RE: FDC & Pump
Last time I looked the FDC was not allowed on the suction side. That requirement was in NFPA 13 under the FDC location section. Jason Norton, PE – RLH Fire Protection Direct: (661) 410-1334, Mobile: (661) 979-6301, Fax: (661) 322-6816 Mailing Address: PO Box 42470, Bakersfield, CA 93384 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC & Pump I have always installed FDC's on the discharge side of fire pumps. Looking through 2013 NFPA 20, I don't see anything precluding the instillation on the supply side. Is the FDC allowed to be installed on the supply? I have a contractor that has installed the FDC on the supply run-in, instead of stubing up a secondary line from the remote FDC. Thanks, Jamie ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Storage Containers
This is a first for me.. A storage warehouse where the storage is 40'x10'x5' high metal containers are stacked three high. Inside the containers is anything from Class I to Class IV commodity. I can't seem to located any guidance within code relating to this storage configuration. Is there any code guidance for this type of storage method? FM testing, maybe? Thanks for you input. Jason Norton RLH Fire Protection ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Cow barns
Methane Gas? It is Friday! Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Cow barns I have been asked to design a sprinkler system for brand new Cow Barn with Hay Storage on the upper level. It is a wood structure (Post and Beam) with a 9:12 pitch roof. Any ideas about Hazard Occupancy or design criteria that might be available? NFPA document #150 states to follow NFPA 13 for design and installation. Not much help there!? Would coverage in accordance with Extra Hazard Group 1 be enough along with a 120 min water supply? Would .3 GPM over 2500 SF +30% for dry system +30% for sloped roof be adequate? Has any one designed for Hay Storage? 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 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Riser or Riser Nipple Revisited
I think Roland it the nail on the head with excessively literal mind. There is no way NFPA can come up with a code that tells you exactly what to do in every situation. DSA is quickly becoming the new OSHPD. Just double your bid next time and you can afford to do what the excessively literal mind wants. Of course that is not the best solution, education is. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Cyr Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Riser or Riser Nipple Revisited Thanks for the feed back. I'd like to pursue this thread further. When running a branch line with offsets for duct work or any other obstruction, do you 4 way brace both sides of the vertical offset or just the riser side in the direction of water flow? Is there a point to when to much bracing can be detrimental? Wouldn't line restraint in lieu of seismic bracing prove to be adequate for all portion of the branch line including the riser nipple? Also finding adequate structure to brace to can also become a problem. Utilizing a 4 way brace on a 1 1/4 x 06 RN seems like over kill. Do you subtract lateral load factors from main braces for the added bracing of the branch line? Thanks, Ed Cyr -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Norton Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Riser or Riser Nipple? DSA has also been trying to require all drops over 4 ft. to be restrained. Seems they think a drop is no different than a sprig. Go figure. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Riser or Riser Nipple? Sprigs are a separate category independent from risers. That alone would not convince many folks that have an excessively literal mind. Fortunately, we can then ask, if a 4-way brace is required why would 13 state: Sprigs greater than 4 ft shall be restrained? This issue come to our attention when looking at riser nipples. That's why we now have the 3 ft allowance. Beyond that, if it's feeding more than one sprinkler, I think you have to treat it like any other riser. Roland On Jan 7, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Ed Cyr wrote: Forum, In the past I posted a thread about an AHJ requiring that riser nipples regardless of length be 4- way braced at the top. NFPA 13 defines a riser as any vertical pipe. Recently, the Dept of State Architects (DSA) in California has brought this issue up again. Riser nipples of any length with or without flexible couplings are on their radar. Question: 1.Is a riser nipple a riser requiring a 4 way brace, or a branch line component requiring restraint only? 2.Does every change of elevation (vertically) on a branch line also require a 4 way brace? Comments anyone? Thanks, Ed Cyr Alpha Fire Sprinkler Corp. San Luis Obispo, CA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Riser or Riser Nipple?
