RE: Conveyor Protection
Bob, Look at NFPA 15 for conveyor protection for water spray systems, this may reinforce what you are looking at, perhaps substitute sprinklers instead of water spray Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, PM.SFPE Corporate Engineer [cid:image001.png@01D3EB87.1D50C020] American Fire www.american-fire.com<http://www.american-fire.com> 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop | Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 | 205-317-0918 (cell) 205-591-9990 (Fax) [http://www.sfpe.org/resource/resmgr/Member_Logos/ProfessionalMember_logo.jpg] Licensed in AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? Please note that any positions expressed above are my professional opinion only, as a member of the NFPA 13 Technical Committee, and do not represent an official interpretation of the NFPA 13 standard. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 12:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Conveyor Protection I'm looking at protecting an exterior conveyor used for crushed rock. The insurance provider for this project has provided the following design guidance, "provide sprinkler coverage". NFPA 120 seems to be the only standard that provides conveyor protection criteria, so I'm using that for my guidance. There will be a .25 density with nozzles 8' o.c. NFPA 120 8.4.6.3.2(1) states, "shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13 as far as practical". With that said, there is no guidance for design area. Looking at 13, for a density of .25 there is no area given. Would it be appropriate to use 1500 sf + 30% for preaction or should it be 2000 sf + 30%. Then, can the area be extrapolated to use the 1.2 x area for length of remote area. There will be two nozzles every 8', one upper, one lower. This would than allow for about a 53' design area (or 61' for the larger area). Thank you, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 [FBK-LOGO-SMALL] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Informal Interps
Good Job Travis. Merry Christmas!! Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, PM.SFPE Corporate Engineer [cid:image003.png@01D378B7.4650E010] American Fire Protection, LLC 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop | Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 | 205-317-0918 (cell) 205-591-9990 (Fax) [http://www.sfpe.org/resource/resmgr/Member_Logos/ProfessionalMember_logo.jpg] Licensed in AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? Please note that any positions expressed above are my professional opinion only, as a member of the NFPA 13 Technical Committee, and do not represent an official interpretation of the NFPA 13 standard. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 10:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Informal Interps Merry Christmas all. This is just another plug as to the many benefits of being an AFSA member. I was having an issue with an EOR on a project. The informal interpretation let them see things as we had believed was correct. Often, the sprinkler guy is seen as being self-serving and not as all knowing as the EOR. However, having the backing of the AFSA to our position, the EOR backed off of his incorrect interpretations and is going to be working on re-designing the issue in question. [MFP_logo_F] Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> http://www.mfpdesign.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D=0> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D=0> 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=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=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
RE: 38" wide soffit along wall
See figure A*.6.5.1.2 from NFPA 13, 2016 [cid:image007.png@01D28CE9.3EDD6110] Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, PM.SFPE Corporate Engineer [cid:image008.png@01D28CE9.3EDD6110] American Fire Protection, LLC 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop | Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 | 205-317-0918 (cell) 205-591-9990 (Fax) [http://www.sfpe.org/resource/resmgr/Member_Logos/ProfessionalMember_logo.jpg] Licensed in AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? Please note that any positions expressed above are my professional opinion only, as a member of the NFPA 13 Technical Committee, and do not represent an official interpretation of the NFPA 13 standard. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Lindholm Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: 38" wide soffit along wall I thought I knew the answer to this one, but now having second thoughts 21'-6" to roof deck, Light Hazard, 38" wide soffit along a wall @ 8'-2" above the floor. Do we need sprinklers under the soffit? 1st thought was no, because it is less than 48" wide, but then looking @ NFPA #13 - 2016, 8.6.5.1 and 8.6.5.2, it looks like we "will need" heads under the soffit. It is not like something 38" wide sitting out in the middle of a room where a pattern could develop around the obstruction from different areas. The edge of this soffit goes to the roof deck, so no pattern can develop around it. Thoughts? Greg Lindholm ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage
John, I'm writing off on the forum because I don't want to stir up a hornets nest. Isn't this an engineering decision, not a NICET SET decision? I'm just saying, why would you want to take that liability as a NICET SET, and also potentially violate your NICET Certification by practicing engineering. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, PM.SFPE Corporate Engineer [cid:image005.png@01D2513A.37965DC0] American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop | Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 | 205-317-0918 (cell) 205-591-9990 (Fax) [http://www.sfpe.org/resource/resmgr/Member_Logos/ProfessionalMember_logo.jpg] Licensed in AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? Please note that any positions expressed above are my professional opinion only, as a member of the NFPA 13 Technical Committee, and do not represent an official interpretation of the NFPA 13 standard. