what the maximum depth is allowed in concrete pan-type 
> construction? I have a job with exist. sprinklers installed along the bottom 
> of the stems with pendents. The AHJ is questioning whether sprinklers are 
> needed in each pocket. Pockets are around 6' square w/ 8" wide stems both 
> directions. ___ Sprinklerforum 
> mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Cut sheet

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 Tyco has all of that stuff on file
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Dec 19, 2020 at 6:26 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Anyone have a old cut sheet on a central SSP52? Have a fire marshal wanting 
> to know how far the deflector should protrude from the ceiling Thank you Sent 
> from my mobile device Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction. 
> Mark Phillips Branch Manager Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections 
> Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections  832-101 Purser Drive Raleigh NC 
> 27603 (x-apple-data-detectors://2/0)  Phone:  919-779-4010 (tel:919-779-4010) 
>  Fax :  919-779-4014 (tel:919-779-4014)  Cell :  919-268-7587 
> (tel:919-268-7587)  Email :  philli...@pyebarkerfire.com 
> (mailto:philli...@pyebarkerfire.com)  Web :  www.pyebarkerfire.com 
> (http://www.pyebarkerfire.com)  
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Sean,   
  
Doesn’t 12.7.2 address your example?
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Dec 11, 2020 at 9:46 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  My understanding is this was inserted into the code as a compromise between 
> Density/Area and Room Design so you aren't punished for not meeting all the 
> requirements of Room Design. For example, you have a building that is mostly 
> LH so it has a high total sq.ft. of the building, much more than required by 
> an LH calc. But you also have a small room that is EH2 within the building, 
> but it doesn't take up a full EH2 remote area worth of sq.ft. of the 
> building. Unfortunately the EH2 room for one reason or another doesn't meet 
> the requirements of Room Design method. So before this code was implemented, 
> you had to fun a full Density/Area EH2 calculation on a building that was 
> mostly LH to cover the small EH2 room which lead to a massively oversized 
> piping/riser setup because you would inevitably end up with lots of overflow. 
> This code made it so that you only needed to size the piping/riser for the 
> bare minimum flow of density x remote area size worth of flow for the high 
> hazard area. So you ended up at a middle ground between a Room Design and the 
> Density/Area method as written in the code. Now where this goes awry is the 
> situations that have been presented. You have a small dedicated system like a 
> Dry loading dock adjacent to another sprinkler system. Reading this code 
> literally you may be asked to oversize your dry system which seems 
> unnecessary. I think that is the unintended consequence that should probably 
> be addressed with the wording of the code section. For instance, maybe adding 
> an exception that says the calculation for adding additional flow is not 
> required if the sprinkler system size is smaller than the minimum remote area 
> requirements. Or if someone is concerned about those devious contractors out 
> there who will try to exploit the system by adding multiple unnecessary 
> risers just to take advantage of a "system size" exception because they don't 
> care about spending extra money...then have the added flow put at the base of 
> riser rather than the end of the  system for the "small system exception". 
> Thanks, Sean V -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of Scott 
> Futrell via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 2:35 PM To:  
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: Scott Futrell  
> mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com)>; Prahl, Craig/GVL  
> mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)>;  
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)  Subject: RE: 
> [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply? Many more 
> times than you may have heard about, Craig. For a variety of reasons, there 
> are more fires that exceed the full design area than you are told about. I 
> recently spent four days at a fire scene where part of a sprinklered, light 
> hazard building burned to the ground. That fire exceeded the design area. 
> Probably didn't make into the NFPA statistics either. The sprinklered 
> buildings that burn to the ground, that I see, are mostly storage, but not 
> all. Scott Office:  (763) 425-1001 (tel:(763)%20425-1001)  x2 Cell:  (612) 
> 759-5556 (tel:(612)%20759-5556)  -Original Message- From: 
> Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  On Behalf Of Prahl, 
> Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 2:14 PM To:  
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL  
> mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)>;  
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com)  Subject: RE: 
> [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply? If I had a 
> loading dock attached to and ESFR system, I'd calc the ESFR since it would be 
> the most hydraulically demanding. If a fire originated on the dock and 
> migrated inward to the building, involving a portion of the dock and the ESFR 
> system, you still should be fine from a water supply standpoint. How many 
> times have we heard of the full involvement of a design area in an actual 
> fire situation? Rarely. Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire 
> Protection |  864.676.5252 (tel:864.676.5252)  |  craig.pr...@jacobs.com 
> (mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)  |  
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobs.com&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg&m=0O-BiUibM_EbC3AqAzsGKYfZ3RG074Cx8Lsc5G2le4o&s=UgFDquuDw-AdetDjysKX9I

Re: Hersey BFP

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  
https://www.bavco.com/ref-manual-manufacturer.php?id=11&t=beeco-hersey-backflow-repair
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Dec 1, 2020 at 12:47 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Can anyone tell me where to find a pressure loss graph for a 6" Hersey #2 
> Backflow Preventer? Thanks much. Bill Menster 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto: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: Class IA Flammable Liquids

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 This needs to be reviewed and criteria specified by an FPE
 
 
 
   
 

 
 
>  
> On Nov 5, 2020 at 1:11 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  I'm confused about how to treat Class IA flammable liquids. We've got a 
> cosmetics manufacturer that is moving into a shell building. They are 
> planning a Hazardous Storage room to store the flammable liquids when not in 
> use. The liquids being stored are primarily Class IB solvents, but I'm being 
> told there is "some amount" of Class IA liquids (I think a relatively small 
> amount, but they haven't given me the quantities yet). I'm confused because 
> the protection criteria in NFPA 30 chapter 16 specifically notes that it 
> doesn't apply to Class IA liquids. If we design the fire protection for that 
> room for Class IB liquids, is there a certain maximum allowable quantity of 
> Class IA that they can store in there and still be considered protected? I 
> feel like there is an obvious answer here, but I must be looking right past 
> it. Thanks for the help. -Kyle M 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org (mailto:Sprinklerforu
m...@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: pharmacy

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 I tried to make an argument once that a jewelry store could be OH1 (rocks and 
metal in metal and glass cases) and got nowhere.   
  

  
  

  
  
>   
> On Oct 9, 2020 at 5:20 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Is there any world where a small pharmacy - say 1000 sq ft - could be 
> considered light hazard? The plans show racks for the storage of the meds / 
> pill bottles. Dealing with some issues on a pre-engineered job that the FPE 
> did it as LH. The problem compounds when the water supply is very marginal 
> and the jurisdiction does not all QR reduction for OH areas. Travis Mack, 
> CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design 3356 E Vallejo Ct 
> Gilbert, AZ 85298 NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700 NEW MOBILE: 
> 480-272-2471 travis.m...@mfpdesign.com www.mfpdesign.com Send large files to 
> us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign LinkedIn: 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack “The bitterness of poor quality 
> remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.” Need/Want a 
> faster way to check material pricing? Build a material quote? Check 
> availability ? Searching for an invoice? *If you do not already have an 
> account with ferguson.com, click here to register.* **Have a Ferguson 
> account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to your favorite 
> ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android devices** 
> ___ 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: ssu - concealed space - small room???