DSA has also been trying to require all drops over 4 ft. to be restrained. Seems they think a drop is no different than a sprig. Go figure. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Riser or Riser Nipple? Sprigs are a separate category independent from risers. That alone would not convince many folks that have an excessively literal mind. Fortunately, we can then ask, if a 4-way brace is required why would 13 state: Sprigs greater than 4 ft shall be restrained? This issue come to our attention when looking at riser nipples. That's why we now have the 3 ft allowance. Beyond that, if it's feeding more than one sprinkler, I think you have to treat it like any other riser. Roland On Jan 7, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Ed Cyr wrote: Forum, In the past I posted a thread about an AHJ requiring that riser nipples regardless of length be 4- way braced at the top. NFPA 13 defines a riser as any vertical pipe. Recently, the Dept of State Architects (DSA) in California has brought this issue up again. Riser nipples of any length with or without flexible couplings are on their radar. Question: 1.Is a riser nipple a riser requiring a 4 way brace, or a branch line component requiring restraint only? 2.Does every change of elevation (vertically) on a branch line also require a 4 way brace? Comments anyone? Thanks, Ed Cyr Alpha Fire Sprinkler Corp. San Luis Obispo, CA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Room Design
While we are on this topic...We have a small debate in our office regarding the density/area method. Some say to ignore the walls completely through the entire calculation process, just like the example that NFPA 13 describes (which works great for a the typical warehouse with equal sprinkler spacing). Others say ignore the walls with regard to the general location of the remote area (1.2 rectangle) and then use the walls to determine the actual square footage of the remote area and to determine the actual gpm required from each sprinkler within the remote area. What do you all say? Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Room Design I can't see a good reason for NFPA to nix the room design method - I've seen enough locations where the self-closing doors actually remain closed. But I can't see a contractor willingly avoid the room design either - not without potentially losing more work to the other guy. A classic example of why NFPA 13 is a minimum standard; and why (many times) there should be a third party taking responsibility for the design. Say, like an engineer of record for instance - one that knows what's going on, that is. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Room Design propped open doors? propped open self-closing doors? that IS reality. that is why the Room Design method has to wake up and smell the coffee. not that the Room Design method is bad in intention. one, two, three sprinklers kabosh most LH/OH fires. just that there are some bad assumptions to the Room Design method. Like doors being closed. scot deal excelsior fire ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Room Design
Let me explain a little further. It seems logical to locate the remote area (1.2 rectangle) without respect to the walls. Then fine tune the square footage of the remote area at the perimeter of that rectangle by taking the edge of the remote area to the nearest wall that gives you at least the 1.2 dimension of the rectangle. Imagine a typical office building without self closing doors. By a literal interpretation of code using the density/area method you would completely ignore the walls then perform the calcs as described in NFPA. Which would work fine if all of the sprinklers where centered in the room. One sprinkler may be 10'-0 from the adjacent sprinkler when ignoring the wall. And the same sprinkler 7'-6 off the wall when not ignoring the wall. Assume the spacing between this sprinkler and those in the other direction is 14'. Also, assume this is not a small room. Ignoring the walls completely then the sprinkler gpm required is (10' x 14')0.10 = 14 gpm or (7 psi). Not ignoring the walls then the sprinkler gpm would be [(7.5' x 2)x14']0.10 = 21.0 gpm. If you use the 21.0 gpm as the sprinkler demand then logic follows that this same area to the wall can also be included as being part of the remote area inorder to satisfy the minimum area size. In essence you ignore the wall to get started only, then use the walls for the remainder of the calculation process. Does that help? Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Room Design I am not sure if I understand your question completely, but here is my attempt at an answer. The remote area is the actual physical area and not the hydraulic area. For example, consider a 22'x22' room with four sprinklers on 14' centers, the actual physical area is 484 sq. feet, but the hydraulic area is 784 square feet. Only 484 sq. ft. is in the design area. Have I interpreted your question properly? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Norton Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Room Design While we are on this topic...We have a small debate in our office regarding the density/area method. Some say to ignore the walls completely through the entire calculation process, just like the example that NFPA 13 describes (which works great for a the typical warehouse with equal sprinkler spacing). Others say ignore the walls with regard to the general location of the remote area (1.2 rectangle) and then use the walls to determine the actual square footage of the remote area and to determine the actual gpm required from each sprinkler within the remote area. What do you all say? Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Room Design I can't see a good reason for NFPA to nix the room design method - I've seen enough locations where the self-closing doors actually remain closed. But I can't see a contractor willingly avoid the room design either - not without potentially losing more work to the other guy. A classic example of why NFPA 13 is a minimum standard; and why (many times) there should be a third party taking responsibility for the design. Say, like an engineer of record for instance - one that knows what's going on, that is. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Room Design propped open doors? propped open self-closing doors? that IS reality. that is why the Room Design method has to wake up and smell the coffee. not that the Room Design method is bad in intention. one, two, three sprinklers kabosh most LH/OH fires. just that there are some bad assumptions to the Room Design method. Like doors being closed. scot deal excelsior fire ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Sound Wall Penetration - Waveguide?
I am looking for information on penetrating a sound wall with dielectric fittings or a waveguide or something of that sort. I have sprinkler piping passing through a sound wall for a government job, lots of spec's very little direction, and they want something that will minimize the sound transfer from one room to the other. Can someone point me in the right direction. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Jason ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