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Paulsen Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 9:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage Hello All! I am working with a truck parts supplier who has moved into an existing warehouse and I am providing a design study to them on the existing system. Pertinent Facts: 6"x6"x2" Grid with K-8.0 Upright Heads fed by a pump. Pipe is at 25' AFF. Metal truck parts storage in HDPE Plastic Bin Boxes stored no higher than 10' Existing system with 500 GPM hose calcs to .60 GPM / 3,000. Tokyo Mutual Insurance Personally I think the system provides adequate protection for the storage configuration. In fact it is MORE than sufficient according to NFPA 13, Ch 14. However the insurance company is maintaining that the plastic bin storage boxes represent an additional hazard. This is a new experience for me. My contention is that the Bin Boxes, even though they are made of HDPE Plastic, do not represent an increase to the commodity classification because of their higher flash point. (which is information I can't seem to find right now) Is there a fire test out there that indicates these bin boxes represent an increased hazard? John Paulsen - SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P - 614-782-2438 F - 614-782-2374 C - 614-348-8206 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Calculating extended coverage
Timothy, Small room rule cannot exceed 225-sq.ft. per head. 16 x 16 is 256-sq.ft. per NFPA 13, for small rooms, the heads are averaged, “Where a small room, as defined in 3.3.22, is considered, the area of sprinkler coverage is calculated as the area of the room divided by the number of sprinklers in that room.” Also, a 4 head calc. is not correct for the 900-sq.ft. area. For quick response area reduction, i.e. 900-sq.ft. area, from NFPA 13, “11.2.3.2.3.2 The number of sprinklers in the design area shall never be less than five.” For extended coverage heads, from NFPA 13, “11.2.3.2.2.3 For extended coverage sprinklers, the minimum design area shall be that corresponding to the hazard in Figure 11.2.3.1.1 or the area protected by five sprinklers, whichever is greater.” Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, PM.SFPE Corporate Engineer [cid:image002.png@01D1DD1D.D0067810] American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop | Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 | 205-317-0918 (cell) 205-591-9990 (Fax) [http://www.sfpe.org/resource/resmgr/Member_Logos/ProfessionalMember_logo.jpg] Licensed in AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Calculating extended coverage Use the small room rule where the head is allowed to be 9' from one wall and calc as if it were a 16 x 16. Less pressure and water overages. 4 head calc for 900 sqft. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30 On Jul 13, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Jay Stough <jaycs7...@gmail.com<mailto:jaycs7...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have a nursing care facility that I am trying to calc. Must be 13 (2007) light. Can not use room design or residential method per state AHJ. The building is shaped like an upper case H with the bottom legs cut off. There are 4 rooms on one side of the corridor and 3 rooms on the other side of the corridor in each upper leg that use extended coverage sprinkler in each room. Also 1 standard spray sprinkler in a closet and one standard spray sprinkler in a bathroom in each room. Sprinklers in the corridor are standard spray also. Since I am using extended coverage sprinklers, I need to calculate 5 minimum. The sprinklers cover 16'3 X 14', so need to calc at the 18' X 18' rate. 22.4.6.2 allows me in "rooms like closets, washrooms and similar small compartments requiring only one sprinkler shall be permitted to be omitted from calculations within the area of application". Can I calculate 6 extended coverage sprinklers, without the corridor or "small rooms or compartments" for my 1500 sq ft? Or should I calc 5 extended coverage and the hallway sprinklers in the 1500 sq ft? Jay Stough NICET IV LAYOUT NICET III ITM ___ 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: "Self Storage" building design
OH II Minimum, perhaps more. Class IV Commodities on racks needs EH-I. Extensive shielding of combustibles would require EH-II. OH I only protects Class I and Class II Commodities, regardless of 8-ft. height. Safe to assume there will be more than just Class I and Class II Commodities inside that storage unit. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, PMSFPE Corporate Engineer American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop | Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 | 205-317-0918 (cell) 205-591-9990 (Fax) Licensed in AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Lamar Vaughn Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:52 PM To: Sprinkler Forum Subject: Re: "Self Storage" building design The buldings of this nature I have delt with had a wire mesh ceiling at 8'-0" which limited the storage height to less than 8 ft. Hence O.H. I. If storage is over 8ft., then O.H.II . On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:38 PM, <wmens...@comcast.net> wrote: > I have a 3-story "Self Storage" building divided into various sized > rental units. > Maximum storage height is about 10' or less. > > What design criteria is being used for this type of occupancy? > > Thanks > > > > Bill Menster > WFM Consulting Inc. > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN8i6hESyMMCCUOYqen3tPqdQT4Qm4S4jqdQT4QnQQnP > qdQT4Qm4S4PqdQT4Qn1Or1Ih9-oBeoaRnUOJI7phZqdp_qsGMB2TbCZl-cHr1SkvmzmvSD > aI9gJOVJVZBAsW-_R-vuosLRXBQShPT8FCzCWrfbnjIyyHtNfBgY-F6lK1FJ4SCrhWWl6O > 5bhAgYTsS03fBitetB7WbhB0GvYu00UvaAVgtHM2phqcE5j_yXmbqFtSkvEJ6k2F_NU02r > EJ6k2F_NtH5JkKgGT2TQ1hYGjFPIE_hqcE5j_zM04SMyOUr1vF6y0Qh37DKCy0oDmeAvd4 > hEw8dOfgB0yq84fF8z0SOMrTPPD > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIgdEIc9FKcL6zBMTsSztdNd5xdx4SztdNd5Zd5YSztdNd5xdxcSztdNd5MsCMr4ivC9jC2Jl-cHr1SkvmzmvSDaI9gJOVLlvzaSMtB7RERDZFOH2kbsKruvpp7eLLZvDTC7bZuVtdAsZOapEVKCPORQX8EGTsjVkffGhBrwqrjdFCQuKBhIxiQp4fdTdw0PVkDjDph-yQpgaD_7w0e7OFek7qY0Ckmza1k_UKRySGntB7WbhB0GvYu00CWbhB0GvYnqNrlbAaJMJZ0kvaAWsXafQmza1k_UY01dI8IK6MnWhEwd4gNVXFEw69RzF7Ph4q823szQ9g8Cy13Wi8MdII6Mx_Y ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Standpipes