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Are you required to use concealed space sprinklers?   
  

  
If it meets the NFPA definition of a room and the requirements of 11.2.3.3 are 
met, then you should be able to use it above a ceiling. Be sure of any fire 
resistance rating requirements.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Oct 7, 2020 at 7:59 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  We have a project that was pre-engineered. It has several issues that we are 
> having to correct. One is something I haven’t considered. We have a concealed 
> combustible space that requires 130 sq ft max spacing. The pendents are 225 
> sq ft max spacing. All of the walls for the office spaces – think medical 
> office type project – are full height to deck and drywalled. Is there any 
> reason you wouldn’t use the small room method for determining area per 
> sprinkler for the SSU in the concealed space? For example, the room may be 
> 120 sq ft for example. However, the SSU located by the FPE is 6’ off the 
> north wall and 6’ off the west wall. Using SxL, this would be 144 sq ft per 
> sprinkler. But, if the space above the ceiling could be treated as a small 
> room, then the area per sprinkler could be the room area divided by the 
> number of sprinklers in the room. This would mean the sprinkler is 120 sq ft 
> per sprinkler. This happens in several places. There are many instances where 
> I can just move the sprinkler to be more centered and solve the problem, but 
> not all areas. So, would you consider that space above the ceiling to be 
> allowed to follow small room rules? Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET 
> Engineering Manager MFP Design 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 NEW 
> EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700 NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471 
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com www.mfpdesign.com Send large files to us via: 
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign LinkedIn: 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack “The bitterness of poor quality 
> remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.” Need/Want a 
> faster way to check material pricing? Build a material quote? Check 
> availability ? Searching for an invoice? *If you do not already have an 
> account with ferguson.com, click here to register.* **Have a Ferguson 
> account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to your favorite 
> ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android devices** 
> ___ 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: Code requiring inclusion of possible concurrent flow

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 Potable water? Sprinkler, standpipe or both?
  

  
  

  
  
>   
> On Sep 10, 2020 at 10:33 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Yeah, house boats lol On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:18 PM Prahl, Craig/GVL via 
> Sprinklerforum  <  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>  wrote:  >  A 
> residential boat dock?  >   >   >   >  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 
>  >   >   >   >  -Original Message-  >   >  From: Sprinklerforum  
>   On  >  Behalf Of Hinson, 
> Ryan via Sprinklerforum  >   >  Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:29 PM  
> >   >  To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org  >   >  Cc: Hinson, Ryan  
>>   >  Subject: [EXTERNAL] Code requiring inclusion 
> of possible concurrent flow  >   >   >   >  We have run into a dock FW system 
> design where multiple automatic flushing  >  valves are being provided on the 
> system to prevent freezing by  >  automatically flowing water at temps below 
> 40°F to the order of 300 gpm.  >  Though this flow should absolutely be 
> included in the system demand flow, I  >  am having difficulty finding code 
> direction requiring its inclusion in  >  hydraulic demands other than where 
> NFPA 13R systems may have to account for  >  concurrent domestic flows.  >   
> >   >   >  Any code sections come to mind?  >   >   >   >  Ryan L. Hinson, 
> PE*, SET** \ Burns  &  McDonnell Senior Fire Protection  >  Engineer, Fire 
> Protection Engineering Group O 952-656-3662 \ M  >  763-688-4045 \ F 
> 952-229-2923 rhin...@burnsmcd.com  rhin...@burnsmcd.com>  \ 
> burnsmcd.com<   >  
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.burnsmcd.com/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!XyfoGSrWMMIK0jDxplJnC4xtp2AlPDLxqg24WUN6rKMPAdZeAvCkykRktR1BSl_Pgg$
>   >   >   >   >  8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500 \ Minneapolis-St. Paul, 
> MN 55437  >  ___  >   >  
> Sprinklerforum mailing list  >   >  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org  > 
>   >   >  
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!XyfoGSrWMMIK0jDxplJnC4xtp2AlPDLxqg24WUN6rKMPAdZeAvCkykRktR3E3Q9uIw$
>   >   >   >   >    >   >   >   >  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  
> >   >  -- Benjamin Young ___ 
> 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: Missing hydraulic data plates

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 Give them a price to survey, do a flow test, draw and Calc the system. If 
everything is above Sheetrock ceilings or is otherwise buried, give them your 
competition’s number.   
  

  
  

  
  
>   
> On Aug 6, 2020 at 8:07 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Hello forum friends I would like to get some other professionals methods on 
> how they handle missing data plates for customers. Assume no asbuilts are 
> available Assume no current fire test available Assume no existing design 
> information Thank you in advance Sent from my mobile device Please excuse 
> spelling, grammar, and auto correction. Mark Phillips Branch Manager Fire 
> Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm 
> Inspections 832-101 Purser Drive Raleigh NC 27603 Phone: 919-779-4010 Fax : 
> 919-779-4014 Cell : 919-268-7587 Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com Web : 
> www.pyebarkerfire.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: Combustible Stairs

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 Are the stairs wood?
 

 
 

 
 
>  
> On Jul 24, 2020 at 12:43 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Is Sprinkler Protection required under intermediate landings of Combustible 
> Construction Stairways even though all finished surfaces are to be 
> Sheetrocked, (Limited Combustible material). I reference NFPA 13, 2013 ed., 
> Chapter 8.15.3.1 Combustible Construction "Stairways". Thank you in advance. 
> Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III 
> Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting 
> Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: 
> (802) 434-2968    tston...@comcast.net 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
>
>  
 
 
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: 13R and Well Pump?

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Not for.a 13R. For one thing, would the well pump be able to 60 gpm (4 
sprinklers at 13 gpm + overage)?And do that at a 40 psi pressure? And 
sustain that for 30 minutes? Not likely that a well pump or residential sized 
well could do that.
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Jul 21, 2020 at 10:08 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  Would a well pump be allowed for a 13R system? It doesn't directly meet the 
> definitions of one of the sources outlined in section 9.3, but I'm wondering 
> if anyone has used one and been able to justify it, and have it approved. 
> ___ 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: Movie Sound Stages

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Are you concerned about permanent obstructions or temporary obstructions?
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Jun 30, 2020 at 3:11 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>
>  
>  
> I agree with your obstruction fears
>  
>  
>
>  
>  
> Sent from my mobile device
>  
> Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.
>  
>
>  
> Mark Phillips
>  
> Branch Manager
>  
> Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections
>  
> Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections
>  
>
>  
> 832-101 Purser Drive
>  
> Raleigh NC 27603
>  
> Phone: 919-779-4010
>  
> Fax : 919-779-4014
>  
> Cell : 919-268-7587
>  
> Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com
>  
> Web : www.pyebarkerfire.com
>  
>
>
> From:  Sprinklerforumon 
> behalf of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum  
> 
>   Sent:  Tuesday, June 30, 2020 2:08:06 PM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org  
> 
>   Cc:  James Crawford  
>   Subject:  Movie Sound Stages  
>  
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
>  
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> We have a client that would like to take over a warehouse space to use as a 
> movie sound stage. The warehouse was used for storage and has an ESFR K25 
> sprinkler system installed.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> NFPA 140 would normally ask for Extra Hazard Group 2, but I found a section 
> in FM data sheet 3-26 for movie studios to be protected as HC-2 and this can 
> be protected with 12 K-25 heads operating at 7 psi.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> My design brain says OK this can work, but my engineering brain says wait a 
> minute what about the concealed spaces and the obstruction normally found in 
> these types of occupancies. ESFR heads have tons of rules regarding 
> obstruction plus the smaller design area.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> So I guess the question is can ESFR K25 heads protect a movie sound stage?
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Thank You
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> James Crawford
>
>  
>
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
>
>  
>
> Phone 604-888-0318
>
>  
>
> Cel: 604-790-0938
>
>  
>
> Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca (mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca)
>
>  
>
> Web:  www.phaserfire.ca (http://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: Uprights in non combustible concealed space

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 Ed, I think you need at least one more post. Your reflections of your time in 
this industry. I echo everyone else in thanking you for all you have 
contributed.   
  