Travis, The question is does a mezzanine count as a story? My past experience has been, NO, a mezzanine, that fits the definition of mezzanine in IBC, cannot also be a story, rather it is considered a part of the story within which it is contained. Excerpts from IBC 2012 Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, M.SFPE Corporate Engineer American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 205-591-9990 (Fax) 205-317-0918 (cell) Licensed in AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Standpipes No. It is occupied. There are all 1 story units on Level 1-3. Level 4 has 1½ story units. 1000 sq ft on 4th floor, then go up a set of stairs that is internal to the unit. The mezzanine/loft is about 400 sq ft. It will have a bedroom and living space up there as well as a bathroom. The architect has put confusing notes on the plan. No one can figure it out. They are conflicting about NFPA 13 then 13R then standpipes, then no standpipes. He has been asked to clarify, but it is taking longer than the builder wants. They are just trying to get some ideas to know how it may go. If this is a story that would drive standpipes, would it also not drive the building to an NFPA 13 system since it would then be 5 stories. If the mezzanine/loft does not count as a story, then it would be applicable for 13R. They are under 2010 edition. But, if the mezz/loft does not count as a story to drive it to 13, then does it count as an elevation to trigger standpipes? Lot's of questions. Not many answers yet. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6xAg3zqb2pEV78CzBWXxKVJ6Wryqb2r29J6WryqbWqbVJ6Wryqb2r2pJ6WryqbwVdwS8A_ciDc5qHYpmS3IE-J6I_JeloixrBPuG_6lJwXafHhHfXjBm4EmVsSwXJxPbX_nV5BMszRXBQSm7-pKCMzORQX8FGT7csG7DR8OJMddECPhOrhWWl6O5bhAgYTsS02ltmg-AycendQmza1k_UKRySGn8lrxrW0E-l9QVSkvEJ6k2F_NU02rssKedwLQzh0cjS22QBLErhodPBLMtNtP http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPow720Qrhojd78V4QsLnsdTdETjsjhojohdETjsjhvjhvdETjsjhojojdETjsjhs79I6N4DVykVwHlvzaSMtB7RERDZFOH2kbsKrRnUOJI7phZqdp_qsGMB2TbCQ7tIepvvW_8IK3AuLsKCOM_PdQS4umKDp5dmUVzBgY-F6lK1FJcSqejqfniESgFqcy7CXCOsVHkiP2DeXrO5qBunNrifQMr5MIn3LF8z0K5gG9oqekQQnC4hPxEVjdQmza1k_UKRySGn8lrxrW0E-l9QVSkvEJ6k2F_NU02rssKedwLQzh0cjS22QBLErhodZFsr1iZZ Send large files to us via: http://cp.mcafee.com/d/avndxMQ91NJ5xcQszAjhOZtMTsSztdNd5xdx4SztdNd5Zd5YSztdNd5xdxcSztdNd5MsCMr4ivC9jC2Jl-cHr1SkvmzmvSDaI9gJOVLlvzaSMtB7RERDZFOH2kbsKrgtSMVBZ_HYyOUehWZOWrb3_cTjohVqWtAkRrzCel3PWApmU6CSjpEVdEZtazp2BEO8urKr9PCJhbcasjAh9PSh_bUTwSbxoe-Ayc3t5EOwlf-bJoJGBO5mUm-wafBitetB7WbhB0GvYu00CT7bzzobZ8Qg34ZwwJ9rW6Qm3oOykULKkTaKJ On 4/22/2015 9:17 AM, Matthew J Willis wrote: Sounds like an attic, not a loft. It will not be occupied right? R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Project Manager Rapid Fire Protection Inc. 1805 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:09 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orgmailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Standpipes Travis, I can't quote code. We had the same thing and the City required Standpipes. David Autry Meininger Fire Protection 2521 West L Street, Suite 5 Lincoln, NE 68522 402.466.2616 402.466.2617 fax da...@mfp-inc.commailto:da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orgmailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Standpipes Does a loft/mezzanine count toward the height to require a standpipe? Example: 4th floor is 29'-4 above lowest level of fire department access. So standpipe would not be required. But these units have a loft/mezzanine that will be obviously above the 30'. The only way to access the loft is from a stair in the unit on the fourth floor. So standpipes yes or no? It is an R-2 occupancy. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC Follow us on Facebook: http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k-Kr6wUedEI9CzAsyqenHK6XCQrFK9EI9I8CQrFK9ELFELC QrFK9EI9I9CQrFK9EK3AS3oyjYNasMlGLNBroeOzWQqP-QVlxa5KndWHYpmS3IE-J6I_Je loixrBPq3KS7cLLZvAmn1OfnKnjpovVCWr2fbnjIyCHssNOEuvkzaT0QSMrd79J7HFkr8k J6h3PtPpesRG9pxjDtJV2JiLbUJF7WodyUmbxTQAhwn2El4Id7aqqbP28VMQsFCWbhB0Gv YnqNrlbAaJMJZ0kvaAWsXafQmza1k_UY01dKen76MnWhEw69X11qiTQdEI6YuqA Send large files to MFP Design via: http
Re: A Poll of the Experienced
Mark, Which edition if IFC are you looking in? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:09 PM, mphe...@aerofire.com mphe...@aerofire.com wrote: Where are you guys finding these specific methods of proving the adequacy of the fire flow requirements? I don't find any language close to this in the IFC. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: At 4 hydrants simultaneously if they're on the same water supply, or in combination of public and private or at however many hydrants you have if fewer than 4 and those being the sole source of fire flow. As other comments, I would reiterate that the Table B fire flow is for outside hose streams only and completely separate and apart from any hydraulic demand related to building sprinkler systems. Steve L. div Original message /divdivFrom: mphe...@aerofire.com /divdivDate:12/05/2014 6:29 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Re: A Poll of the Experienced /divdiv /divI think I agree with you, but to be very specific, let's assume I'm designing a new building on a greenfield site which is served by a public water system. The building is type V construction, 600,000 square feet and fully protected with ESFR sprinklers. Table B105.2 indicated a fire flow rate of 8000 GPM, reduced to 4000 GPM for sprinkler credit, at minimum 20psi. My question is, WHERE is this 4000 GPM at 20 psi measured? At the city water main connection? Or at the fire pump discharge? Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: Neither. It's the flow you need for a building. You might get it from a muni or private. Absolutely nothing to do with sprinklers except you get a reduction if building is sprinklered. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: mphe...@aerofire.com Date:12/05/2014 8:12 PM (GMT-06:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: A Poll of the Experienced Over this weekend I'd like to ask the opinion of those forumites experienced in the reading and understanding of the International Fire Code on the topic of Fire Flow described in Chapter 5, and further prescribed in Appendix B. Is the available flow rate and residual pressure referenced, intended to describe these values of the municipal or private water supply available to the building site? Or, the minimum output of any fire pump associated specifically with the automatic sprinkler system in the building? Any takers? Questions? Clarifications? Thanks for any answers. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Seismic Design ASCE changing?
What is the occupancy of your job? On Sep 15, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Rod DiBona r...@rapidfireinc.com wrote: Just had an Engineer tell us that ASCE 7 is going to be changing so that seismic design category B will require EQ for fire sprinkler systems and that is why they are being proactive and requiring it now. Thought I would run it by the forum for the smell test. Thanks for any info. Thinking if Ken W doesn't know about this that I might have to call BS..OR . I get educated on current trends. Thanks. Rod at Rapid ___ 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 Evaluation
Just wondering how an architect can be an EOR. An architect is not an engineer. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 26, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Tim Stone tston...@comcast.net wrote: Craig, In this case I was hired by the Architect to design a Sprinkler system for a brand new Church. The project is in a rural setting so fire pump and tanks are being used. Is it reasonable for the AHJ to expect the NICET certified designer to perform this duty or shouldn't this responsibility fall back onto the Architect who in this case would be the EOR? 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 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Supply Evaluation Is your project a rural or suburban project? Fire flow requirements should be identified by the EOR with direction from the local or otherwise applicable fire authority. I typically make a call to the local fire authority to find out what method is used to determine fire flow. There are several different methods out there with requirements that vary greatly so guessing isn't a wise move. Once we know their approved method, we apply that info and determine what is required to meet Code. Sometimes that entails a tank and pump, sometimes not. Fire Flow is one thing that gets overlooked a lot in engineering design. We recently had one contractor telling an owner that the requirements for fire flow were ridiculous and he's never had to do that anywhere else. I hope he doesn't do much design beyond 7-11 stores with his level of knowledge of the Codes. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steele, Andrew Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Supply Evaluation This most likely is from the International Fire Code, Chapter 5, Fire Service Features, (G) Section 507 Fire Protection Water Supplies. Subsection 507.3 says fire flow requirements for building or portions of building and facilities shall be determined by an approved method. In Ohio, this has been adopted direct into the Ohio Administrative Code. I'm guessing any other jurisdiction using ICC are (or will) be doing the same. Typically the local Fire Marshal will help facilitate the evaluation (to be conducted by a private fire protection/water utility contractor) and will be the one to review/approve it. Andrew Steele Dayton, OH (937) 333-4522 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Stone Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Water Supply Has anyone in other parts of the country run across this? I just received a copy of a state fire marshal's review letter on a new project in which they are asking that the (Water supply for firefighting shall be evaluated and provided in accordance with NFPA 1142). Who is responsible for this evaluation in your area? 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 Fax: (802) 434-4343 mailto:tston...@comcast.net 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 ___ 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: Minimum number of operating sprinklers
Reza, Light hazard can be 225-sq.ft. per head not 130-sq.ft. for standard coverage, and up to 400-sq.ft per head if extended coverage could work. If you were able to make extended coverage work, at say 400-sq.ft. per head, and took the quick response area reduction down to say 900-sq.ft. remote area, it is possible that you could fill out your 900-sq.ft remote area with just 3 extended coverage heads (3 x 400-sq.ft. = 1200-sq.ft.), but NFPA 13 requires a minimum of 5 heads to be calculated. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 205-591-9990 (Fax) 205-317-0918 (cell) -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Minimum number of operating sprinklers According to NFPA-13, for designing a wet pipe sprinkler system in a light hazard occupancy, with a density of 0.1 gpm/ft2 operating over 1500 ft2 and 130 ft2 per sprinkler, the number of operating sprinklers is calculated (1500/130) = 12. This is the minimum. 1- Can we use standard response sprinklers in a new building which is light hazard occupancy or we have to use quick response? If we have to use quick response sprinklers, so can we reduce area of operation by 40% and the new number would be 900 ft so the new number of operating sprinklers is (900/130)=7 2- NFPA-13 stating that The number of sprinklers in the design area shall never be less than five How this number is calculated? while the above calculations indicated that the minimum is either 12 or 7. Thanks! Reza www.sarian.ir ___ 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: Minimum number of operating sprinklers
It is also possible that 4 standard coverage heads at 225-sq.ft could fill out a 900-sq.ft. remote area, but NFPA 13 requires a minimum of 5 heads. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 205-591-9990 (Fax) 205-317-0918 (cell) -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Minimum number of operating sprinklers Reza, Light hazard can be 225-sq.ft. per head not 130-sq.ft. for standard coverage, and up to 400-sq.ft per head if extended coverage could work. If you were able to make extended coverage work, at say 400-sq.ft. per head, and took the quick response area reduction down to say 900-sq.ft. remote area, it is possible that you could fill out your 900-sq.ft remote area with just 3 extended coverage heads (3 x 400-sq.ft. = 1200-sq.ft.), but NFPA 13 requires a minimum of 5 heads to be calculated. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 205-591-9990 (Fax) 205-317-0918 (cell) -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Minimum number of operating sprinklers According to NFPA-13, for designing a wet pipe sprinkler system in a light hazard occupancy, with a density of 0.1 gpm/ft2 operating over 1500 ft2 and 130 ft2 per sprinkler, the number of operating sprinklers is calculated (1500/130) = 12. This is the minimum. 1- Can we use standard response sprinklers in a new building which is light hazard occupancy or we have to use quick response? If we have to use quick response sprinklers, so can we reduce area of operation by 40% and the new number would be 900 ft so the new number of operating sprinklers is (900/130)=7 2- NFPA-13 stating that The number of sprinklers in the design area shall never be less than five How this number is calculated? while the above calculations indicated that the minimum is either 12 or 7. Thanks! Reza www.sarian.ir ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Antifreeze