  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jun 19, 2020 at 4:48 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>  Ed – if this IS your last post, I want to thank you for contributing all 
> these years since the onset of the SprinklerForum.  Had NO idea you were 
> so young – my Pops is 92, but wouldn’t be caught dead posting on the Forum.   
>Of course, his only remaining interest in fire protection these days is me…
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  BEST WISHES!
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Steve Leyton
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
> From:   Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]  On Behalf Of  Ed 
> Vining via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Thursday, June 18, 2020 11:35 AM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Ed Vining  
>   Subject:  Re: Uprights in non combustible concealed space
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Not really. The codes and standards determine the decision.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> This may be my last post. At the age of 95 I am starting to lose interest.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> Ed Vining
>
>   
>   
>
> 2770 Pleasant Hill Rd Apt 228
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Pleasant Hill CA 95423
>
>   
>   
>
> 925-448-2159  
>  
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> fpe...@gmail.com (mailto:fpe...@gmail.com)
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:28 AM Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>
>   
>   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > On the downside, if all areas above the ceilings are not protected, it may 
> > give a false sense of security. On the upside, more sprinklers are better, 
> > and even if not required they can act as detectors in the space. Bottom 
> > line is that the AHJ has ultimate decision making authority.
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> >   Cary Webber CFPSDirector, Technical Services
> >
> >   
> >
> > Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc.
> >
> >   
> >
> > 1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC29657
> >
> >   
> >
> > Tel: 864-843-5161
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > From:  Sprinklerforum   > (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>   On Behalf Of  
> > John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
> >   Sent:  Thursday, June 18, 2020 2:21 PM
> >   To:   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> >   Cc:  John Irwin   > (mailto:jir...@quickresponsefl.com)>
> >   Subject:  Uprights in non combustible concealed space
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >CAUTION:   This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and 
> > know the content is safe.
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   We installed temporary upright Protection in a partially occupied 
> > building during a major renovation. We then came back and dropped pendent 
> > heads in the new ceiling. We left the uprights above the new ceiling. Fire 
> > inspector says we need to remove the uprights now. Is there a basis for 
> > removing these? I realize they are not required but are they permitted to 
> > remain?   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > John Irwin
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >  ___
> >  Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >   Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > (mailto: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: Floor area less than required

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 14 K8.0 sprinklers at 7 psi calculates to min 296 gallons.   
  

  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jun 16, 2020 at 7:49 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>  The spec is demanding 8.0K for the LH areas.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Thank you,
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Bob Knight, CET III
>
>   
>
>  Fire by Knight, LLC
>
>   
>
>  208-318-3057
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]  On Behalf Of  Travis 
> Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:48 PM
>   To:  b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G
>   Subject:  RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  4.2k or even 2.8k can be your friend – if applicable.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>   (http://www.mfpdesign.com/)
>
>   
>
>  Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
>   
>
>  Engineering Manager
>
>   
>
>  MFP Design
>
>   
>
>  3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
>   
>
>  Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
>   
>
>  NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
>
>   
>
>  NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
>
>   
>
>tm...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com)
>
>   
>
>travis.m...@ferguson.com (mailto:travis.m...@ferguson.com)
>
>   
>
>  www.mfpdesign.com
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Send large files to us via:https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> (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)
>  
>
>   
>
>  LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack 
> (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D&reserved=0)
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low 
> price is forgotten.”
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?Build a material 
> quote?Check availability ?  Searching for an invoice?
>
>   
>
>*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click   here 
> (https://www.ferguson.com/account-registration)   to register.*
>
>   
>
>**Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access 
> to your favorite ferguson.com features.   Apple iOS devices 
> (http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12/external?email=true&a=6&p=2591775&t=517003)
>or Android devices 
> (http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/n1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12/external?email=true&a=6&p=2591775&t=517003)**
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of  Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Tuesday, June 16, 2020 4:34 PM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Bob Knight  
>   Subject:  RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  Yep, it’s actually 14 sprinklers.Bunch of small compartments.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Thank you,
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Bob Knight, CET III
>
>   
>
>  Fire by Knight, LLC
>
>   
>
>  208-318-3057
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]  On Behalf Of  
> Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:33 PM
>   To:   b...@firebyknight.com (mailto:b...@firebyknight.com);  
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
>   Cc:  Kyle.Montgomery
>   Subject:  RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  That sounds correct.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  It seems strange that your calculation is over-discharging by more than 100% 
> though. Minimum discharge is 90 GPM and you’re discharging over 200 GPM? Do 
> you have like 13 sprinklers jammed into this area?
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  -Kyle M
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>   On Behalf Of  Bob 
> Knight via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:27 PM
>   To:   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
>   Cc:  Bob Knight  mailto:b...@firebyknight.com)>
>   Subject:  [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  So, in this case I’m discharging over 200 gpm due to the number of 
> sprinklers in the area.Based on this I 

Re: mattress storage

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I am actually working on a foam mattress manufacturer right now. Expanded 
Group A plastic. You would have to check if they are exposed or in cardboard 
boxes. Some mattresses are compressed and put into boxes. I’m not sure how a 
compressed foam mattress would behave in a fire situation when the box burns 
away. Ceiling height plays a big role in design requirements.   
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jun 4, 2020 at 9:33 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> Group A (not 1)
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> Matt   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum On 
> Behalf Of  Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:32 AM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Matt Grise  
>   Subject:  RE: mattress storage
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Usually exposed, expanded group 1 plastic. NFPA 13 and FM have some 
> protection criteria.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> Matt
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum   (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>   On Behalf Of  
> Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:00 AM
>   To:   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
>   Cc:  Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.   (mailto:trilliumf...@cwisp.ca)>
>   Subject:  mattress storage
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  I need opinions on mattress storage warehouse in furniture store. I have a 
> furniture store with a 8000sqft storage area with mattresses stacked on the 
> floor to a maximum height of 12 feet.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Mostly foam mattresses.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Any idea where I would start to look for the design criteria?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Any guidance would be appreciated.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Troy
>
>   
>  ___ 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: Under-scoped and under-bid

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I might as well add my crap into this as well...
  