When specifically did you receive this NFSA EOD opinion? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 205-591-9990 (Fax) 205-317-0918 (cell) -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 8:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze Here is an informal interpretation on the issue: Dear Mr. Wilson, This email is in response to your request for an informal interpretation sent via...@nfsa.org. You have referenced theTentative Interim Amendment (TIA) issued onthe 2011 Edition of NFPA 25 on March 1, 2011 (TIA 11-1). Specifically, you have asked if this is retroactive to older editions of NFPA 25. The answer to your question is “no.” However, it is important to note that NFPA considers a new edition of a document to override the previous edition. In other words, when a new edition is published the old edition to no longer valid in the NFPA system. When a standard is adopted into law with a specific edition, it may take time for that law to catch up with the new publications. In these cases, it is important to understand the intent of the TIA and apply it as best as possible working with the jurisdiction. When a TIA is issued by an NFPA Committee it is considered “emergency” information that the public needs to be aware of as soon as possible and therefore it cannot wait until the next revision of the document. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me. It should be noted that the above is my opinion. It has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the NFPA or its Committees. Very truly yours, Victoria B. Valentine, P.E. Director of Product Standards Sent from my iPhone On Aug 5, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Morey, Mike mo...@bmwc.com wrote: That's only for existing systems to remain in service as far as I know, from the TIA: 7.6.2.1 Except as permitted in 7.6.2.2, antifreeze solutions shall be listed for use in sprinkler systems. 7.6.2.2* Premixed antifreeze solutions of propylene glycol shall be permitted to be used with ESFR sprinklers where the ESFR sprinklers are listed for such use in a specific application. Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com http://www.bmwc.com/ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of accentf...@aol.com Sent: Mon 8/5/2013 9:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze Gents: MY understanding of (current) requirements is - okay if pre-mixed in factory (clearly marked on container) AND approved by licensed Fire Protection Engineer...And YES, we continue to design using glycerin (CPVC) in residential (including our previously cited $ 45M house here in NM)... Regards to all- Jerry accentf...@ao.com Santa Fe, New Mexico USA -Original Message- From: Morey, Mike mo...@bmwc.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 7:23 am Subject: RE: Antifreeze Whether or not they enforce the bulletins, they are considered retroactive to ALL editions. Anyone installing a new AF system without listed solution (which doesn't exist) puts themselves in great legal peril from my understanding of the current situation. Even the premix on the market now no longer meets the requirements of the code. Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com http://www.bmwc.com/ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of Forest Wilson Sent: Mon 8/5/2013 8:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze It's worth noting that the bulletins issued by NFPA on antifreeze affect the current edition of 13. Some states have previous versions of 13 adopted and don't enforce the bulletins. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Craig Leadbetter craigleadbet...@gmail.com wrote: I really appreciate the responses. I was looking for confirmation that my thinking was correct. I lost a couple of bid jobs recently, one which was a modification to an existing antifreeze system, essentially tripling the size of the system, and the other was a wet and dry system. I expected to lose the job that modified the antifreeze system. I talked with the engineer prior to the bid but was told to bid what was shown and it would be modified after
RE: Antifreeze
Check this link http://nfpatoday.blog.nfpa.org/2012/08/new-anti-freeze-tias-approved-.html Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 205-591-9990 (Fax) 205-317-0918 (cell) -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 8:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze Here is an informal interpretation on the issue: Dear Mr. Wilson, This email is in response to your request for an informal interpretation sent via...@nfsa.org. You have referenced theTentative Interim Amendment (TIA) issued onthe 2011 Edition of NFPA 25 on March 1, 2011 (TIA 11-1). Specifically, you have asked if this is retroactive to older editions of NFPA 25. The answer to your question is “no.” However, it is important to note that NFPA considers a new edition of a document to override the previous edition. In other words, when a new edition is published the old edition to no longer valid in the NFPA system. When a standard is adopted into law with a specific edition, it may take time for that law to catch up with the new publications. In these cases, it is important to understand the intent of the TIA and apply it as best as possible working with the jurisdiction. When a TIA is issued by an NFPA Committee it is considered “emergency” information that the public needs to be aware of as soon as possible and therefore it cannot wait until the next revision of the document. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me. It should be noted that the above is my opinion. It has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the NFPA or its Committees. Very truly yours, Victoria B. Valentine, P.E. Director of Product Standards Sent from my iPhone On Aug 5, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Morey, Mike mo...@bmwc.com wrote: That's only for existing systems to remain in service as far as I know, from the TIA: 7.6.2.1 Except as permitted in 7.6.2.2, antifreeze solutions shall be listed for use in sprinkler systems. 7.6.2.2* Premixed antifreeze solutions of propylene glycol shall be permitted to be used with ESFR sprinklers where the ESFR sprinklers are listed for such use in a specific application. Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com http://www.bmwc.com/ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of accentf...@aol.com Sent: Mon 8/5/2013 9:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze Gents: MY understanding of (current) requirements is - okay if pre-mixed in factory (clearly marked on container) AND approved by licensed Fire Protection Engineer...And YES, we continue to design using glycerin (CPVC) in residential (including our previously cited $ 45M house here in NM)... Regards to all- Jerry accentf...@ao.com Santa Fe, New Mexico USA -Original Message- From: Morey, Mike mo...@bmwc.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 7:23 am Subject: RE: Antifreeze Whether or not they enforce the bulletins, they are considered retroactive to ALL editions. Anyone installing a new AF system without listed solution (which doesn't exist) puts themselves in great legal peril from my understanding of the current situation. Even the premix on the market now no longer meets the requirements of the code. Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com http://www.bmwc.com/ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of Forest Wilson Sent: Mon 8/5/2013 8:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze It's worth noting that the bulletins issued by NFPA on antifreeze affect the current edition of 13. Some states have previous versions of 13 adopted and don't enforce the bulletins. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Craig Leadbetter craigleadbet...@gmail.com wrote: I really appreciate the responses. I was looking for confirmation that my thinking was correct. I lost a couple of bid jobs recently, one which was a modification to an existing antifreeze system, essentially tripling the size of the system, and the other was a wet and dry system. I expected to lose the job that modified the antifreeze system. I talked with the engineer prior to the bid but was told to bid what
RE: Home Fire Sprinkler Guidance - New Jersey
Why install sprinklers according to NFPA 13 then? It's just a standard, a regulation. Why not just do what you want? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer American Fire Protection, Inc. 5525 Eastcliff Industrial Loop Birmingham, AL 35210 205-591-9111 ext. 1452 205-591-9990 (Fax) 205-317-0918 (cell) -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:54 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Home Fire Sprinkler Guidance - New Jersey Im a marathon runner. I drink raw vegetable juice, eat mostly plant diet and meat on occasion. The entire country is dying from obesity and obesity related illnesses. Many more than die in fires. Now the people have decided to mandate health insurance coverage. Those who do not comply are subject to arrest. The people of NYC are now regulating various portion sizes in restaurants so fat people won't eat more. Do I have the moral right to tell another person what food to eat or what exercise to do? I don't think so. Do I have the moral right to tell them how many kids to have? (the people of china have already done this). If I don't exercise, drink booze and smoke cigarettes I will become Ill. My illness will affect society to a limited degree. In fact billions are spent on healthcare. I don't need the people to tell me how to eat food or how to exercise. Jack Lelane didn't need the people or government to tell him how to be healthy. In my city they have a new lawn policeman that drives around writing tickets for uncut lawns. As with any other government regulation if you don't comply you are subject to arrest and imprisonment. Hes probably making a good wage and government union benefits as Ohio has lost most major employers and cities are broke. I'm curious how many will support government mandates if all citizens were ordered to cut all fat food, destroy all booze and cigarettes and run a marathon in a year or be imprisoned. It's a different issue? It's just a building code, it's just a healthcare law, it's just an anti trust law, it's just a no smoking law, it's just a minor regulation. For 100 years people installed sprinklers in buildings without the government mandating it. I stay very healthy, somehow without mandates from the people. Eventually there will be nothing left to mandate or regulate. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 30, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Ben won't go to jail because he didn't put in sprinklers but he'll be denied a certificate of occupancy and when he feels tha Virginia City is creeping too close to the Ponderosa and the good people of that burg are creating too many laws that infringe on his personal rights to ignore the rules of society while still reaping its benefits and he wants to move he won't be able to sell the Ponderosa because he built a substandard house. Of course if Sheriff Coffee is doing his job a Do Not Occupy notice will have been posted, no utilities will have been allowed to connect, and if Ben decided to squat he would be subject to arrest for not complying with the Do Not Occupy order, not because he didn't install sprinklers, a law the society agreed was for the good of all. I remember a Mad Magazine parody of Bonanza from when I was a kid. Two things stand out fifty plus years later: 1. Hoss was called Ox, and 2. After an exhausting multi-day ride from the train station to the house, the reporter that was visiting the Ponderosa was asked if he was hungry. Upon answering affirmatively Ben stated, Well, we better get started. It's a three day ride to the kitchen. Most of us though live in the city or suburbs, packed close together. Set-backs are agreements between us as to how, among other things, to not expose each others' risky behaviors. We each have to maintain five feet of clearance from our mutual property line because we've decided that ten feet of separation is a good idea. Now does this onerous law not apply to you? Doesn't it infringe on your right to use your land as you wish? Doesn't your liberty then force me to build my house ten feet from the line, infringing on my right to use my land as I wish, if I want to maintain a safe distance from your selfishness. Or perhaps I'll use my land in our suburban neighborhood for all day/every day open air rap concerts, or for my steel mill. I ought not have to deal with zoning laws that infringe on my freedoms. Remember that most houses change hands every five years. Building codes assure me that if I'm buying your house it was built to a standard acceptable to all at the time of construction. Remember that I can't see if you built your walls with studs randomly spaced of near three foot enters, wired it with lamp cord, and used Cheerios for insulation
RE: Bedbugs
Check NFPA 13, 2013, 6.2.1.1 Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET | Corporate Engineer NICET #102015 | Water Based Layout - Level IV Inspection Testing Maintenance - Level III 241 Hughes Lane | St. Charles, MO 63301 Office 636-946-0011 | Fax 636-946-5172 Cell 314-574-6989 | www.bistatefire.com Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John O'Connor Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bedbugs Gentlemen: Paragraph 6.2.1 (2007 Ed. NFPA-13) states: Only new sprinklers shall be installed. This refers to new work. We relocate sprinklers in office environments all the time. Where does it say specifically that if you unscrew and remove a head, you replace it? What about general maintenance such as internal inspections, where one head is to be removed for a visual inspection inside the fitting? You infer that the only correct action is replacing every head you ever remove. I say you are reading more into the code than intended. If they wanted only new heads for every action, they (the committee) would have said so. Reference also the 2002 edition of the Automatic Sprinkler Handbook, page 106, para 6.1.2.2 where they discuss reconditioned components. However, when sprinklers have been installed in a building on a temporary basis--for example, prior to finish ceiling work--the same sprinklers can be used on that job. The same holds true for an existing system that is being lowered to accommodate a new ceiling provided the sprinklers are of the proper orientation and the associated hazard has not changed. The committee has clearly allowed relocated heads to be used. If the occupancy has not changed, the original head, as in the case of the bed-bug remediation example, can be reused. Obvious exceptions are if the head(s) are 50 years or older, or of the wrong orifice, temp, thread size etc, precluding its applicability as a suitable head for reinstallation. John O'Connor -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bedbugs Absolutely John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Bedbugs Aren't you supposed to replace with new heads if the old ones are unscrewed? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2641/5638 - Release Date: 02/28/13 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: 18 Clearance
The 18-in. clearance is required when trying to throw water over an obstruction to maintain coverage on the other side. In your case, with a branch line down each aisle, it seems to me that you are NOT throwing water over an obstruction, and are more similar to the rules for storage along walls, as outlined in NFPA 13, 2010, A.8.6.6 the 18-in. dimension is not intended to limit the height of shelving on a wall or shelving against a wall in accordance with 8.6.6, 8.7.6, 8.8.6, and 8.9. Where shelving is installed on a wall and is not directly below sprinklers, the shelves, including storage thereon, can extend above the level of a plane located 18-in. below ceiling sprinkler deflectors. Commentary to 8.6.6.1 states sprinklers installed near wall mounted shelves or piled storage located against a wall are not intended to be governed by the requirements of 8.6.6.1. The clear space beneath a sprinkler is needed for the spray pattern to fully develop to allow proper wetting of the floor and not the wall. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET | Corporate Engineer NICET #102015 | Water Based Layout - Level IV Inspection Testing Maintenance - Level III 241 Hughes Lane | St. Charles, MO 63301 Office 636-946-0011 | Fax 636-946-5172 Cell 314-574-6989 | www.bistatefire.com Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Lindholm Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:56 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: 18 Clearance We have an AHJ that told a customer that they have to keep the storage on shelves at least 18 below the level of the sprinkler heads. It is an auto parts store where they have the typical walkways between rows of bins/shelves of auto parts, etc. It is only about 7 1/2 feet to the deck, and there is a branch line down each aisle. I know that it is allowable to be above the 18 level in closets, etc., but would that apply in instances like this? (I see this setup quite frequently.) Greg Lindholm -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20121129/e3de1c4d/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Good one for a Friday