  
The first thing I see is that there is a major disconnect between fire 
protection and installing sprinkler systems. Unless they have been through it, 
nobody gives a shit about fire protection and fewer understand it. That leaves 
the rest (including sprinkler contractors) to installing piping networks that 
make the fire marshal happy and collecting their check. The rest is an 
annoyance that gets in their way of the above. Until sprinkler contractors 
become knowledgeable and concerned abut fire protection, nothing is going to 
happen. I don’t see this happening soon as some can barely handle email.
  

  
The engineering community, outside of the FPE or well trained consultants, 
falls into that category as well. I saw a job posting several years ago from 
one of the larger and more competent engineering firms in CT for a “Fire 
Protection Engineer”. I applied and went on the interview. They started asking 
me about my experience with plumbing. I told them if I flush and it goes away, 
I am happy. When I told them I just did fire protection, they were surprised 
that those people existed. The posting was later changed to “Plumbing/Fire 
Protection Engineer”. Obviously what they were looking for is a plumbing 
designer that has seen a canopy of NFPA 13 once. This shows the level of 
competence that comes from the engineering community. There are exceptions, but 
they are in the minority.
  

  
To architects, fire protection is little more than an annoyance that makes 
their projects more expensive.
  

  
Owners are typically completely uninterested.
  

  
The fire service is the only place where you get some concern about fire 
protection. However, knowledge varies greatly from department to department.
  

  
If you want to change the industry, you have to change the above.   
  

  
I congratulate Steve for actually making the consulting thing a go. I tried 
that when I established and basically got told “why should I pay you when the 
contractor does it for free?”
  

  
To Skyers point, unless there is a Code information sheet with the drawing set, 
then you never really know what the design team was thinking.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 30, 2020 at 10:24 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> Thank you Skyler and Steve for voicing this perspective.I have had 
> similar dialog with a number of contractors, owners, architects, and often 
> even within my own company.Some progress has been made with some, but to 
> Steve’s point, how do we change this business model?   
>
>   
>
> In my opinion, the design consultants should have every pertinent piece of 
> information on the construction documents prior to bid and all parties should 
> be able to recognize when there is crucial information missing.Someone 
> needs to step up and expose the negligence when this information is missing 
> or incorrect.
>
>   
>
> What will make our industry “push back”?   Is there enough of an 
> incentive for sprinkler contractors to “push back”?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> 
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET|   KFI Engineers|Senior Fire Protection Designer   |   
> Fargo, ND   |   direct:701.552.9903  |mobile:   701.388.1352   |   
> KFIengineers.com (http://www.kfiengineers.com)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:   Sprinklerforum On 
> Behalf Of  Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Saturday, May 30, 2020 11:19 AM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Steve Leyton  
>   Subject:  RE: Covered Parking in 13R
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  This post could be the narrative explanation for why I went into business as 
> a design consultant.When I was contracting, I lost countless projects 
> that were under-scoped and thus under-bid by competitors.  The sexy 
> allure of a low price continues to be the siren song of hiring sprinkler 
> contractors to design and build, but there’s no vetting of adequacy by the 
> GCs and developers hiring their FP subs.  I wholeheartedly agree that 
> establishing the basis of design should not fall to the installing 
> contractor, and I’ll be the vast majority of our contracting community family 
> members agree with that perspective yet, like lemmings at the edge of a 
> cliff, contractors continue to throw themselves into binding contracts that 
> transfer ALL liability for the design to them.  So many posts on this 
> forum are from contractors and designers who find themselves trying to climb 
> out of expensive holes that they’ve fallen into because they’re being 
> compelled to add window protection and upgrade systems due to building code 
> provisions or equivalency equations that we

Re: Dust Collection

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 The N95 masks that everyone is talking about means that is will filter out of 
95% of the 3 microns or larger. The Covid 19 virus is approximately 0.17 
microns but usually travels attached to a fluid droplet, which is larger. The 
thickness of a piece of paper is about 100 microns.   
  

  

  

  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 22, 2020 at 7:14 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   On May 22, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via Sprinklerforum 
>   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  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
>   
  
  
 ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 Is the data cable rated?
  

  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 21, 2020 at 11:44 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>   
>   
> Or as in many jurisdictions, file an appeal.
>   
>   
>
>   
>   
> John Drucker
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
> From:  Sprinklerforumon 
> behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum  
> 
>   Sent:  Thursday, May 21, 2020 09:01
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Travis Mack; Mitchell, Scott
>   Subject:  Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping   
>   
>   
>   That is processing 👍🏼  
>
>   
>   
> Travis Mack, SET
>   
> Engineering Manager
>   
> MFP Design
>   
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>   
> travis.m...@ferguson.com
>   
> 480-505-9271 x700
>   
> NEW MOBILE :   (480) 272-2471
>   
>
>   
> Send large files to us via:   https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> (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)
>   
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
> > On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum  
> >   wrote:
> >   
> 
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >
> >  You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and 
> > company. J
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> >  Scott Mitchell
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> > From:   Sprinklerforum 
> > On Behalf Of  J H via Sprinklerforum
> >   Sent:  Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
> >   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >   Cc:  J H  
> >   Subject:  [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get 
> > an audience with the little princess's boss - the king
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >  Virus-free.  www.avast.com 
> > (https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link)
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum  
> >  > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
> >
> >   
> >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >
> > > Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past 
> > > the GC to the owner fortheir decision before it goes to mediation 
> > > etc. Check the contract that the GC has with the owner that the sprinkler 
> > > sub is likely tied to. May be a case where this tie helps. At the end of 
> > > the day the owner pays the bill. Would help to understand the GC’s 
> > > contract. Is it a firm fixed? GC plus fee? How is the contingency money 
> > > handled? Split with the GC? 100% back to owner. I would know these things 
> > > before going this route. Good luck, this clearly isn’t right.
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Rod DiBona
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Chief Operating Officer
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > R.F.P.G
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Rapid Fire Protection Group
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > 1530 Samco Road
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Rapid City, SD 57702
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Office-605-348-2342
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Cell- 605-391-3553
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > www.rapidfireinc.com (http://www.rapidfireinc.com/)
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >
> > > From:  Sprinklerforum   > > (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>   On Behalf Of  
> > > Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> > >   Sent:  Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:36 PM
> > >   To:   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> > >   Cc:  Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G   > > (mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com)>; 'Matt Grise'   > > (mailto:m...@afpsprink.com)>; 'Rocci 3 Cetani'   > > (mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com)>
> > >   Subject:  RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
> > >
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >  Seems like we have an AHJ not backing down. We had the reviewing 
> > > engineer for the sprinkler plans write a letter stating that the criteria 
> > > is in compliance with NFPA and that limited quantities of combustibles 
> > > are permitted above the ceiling and still classify it as non-combustible. 
> > >This is data cabling and waste vent piping that the inspector is 
> > > drawing a line in the sand to provide protection above the ceilings of a 
> > > large high school.I have been