Should a NICET technician be determining this design criteria? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET | Corporate Engineer NICET #102015 | Water Based Layout - Level IV Inspection Testing Maintenance - Level III 241 Hughes Lane | St. Charles, MO 63301 Office 636-946-0011 | Fax 636-946-5172 Cell 314-574-6989 | www.bistatefire.com Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Good one for a Friday Robert, Before we can answer you need to find out type of crude, some crude oil can be considered extremely toxic because of trapped gases within the crude, other crude can be extremely light with light hydrocarbon components, someone (EOR of owner) needs to tell you what the products is and I would start with Foam or AFFF systems not water. Before you start design have the owner's EOR get the details to you so you can make an informed decision on the design of the system. Also reminder to document what you find and how you developed you design criteria and have the owner and his EOR sign off on it. Have a fire safe Holiday season!! Regards Jim Jim Davidson Davidson Associates Fire Protection * Medical Gas * Code Consulting 302-994-9500 Fax:302-234-1781 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Robert Thompson Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Good one for a Friday Indoor rail car loading of crude oil. design dry system water only .3/6000 sqft at deck and under obstructions. 100 sqft spacing of 11.2k sprinklers. Right track or way off. Don't see everyday but may in future. Thank You Robert Thompson Certified Engineering Technologist Dakota Fire Protection 1710 North Washington Street Grand Forks, ND 58203 Phone: 701-772-8820 Fax: 701-772-7932 Email: rob...@dakotafire.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20111209/a526975d/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Table 17.3.3.1 ESFR Protection
Randy, There is no error. Not all ESFR are created equal. K25 and K22 will not protect the same things that K14 and K17 will. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer BI-STATE FIRE PROTECTION C O R P O R A T I O N 636-946-0011 office 636-946-5172 fax 314-574-6989 cell Fire Sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Randy Knutson Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Table 17.3.3.1 ESFR Protection Is there an error in Table 17.3.3.1? I notice in exposed unexpanded 35ft storage in 40ft building section there is a big penalty for using 25.2k sprinklers. 14.0k at 75psi ~ 121gpm 16.8k at 52psi ~ 121gpm 25.2k at 50psi ~ 178gpm For the same heights with cartoned unexpanded, the numbers are the same with the exception of 25psi for the 25.2k. I checked the errata for NFPA 13 2010ed and didn't see anything. Randy Knutson, CET Sales Manager Shilo Automatic Sprinkler, Inc. (208) 412-6113 cell (208) 466-0006 ext 119 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20110912/fcff7a3d/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: staggered ESFR sprinklers
Roland, Thank you for the correction. I forgot about that change in 2010 edition, which is actually not referenced yet by any building code, so depending on the jurisdiction, we may not be able to use that. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer BI-STATE FIRE PROTECTION C O R P O R A T I O N 636-946-0011 office 636-946-5172 fax 314-574-6989 cell Fire Sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: staggered ESFR sprinklers There is no longer a 960 sf minimum size Roland On Aug 30, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Jeff Hewitt, PE wrote: If this design does move forward, another concern would be your design area. Sounds like you may need more than 12 heads to fill up your minimum 960 sq.ft. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Commodity classification of Lard
Looking at the MSDS, it has a Flash Point of 419-deg. F (215 deg C), and could be considered a combustible liquid subject to NFPA 30, even though it is stored in solid form. I would also look at butter or margarine as possible comparables, and also vegetable oil. My opinion is that this would be classified as a Class IIIB Liquid in NFPA 30. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lindner Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:58 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Commodity classification of Lard And for those that might not completely understand (like me), how do we take this type of MSDS info and extropolate it into a design? Can you give me a gentle poke in the right direction. Richard On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Thom tmcma...@firetechinc.com wrote: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924458 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 1:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Commodity classification of Lard Anyone know what the commodity classification of animal fat lard would be? I didn't see anything in NFPA or FM on this after a quick review. I have a refrigerated storage area with wood pallets containing 64 - 50 lbs blocks of lard in which each block is placed in a plastic bag and enclosed in corrugated cardboard box. Thanks, ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Commodity classification of Lard
Lard oil, bottled/cartoned, or lard, packaged/cartoned, will still be a Class IIIB Liquid Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Commodity classification of Lard The MSDS cited is for Lard Oil, which may behave differently than solid blocks of Lard. Need to fully research. Refer back to my comment about it being the PE's job to evaluate. Now if you bought I Can't Believe It's Not Lard.. At 05:12 PM 7/19/2011, you wrote: Looking at the MSDS, it has a Flash Point of 419-deg. F (215 deg C), and could be considered a combustible liquid subject to NFPA 30, even though it is stored in solid form. I would also look at butter or margarine as possible comparables, and also vegetable oil. My opinion is that this would be classified as a Class IIIB Liquid in NFPA 30. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lindner Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:58 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Commodity classification of Lard And for those that might not completely understand (like me), how do we take this type of MSDS info and extropolate it into a design? Can you give me a gentle poke in the right direction. Richard On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Thom tmcma...@firetechinc.com wrote: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924458 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 1:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Commodity classification of Lard Anyone know what the commodity classification of animal fat lard would be? I didn't see anything in NFPA or FM on this after a quick review. I have a refrigerated storage area with wood pallets containing 64 - 50 lbs blocks of lard in which each block is placed in a plastic bag and enclosed in corrugated cardboard box. Thanks, ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pipe Sleeves
Bobby, I would suggest that the use of a sleeve depends on the UL Through Penetration System you choose to use for the penetration. Some do not require the use of sleeves. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pipe Sleeves We have an existing school we are sprinkling. When we pass through a block wall, non-rated (smoke, fire etc.) we plan on providing clearance or a flex coupling within a foot of the wall on both sides of the wall. Does it say anywhere we have to use sleeves for block walls? We will be using Sch. 10 40 pipe as well as CPVC. I can't seem to find anything other than NFPA 13 - 2007 9.3.4.3 Where clearance is provided by a pipe sleeve.. But nothing requiring one. Thank you in advance. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell mailto:bobby.gill...@keyfireprotection.com bobby.gill...@keyfireprotection.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: recommended pre-action system