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fabric canopies

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  These (there are 2 of them) are canopies over doors at a pre school that open 
up to the outdoor play area. The only thing under them that I am aware of are 2 
picnic tables under each. A 8.15.7.5 says that combustible furniture would not 
necessarily drive a need for sprinklers. I would also think that, given the 
occupancy, grills or other heating equipment would not be present.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Apr 16, 2020 at 11:07 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
>  What is the purpose of the canopies?What’s going on underneath?
> What’s the occupancy classification?
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>
>  Craig Prahl|Jacobs| Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |
>   craig.pr...@jacobs.com (mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)|www.jacobs.com 
> (http://www.jacobs.com/)
>
>   
>
>  1041 East Butler Road  Greenville, South Carolina29606
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:   Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of  John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:52 AM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  John Denhardt  ; Matt Grise  
> 
>   Subject:  [EXTERNAL] Re: Fabric canopies
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  Fully agree with Matt.   
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  John
>
>   
>   
>
>  John August Denhardt, P.E.
>
>   
>   
>
>  Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  American Fire Sprinkler Association   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  301-343-1457
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
> >   
> >
> >  On Apr 16, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum  
> >  > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
> >
> >   
>   
>   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >  
> >
> >   
> >
> > The text says:
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > “…are constructed utilizing a noncombustible frame, limited combustibles, 
> > or fire retardant-treated wood with an inherently flame resistant fabric 
> > overlay as demonstrated by Test Method 2…”
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > It seems unlikely that it was the intent of the code language to separate 
> > the FRT wood from the other potential fabric support structures, but it 
> > could be read that way. If that was the argument, then someone would be 
> > saying that an aluminum frame was less fire safe than one made of FRT wood. 
> > That also seems unlikely.
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > My vote would be that the intent was to lump all of the cloth-covered-frame 
> > types together into a group of canopies that don’t need sprinklers…. But it 
> > would be pretty easy to request an interpretation and get a more 
> > authoritative opinion.
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > From:  Sprinklerforum   > (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>   On Behalf Of  
> > Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
> >   Sent:  Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:01 AM
> >   To:  Sprinklerforum   > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>
> >   Cc:  Fpdcdesign  mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com)>
> >   Subject:  Re: Fabric canopies
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > That version talks about fabric overlay on treated wood. This is just a 
> > pre-stretched fabric over an aluminum frame; no wood.   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >
> >  Todd G Williams, PE
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Stonington, CT
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >

Re: Fabric canopies

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Matt,
  

  
That version talks about fabric overlay on treated wood. This is just a 
pre-stretched fabric over an aluminum frame; no wood.   
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Apr 16, 2020 at 9:44 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> NFPA 13 2016 8.15.7.2 discusses non-combustible frames covered with 
> inherently flame resistant fabric overlay.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Matt   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum On 
> Behalf Of  Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Thursday, April 16, 2020 8:40 AM
>   To:  Sprinklerforum  
>   Cc:  Fpdcdesign  
>   Subject:  Fabric canopies
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> I am working on a building that has two 22 ft wide x 10 ft deep exterior 
> canopies. The construction is fire retardant fabric over an aluminum frame. 
> There is no storage underneath. NFPA 13 section 8.15.2.7 reference omitting 
> sprinklers where fire retardant wood is present, but mentions nothing about 
> any other fire retardant materials. The Handbook commentary for that section 
> mentions the general term “fire retardant materials”. The obvious question is 
> sprinklers or not?
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>  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 
> 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

Fabric canopies

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I am working on a building that has two 22 ft wide x 10 ft deep exterior 
canopies. The construction is fire retardant fabric over an aluminum frame. 
There is no storage underneath. NFPA 13 section 8.15.2.7 reference omitting 
sprinklers where fire retardant wood is present, but mentions nothing about any 
other fire retardant materials. The Handbook commentary for that section 
mentions the general term “fire retardant materials”. The obvious question is 
sprinklers or not?
  
  
  
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  1991
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Mar 26, 2020 at 3:45 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> Okay, that’s just what’s available o for free access then.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Does anyone know when Ordinary hazard Grp 1 change from a 0.16 to 0.15?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
>
>   
>
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
>
>   
>
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
>
>   
>
> Oceanside, CA 92058
>
>   
>
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum On 
> Behalf Of  Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:41 PM
>   To:  Sprinklerforum  
>   Cc:  Fpdcdesign  ; Jvankolken  
>   Subject:  Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> I have all of the Codes/Handbooks from 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987... complete up 
> to 2016. There was not an 18 year gap
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>  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)
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>   
>   
>
>
>   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2020 at 3:32 PM,   > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > I’m looking at an old job from before I started. I was trying to find the 
> > code used for this job on NFPA’s website and notice a 18 year gap before 
> > 1978-1996 in the code available for 13.
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > Was there really no update for NFPA 13 in that 18 years?
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > 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 
> > (mailto: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: NFPA 13 Code Editions

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I have all of the Codes/Handbooks from 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987... complete up 
to 2016. There was not an 18 year gap
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Mar 26, 2020 at 3:32 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> I’m looking at an old job from before I started. I was trying to find the 
> code used for this job on NFPA’s website and notice a 18 year gap before 
> 1978-1996 in the code available for 13.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Was there really no update for NFPA 13 in that 18 years?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> 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

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Boat and RV storage units

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  The issue is the fact that you could have a fire shielded from the sprinklers 
until it is fully involved. At that point, is OH2 adequate?
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Mar 18, 2020 at 3:25 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> We’ve done some of those in the Phoenix area. Everyone agreed to OH2, but 
> there was certainly some debate about whether they should be something 
> higher. We went back and forth all the way from OH1 (vehicle parking) to EH2 
> (mobile home manufacturing).
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> We settled on OH2 because we figured a parked RV probably wasn’t worse than 
> 12 feet of miscellaneous storage (although, with a large tank full of 
> gasoline and a bunch of plastic parts, you could surely debate that) and we 
> felt that the full-height walls between the units (although not necessarily 
> 2-hr rated walls) were probably helpful in limiting the rapid spread of fire 
> from one unit to the next. But I could definitely see an argument being made 
> for a higher hazard category.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> And, like always with self-storage, it’s hard to regulate what and how people 
> store their stuff. Guys could always have racks of hair spray, pool acid, 
> gasoline containers, and lithium batteries. But there’s only so much you can 
> account for as the sprinkler guy.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> -Kyle M
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
>  On Behalf Of  Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:12 PM
>   To:  'Steve Leyton'  ; 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G  
>   Subject:  [EXTERNAL] RE: Boat and RV storage units
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  It’s not boat racks.Just the self storage units that can house a single 
> boat.But, I always feel better with EH2 for this type of project.I 
> have an FPE set of plans that did OH2 and used the QR reduction.I think 
> that is a fair bit light.But, I wanted to get a gauge of what others were 
> seeing / doing.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>
> 
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=9mFsVEpscOgqq-I5zO6h_sMqWd77ZSklujFY91frZpo&s=cOuFCAu8ObrXrKSgnO2nQK8RxisNW6Ajw8m1rykB0kw&e=)
>
>   
>
>  Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
>   
>
>  MFP Design, LLC
>
>   
>
>  3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
>   
>
>  Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
>   
>
>  NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
>
>   
>
>  fax: 866-430-6107
>
>   
>
>  tm...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com)
>
>   
>
>   www.mfpdesign.com (http://www.mfpdesign.com)
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.hightail.com-252Fu-252FMFPDesign-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77-257C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511-257C0-257C0-257C636379016677342180-26sdata-3DeGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5-252BAZvlHhABSexWY-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=9mFsVEpscOgqq-I5zO6h_sMqWd77ZSklujFY91frZpo&s=xCSKFLNkJMzUwhjQebCcgaj_rVIDUCL7pLJiBg0ZpXo&e=)
>
>   
>
>  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack 
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.linkedin.com-252Fin-252Ftravismack-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77-257C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511-257C0-257C0-257C636379016677342180-26sdata-3DtT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN-252BZodi-252FhbeCbHNRijI-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=9mFsVEpscOgqq-I5zO6h_sMqWd77ZSklujFY91frZpo&s=Cv84kTL0qOtN2QaUkIddbiL54c7LuaqKJx6uVnLnULo&e=)
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
> is forgotten.”
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Steve Leyton   (mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com)>
>   Sent:  Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:11 PM
>   To:   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
>   Cc:  Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G   (mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com)>
>   Subject:  RE: Boat and RV storage units
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> QR reduction for boat storage?That should be Extra Hazard, Group 7…
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> SL
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinkler

Re: Boat and RV storage units

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Extra Hazard Group 7? Niagara Falls?
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Mar 18, 2020 at 3:11 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> QR reduction for boat storage?That should be Extra Hazard, Group 7…
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> SL
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
>  On Behalf Of  Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:08 PM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G  
>   Subject:  Boat and RV storage units
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  What densities is everyone doing these type of projects?If doing as low 
> piled storage, are you taking the QR reduction for these type of facilities?  
>   Just curious what everyone is doing these days for these units.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>   (http://www.mfpdesign.com/)
>
>   
>
>  Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
>   
>
>  MFP Design, LLC
>
>   
>
>  3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
>   
>
>  Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
>   
>
>  NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
>
>   
>
>  fax: 866-430-6107
>
>   
>
>  tm...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com)
>
>   
>
>   www.mfpdesign.com (http://www.mfpdesign.com)
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Send large files to us via:  https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> (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)
>
>   
>
>  LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack 
> (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D&reserved=0)
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
> is forgotten.”
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>  ___ 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: Boat and RV storage units

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I assume you are talking about on ground and not rack storage. Ground storage 
I use Extra Hazard Group II. I don’t believe you can take the QR reduction with 
EH occupancies.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Mar 18, 2020 at 3:08 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>  What densities is everyone doing these type of projects?If doing as low 
> piled storage, are you taking the QR reduction for these type of facilities?  
>   Just curious what everyone is doing these days for these units.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>   (http://www.mfpdesign.com/)
>
>   
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
>   
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
>   
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
>   
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
>   
>
>  NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
>
>   
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
>   
>
>  tm...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com)
>
>   
>
>  www.mfpdesign.com
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Send large files to us via:  https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> (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)
>
>
>   
>
> LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack 
> (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D&reserved=0)
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
> is forgotten.”
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>  ___ 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: How are you guys handling calcs for 13R balconies?

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 First, even if it is not required by the standard, you would calculate it as 
if it was.  
 

 
Second, is the design such that a single balcony requires 4 or more sprinklers?
 

 
 

 
 
>  
> On Mar 10, 2020 at 12:23 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
> I don't doubt their efficacy or necessity - my question is essentially how do 
> you calculate an area that is not required to be sprinklered by the standard 
> in the first place and does not meet w/ the definition of a compartment? I'll 
> just go ahead and do a four head calc for this balcony like I always do but I 
> was wondering what others were doing. My second thought would be to just size 
> the piping to the balcony sprinklers using the same interior pipe sizes 
> without calculating it as it's own compartment. We've had similar situations 
> arise when jurisdictions required limited attic protection in 13D systems and 
> didn't give any guidance on how to calculate the required quick response 
> sprinklers they were requiring at the ridge.
>  
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>  
>  Virus-free.  www.avast.com 
> (https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 4:33 PM Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
> >  
> >
> >   
> > https://www-dailyherald-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.dailyherald.com/amp-article/20200221/news/200229736/
> >  
> >
> >  
> > Balcony fire, spk head.
> >  
> >
> >  On Mar 6, 2020, at 13:11, Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum  
> >  > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
> >  
> >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > >  We only calculate the single balcony in question.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >  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 (http://www.waynefire.com/)
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you? 
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > From:   Sprinklerforum   > > (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>   On Behalf Of  
> > > J H via Sprinklerforum
> > >   Sent:  Friday, March 6, 2020 3:52 PM
> > >   To:   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> > >   Cc:  J H   > > (mailto:design.azfire...@gmail.com)>
> > >   Subject:  How are you guys handling calcs for 13R balconies?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > I was wondering how you guys are handling calculations for 13R balconies 
> > > since the sprinklers aren't even required per 13R but are mandated by the 
> > > IBC? Treating it as a compartment in this case means I have to do a 4 
> > > head calc when the rest of the project only requires 2 heads calculated 
> > > due to compartmentalization. It's not a big deal but kind of a bummer 
> > > when you can have really small pipe sizes for a project if it weren't for 
> > > those pesky guys on the balcony!
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > Virus-free.  www.avast.com 
> > > (https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link)
> > >   
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> > >  
> > >   ___
> > >   Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > >   Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > > (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> > >   
> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> > >___
> >  Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >   Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> >   
> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> >  ___ Sprinklerforum mailing 
> > list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > http:

Re: electronic PE stamps

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  I have been doing this for a while. My stamp is on my plot sheets on a 
separate layer that can be turned on and off. I have a picture file of my 
stamps in Foxit PDF that I can insert on calculations, etc. I use DocuSign for 
signature. That allows you to use an actual signature (created on a touch 
screen) instead of a code. They also send a summary that shows date and time of 
signature and matches to a code surrounding the signature. I save this in the 
project files.   
  

  
In addition, I always put a date with the signature and have that overlap the 
stamp to make it more difficult to lift.   
  

  
Blockchain would be nice, but I think it would be a problem for non tech savvy 
contractors, etc.   
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Mar 6, 2020 at 6:56 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> I like the blockchain idea – and all ideas involving securing documents that 
> utilize an electronic seal (as most states seem to require in their 
> statutes).That being said, even with a wet seal or secured document 
> utilizing electronic seal, there are issues.My wife introduced me to the 
> “snipping tool” in Microsoft – it will easily make a copy of anything you can 
> see on your screen – and that is easily pasted right back into any type of 
> document.Great for modifying/creating plans, but also a great tool for a 
> potential scammer.So, a scanned in wet seal and/or secured document can 
> still easily become a route for someone to use your stamp/seal if they have 
> the guts to do so, whether via the snipping tool or via Blubeam, etc….
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  Spencer Tomlinson
>
>   
>
>  Principal, PE
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>
>
>   
>
> Ph:316-202-6412
>
>   
>
> Fax: 316-202-2346
>
>   
>
> Cell: 620-955-7293
>
>   
>
> www.tomlinsonfire.com (http://www.tomlinsonfire.com/)
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum On 
> Behalf Of  å...  via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Friday, March 6, 2020 5:29 AM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  å...   
>   Subject:  electronic PE stamps
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
>  There should be a blockchain for professional seal-and-signatures... 
> including doctors and lawyers.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  Accountants already nailed this security issue, as they are closer to big 
> money with some items they sign.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  To use such a proposed blockchain, all parties involved in using the 
> signature need vote their consent, including the obvious seal-holder and the 
> requester.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  In this way, .
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>the public could see whose name was on which abominable judgments 
> or laudable achievements,
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>the AHJs would know right away if the signer was validly involved, 
> and active,
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>the signer would get paid, as the signature could be pre-approved, 
> but not released until funds move,
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>the funds attached to the signature should also be made public.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  In such a system, we would not have rogue sign-and-seal applications sprayed 
> throughout the land (as this does happen).
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  If anyone try to tamper with this blockchain, it could be flagged and noted. 
>Anyone investigating information could be appended to the file.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  In this proposed application, increased transparency would be a good thing 
> to bring and is overdue in my view.
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>
> Scot Deal   
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>  Excelsior Risk  &  Fire
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> gms:+965 6676 9514
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> gms:+420 606 872 129
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 12:15 PM Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>
>   
>   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > for all of the PE's out there (or otherwise certified folks who stamp 
> > things):
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > do you use electronic stamps/seals on the documents you produce? The areas 
> > I work in accept electronic stamps, but I have stayed with wet stamps and 
> > signing by hand due to security concerns. I feel like I am ready to move in 
> > to the future! (or maybe into the not-to-recent past?)   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >  

Re: Flammable liquid tanks in a garage

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  Could you give a few more details? What is in the tanks? Why are they there?
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Feb 26, 2020 at 12:30 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  There is a garage with an existing system that has a restaurant on the floor 
> above; the restaurant has (2) exposed flammable liquid tanks in the garage 
> (with piping connected from the restaurant above to the tanks below. 
> Question: What does this do to the hazard classification in the garage ? 
> Would the owner need to build an NFPA 30 type enclosure around the tanks ? A 
> bit of a grey area and not really sure how to proceed. Never seen this 
> before. What says everyone ? Sean Lockyer Project Designer 6817 N. Orange 
> Blossom Trail Cell 386-279-1197 Orlando, Florida 32810 
> slock...@aitlifesafety.com Phone: 407-816-9101 www.AITLifeSafety.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: RadioShuttle High Density Pallet Racking System

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

  I did one last year. A pain in the butt
 
 
 
 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)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Feb 18, 2020 at 2:53 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>
>  Has anyone had any experience designing systems for the RadioShuttle High 
> Density Pallet
>  
>  Racking Systems?
>  
>  
>  
>  Mike
>  ___ 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: Anybody hit this wall?

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

  Scot beat me to it. It is a Code issue and the AHJ and the insurance company 
will have input. If it is not your expertise, keep away from it. There may also 
be restrictions on pipe penetrations as well.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Feb 17, 2020 at 12:04 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
> Thanks Scot ... a great example of why I'm not an architect. Could the rating 
> be 3 hr WITH sprinkler?
>   
>   
>  On 2/17/2020 11:56 AM, å...  via Sprinklerforum wrote:
>   
> > 
> >   
> > Building code resolves, by height  &  area limits, construction type, etc.  
> >   H-areas by definition, usually have rated walls.
> >   
> > Scot Deal
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 8:53 AM Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum  
> >  > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
> >   
> > >   
> > > 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
> > >
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >  ___
> > >  Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > >   Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > > (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> > >   
> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> > >   
> > 
> >  ___ Sprinklerforum mailing 
> > list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> >
>
>   
>   
>   
> --
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
>  11351 Pearl Road /Suite 101
>  Strongsville, Ohio 44136 
>  Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876  Cell 440 724-7601
>
>   
>
>   
>  Vince Sabolik
>
>   
>   
>   
>  ___ 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: Corrugated Metal Deck - smooth??

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 What is supporting the metal deck?
  

  
  

  
  
>   
> On Feb 17, 2020 at 9:05 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>  I have a customer that intended to use horizontal sidewall sprinklers under 
> an exposed corrugated metal deck.The deck is  <  3” in depth.The EOR 
> on the project has rejected it, stating sidewalls must be under a smooth 
> ceiling and the corrugated metal deck does not meet the criteria for a smooth 
> ceiling.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Has anyone had issue using HSW under corrugated metal deck?I can’t 
> recall of a situation where I have run across this.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>   (http://www.mfpdesign.com/)
>
>   
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
>   
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
>   
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
>   
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
>   
>
>  NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
>
>   
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
>   
>
>  tm...@mfpdesign.com (mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com)
>
>   
>
>  www.mfpdesign.com
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Send large files to us via:  https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> (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)
>
>
>   
>
> LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack 
> (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D&reserved=0)
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
> is forgotten.”
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>  ___ 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

Valves in dry systems

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 I am working on a rather unique project where a dry system in being installed 
in one building that is going to protect that plus a second building. 
(Logistically impossible to get underground to second building. Think boathouse 
on a dock.) The plans call for valves in the dry system piping to isolate the 
two buildings. I usually don’t like control valves after the dry valve but 
didn’t see any prohibition. Would this be an acceptable arrangement?
  
  
  
 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: LEVELS OF COORDINATION

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 My guess is that this is really BIM vs non-BIM. I have been finding that some 
design packages are eliminating the term BIM and but requiring all the BIM-type 
coordination. I think this is to not trigger BIM exclusions in contracts and to 
get the same stuff without having to pay the premium. I have modified my 
standard contract to exclude BIM and similar computer based coordination.   
  

  
BTW, I’m getting suckered into BIM coordination for a tenant finish project.
  
  
  
 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)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jan 30, 2020 at 6:08 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> Being asked to submit a proposal for design services.
>
>   
>
> Base price to carry 2D COORDINATION
>
>   
>
> Add Alternate; asks for 3D COORDINATION ( I am well versed in 3D) ugh!!
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Is 2D something new or is this a reference to old school, typical 
> coordination designers have always provided?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Regards,
>
>   
>
>  G. Tim Stone
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC
>
>   
>
>  NICET Level III Engineering Technician
>
>   
>
>  Fire Protection Sprinkler Design
>
>   
>
>  and Consulting Services
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452
>
>   
>
> CELL: (802) 373-0638  TEL: (802) 434-2968
>
>   
>
> tston...@comcast.net (mailto:tston...@comcast.net)
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>  ___ 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: Hemp Processing

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 Craig beat me to the send button with those comments. The other thing to 
consider would be if the oil is flammable, it may not be able to be stored in 
the same room with the hemp.
  
  
  
 Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (ofc)
  
860-553-3553 (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Oct 31, 2019 at 11:42 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
>  Plastic pallets can increase the Commodity Class up one unless they are the 
> FM Approved non-combustible type.Recommend checking on that.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Are the 5-gallon buckets plastic?Will they be storing any empty buckets 
> in the Whse?   
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Do you have a SDS on the CBD oil?The fire related characteristics of 
> this stuff varies based on pure versus mixtures.I would request an SDS on 
> it.These are typically hydrocarbons and in some cases, once ignited are 
> not affected by water spray alone.Think vegetable oil.   
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  A liquid in a plastic bucket wouldn’t be class II if it turns out to be a 
> combustible liquid, then you’re classifying based on Flash point out of NFPA 
> 30.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  How many gallons of CBD oil on a pallet?I would be looking at the level 
> of potential exposure from spillage.If a pallet were dropped, how much 
> liquid can be expelled from the buckets?
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Are there any special room temperature considerations for the storage of the 
> oils?   
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  My point being, that when handling and storing flammables and combustibles 
> you will probably need to be looking at criteria out of NFPA 30 and reconcile 
> that against the other commodities being stored as addressed from NFPA 13.
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>
>  Craig Prahl|Jacobs| Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |
>   craig.pr...@jacobs.com (mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com)|www.jacobs.com 
> (http://www.jacobs.com/)
>
>   
>
>  1041 East Butler Road  Greenville, South Carolina29606
>
>   
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:   Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of  Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Thursday, October 31, 2019 11:21 AM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Brian Harris  
>   Subject:  [EXTERNAL] Hemp Processing
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Pricing a warehouse that stores raw Hemp in burlap bags on plastic pallets in 
> racks  &  CBD oil stored in 5-gallon plastic buckets….. Looking for some 
> advice on hazard classification. This is what I’ve come up with so far;
>
>   
>   
>  Hemp / same as tobacco but NFPA list it as Class III stored in paperboard 
> cartons
>   
>  5 Gallon buckets full of CBD oil / Class II
>   
>  Plastic Pallet bags are stored on / Group A
>   
>   
>
> I’ve also read NFPA-1 (2018) which added chapter 38 for this exact thing but 
> unfortunately doesn’t give any guidance on Commodity Class.
>
>   
>
> Any help, thoughts, would be greatly appreciated.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>  Brian Harris, CET
>
>   
>
>  BVS Systems Inc.
>
>   
>
>  Design Manager
>
>   
>
>bvssystemsinc.com 
> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/bvssystemsinc.com/__;!dEgXJxch11IPYA!ST0avLxdZCwKaJ5tmfXocekZNBO7U7K-6gL4IUPbEKCG40um9cyAosHP8tCi_DhYng$)
>
>   
>
>  Phone: 704.896.9989
>
>   
>
>  Fax: 704.896.1935
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
> 
>  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: NFPA 909

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

 
 

 Tony,
 

 
I would say only those considered Cultural Resources. I think section 1.1.1 
kind of clarifies this.
 
 
 
 Todd G Williams, PE 
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-535-2080 (ofc)
 
860-553-3553 (fax)
 
860-608-4559 (cell)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Oct 24, 2019 at 2:07 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> >  NFPA 909: Protection of Cultural Resource Properties - Museums, Libraries 
> > and Places of Worship
>  
>
>  
> My question is whether this code applies to all places of worship (churches) 
> or only to churches which are considered "Cultural Resource Properties" ?
>  
>
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Tony
>  ___ 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: Hotel washroom & closets

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 I don’t recall anything in 13 about duration of stay in a hotel.   
  

  
  

  
  
>   
> On Oct 15, 2019 at 5:18 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
> NFPA 13 does not require sprinklers in washrooms  &  closets (depending on 
> size) of hotels and motels. If a hotel has long term rooms do they still 
> qualify for the exception? The hotel I'm looking at has both long term and 
> short term rooms on the same floors.
>   
> Thanks, Tony
>   
>   
>
>___ 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: Atypical Remote Areas

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 23.4.4.1. Replace “Remote” with “hydraulically most demanding”. Hydraulically 
most demanding is not always a perfect rectangle. Use the 1.2X as the starting 
point and go from there.
  
  
  
 Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (ofc)
  
860-553-3553 (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Sep 11, 2019 at 8:15 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> Over the years I’ve come across some Remote areas that don’t fit into the 
> nice rectangle /square shape. I was curious if some you would like to share 
> how you approached these?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> The one I’m currently looking at is a Tree system feeding into a U-shaped end 
> of the system area. The main runs into one part of the U while the last line 
> rounds a corner into the other part of the U another 20’-0”.This is a 
> light hazard area so would you start at the end of the line and run the (1.2X 
> Sq root 1500) ~46.5’ then jump to the next line. Or start with the head near 
> the corner where the lines would be more typical to get a more rectangle 
> shape remote area?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> 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

Re: Ice Build-up on Linear Heat Detection for Double Interlock Pre-Action Sprinkler System

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 Could the LHD be moved away from the door?
  
  
  
 Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (ofc)
  
860-553-3553 (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Sep 3, 2019 at 7:25 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> Could you use a different type of detector near the doors that would be 
> easier to de-ice or more tolerant of ice buildup? Maybe a pilot detector 
> head? It could be changed out more easily as ice builds up.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> Matt 
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Sprinklerforum On 
> Behalf Of  Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum
>   Sent:  Tuesday, September 03, 2019 4:44 AM
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Russell Gregory  
>   Subject:  Ice Build-up on Linear Heat Detection for Double Interlock 
> Pre-Action Sprinkler System
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> We have a problem with ice forming on LHD cable inside a Coldstore at the 
> access doors. The LHD is “Protectowire” and is used as the first detection 
> for a Double Interlock Pre Action system. The Coldstore temperature is -10⁰C.
>
>   
>   
> Is there any way to reduce or prevent this condensing water vapour from 
> freezing on to the LHD? Would spraying the cable with silicone spray be 
> helpful?
>   
> Is there a practical method of removing the ice at say 1 – 3 monthly 
> intervals? Spraying de-icing fluid comes to mind but as it is in a frozen 
> food warehouse that may have a contamination problem although all products 
> are cartoned and wrapped.
>   
>   
>
> I have checked FM and Manufacturers Data sheets but have not found reference 
> to external ice loading.
>
>   
>
> VESDA recommend the application of silicone spray so wonder if this would 
> help.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
>   
>
> Regards,
>
>   
>
> Russell
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Russell A Gregory
>
>   
>
> Special Projects Engineer
>
>   
>
> Johnson Controls
>
>   
>
> Wormald Christchurch
>
>   
>
> New Zealand
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Ph xx64 3 338 4853
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> e-mail;  rcgreg...@snap.net.nz (mailto:rcgreg...@snap.net.nz)
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>  ___ 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: Water supply test data

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 A flow test with multiple residual pressures is often done as a hydraulic 
gradient to determine where a potential problem exists in a water main. I 
haven’t done one in a while but may have something deep in the archives.
  
  
  
 Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (ofc)
  
860-553-3553 (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Aug 28, 2019 at 10:03 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
> A fire pump flow test would typically have this information.You could 
> just look at the inlet pressure and the flow.The backflow preventer might 
> complicate things slightly.It would be helpful to know why you need this 
> information.  
>
>   
>
>   
> Thanks,
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> Skyler Bilbo
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:52 AM Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum  
>  (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >  Does anyone happen to have records of a single water supply test in which 
> > multiple residual pressures were recorded at multiple flow rates – for 
> > example, where additional outlets or hydrants are used after the initial 
> > flow rate and residual pressure are captured?
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> >  Any help is appreciated.
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> >  J. Scott Mitchell, PE
> >
> >   
> >
> > Senior Fire Protection Engineer
> >
> >   
> >
> > Mission Engineering
> >
> >   
> >
> > CNS PTX / Y-12   | 865-576-5258
> >
> >   
> >   
> >  ___
> >  Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >   Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > (mailto: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