Joel, If you can convince them that the likelihood of accidental discharge is extremely low, then I would suggest a much cheaper alternative for this small space, protect the space as ordinary hazard instead of light hazard, space the heads accordingly, and because it is now OH, it does not have to be QR, so install SR, fusible link, IM or high temperature heads. This should alleviate any other water damage concerns, as the head response should now be sufficiently slow that if there is a fire and these heads do open, the equipment is beyond repair anyway due to smoke/heat damage that occurred prior to sprinkler activation. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Joel Chaim Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: recommended pre-action system I have a job that requires 3 sprinkler head in a server room and the customer wants us to install a pre-action system. what model is the simplest to use? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: recommended pre-action system
I agree George, I left that part out in my previous post do it as a simple wet system, with SR, IM or High temp. fusible link heads Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: recommended pre-action system We prefer to do these as simply as possible- Concealed sprinklers to aid in protection from mechanical injury, wet. And Since Viking and Victaulic have chimed in, we should expect other mfrs that also offer a prepack to chime in, or at least now know that there are multiple choices if you need to go prepack due to installation competency concerns. Speaking of which, a well-installed simple wet system would be my preference over a prepack installed incompetentlyno matter how simple they've tried to make it. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: recommended pre-action system Joel, If you can convince them that the likelihood of accidental discharge is extremely low, then I would suggest a much cheaper alternative for this small space, protect the space as ordinary hazard instead of light hazard, space the heads accordingly, and because it is now OH, it does not have to be QR, so install SR, fusible link, IM or high temperature heads. This should alleviate any other water damage concerns, as the head response should now be sufficiently slow that if there is a fire and these heads do open, the equipment is beyond repair anyway due to smoke/heat damage that occurred prior to sprinkler activation. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Joel Chaim Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: recommended pre-action system I have a job that requires 3 sprinkler head in a server room and the customer wants us to install a pre-action system. what model is the simplest to use? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Electronic Submissions
As a licensed PE that stamps a lot of documents, I have a few thoughts for you. I had some good advice given back when I first obtained my license. I keep a written log of EVERYTHING that I stamp, so that I have an established, consistent, living document to prove whether I actually signed something or not. In addition, I sign in different colors of ink. I may use blue, black or red, ball point or gel, and always sign my log book with the same pen that I sign the documents with. As for putting your stamp on a document, I believe that you must put your stamp on it, regardless, but not necessarily sign it. Most states will take the position that your stamp must be present to identify who is responsible whether signed or not. You sign it when it is for a permit or some other official/legal purpose. I am not concerned about theft or misuse of my stamp. I have myself reasonably protected with my log, and would welcome suing the pants off anyone that I caught using my stamp/identity. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; 'Coastal' Subject: RE: Electronic Submissions No matter what you do or what security procedures you follow, someone somewhere will find and use some method to get around that protection. So do the best you can reasonably do to protect your seal or signature, and as others have said, your submitting to the AHJ, not the general public. That alone provides a certain level of security. If the Arch. Or GC requires copies of approved drawings, there really isn't much you can do to keep them from photocopying the seal or signature, and using it elsewhere. We have always had a policy that all signatures must be in colored ink, so we could spot photocopies. Did it help? Were there still ways around it? You bet! Do your best, and hope that it never becomes an issue. If it does become an issue, find a really good lawyer and sue the crap out of the offender! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; Coastal Subject: Re: Electronic Submissions I have seen several situations where contractors have scammed PE stamps for drawings (including sticky back stamps from previous drawings and one company actually using a dead PE's stamp). This has made me get a little paranoid about the whole thing. In MA, the stamp not only has to be signed, but dated (I typically do this for all stamps). Doing this electronically would add a level of complexity, but help prevent lifting. There are also some AHJs around here that require wet stamps on all drawings and will not accept copies. At 07:25 AM 4/15/2011, you wrote: Hello, It is an option to submit for state review and approval in South Carolina. I have used it a couple of times. Works ok for me. As far as somebody removing your stamp from a drawing. Insert stamp on finished drawing. Print to PDF No security needed as there is noting to select and grab. It was printed into the set. Friday, April 15, 2011, 6:48:31 AM, you wrote: Aren't we only submitting stamped and signed documents to AHJ's? I think that would help limit security issues. When I worked for an engineer, they only stamped and signed documents submitted for permit and were pretty adamant about it. Of course, that was before cad really became the norm and we were using sticky-back for standard details. I've become accustomed to Bluebeam and really like it for coordination, some submission work so far, and just not having so much paper to deal with. I look forward to working this way much more. I just wish I could crack that adobe requirement with NFPA standards. TD The digital stamp itself cannot be copied out of the file, it can't even be selected at times, and you have the option of viewing the original. There are some pretty in depth security measures available (no printing, no deletion of individual sheets, no commenting, password protection,). It could become a screen shot then transferred but that would be no different than scanning a physical print. I haven't gotten into it fully, but have gotten a couple PDF's that had these measures in place. http://www.adobe.com/security/pdfs/acrobat_livecycle_security_wp.pdf In your free time Locks are for honest people...as I was once told. Sounds like it could be easy for the unscrupulous contractor to lift a stamp. What is there for security? Sent from my iPhone
RE: In-rack sprinkler maximum and minimum spacing...
Try NFPA 13, 2002, Table 12.3.2.4.2.1 Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Sean Lockyer Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: In-rack sprinkler maximum and minimum spacing... I have a fire marshal wanting me to show him where in NFPA 13 it dictates the minimum and maximum spacing of in-rack sprinklers. This is a good question, for the life of me I have never found it in black and white. I know that there are several references to 8'-0 maximum spacing per sprinkler for storage up to 25'-0 but we are only storing up to 20'-0. I have always been under the impression that you space a sprinkler in each in-rack flue space, usually on the center point of the rack or at the rack upright. Normally the racks are spaced around 8'-0 O.C. but there is one here that is 4'-0 O.C. We are using intermediate level in-rack sprinklers with the overhead system being ELO sprinklers-no ESFR, Large Drop, etc... We are using NFPA 13, 2002 Edition here in Florida. What says the community ? -- Sean Lockyer Project Designer Delta Fire Sprinklers (407) 328-3000, ext 139 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: partial walls in mech rooms
NFPA 13, 2010, 8.15.22.3 only applies when open to an adjacent space on ONE side only. Maybe I am wrong, but based on what has been described sounds like it is open on ALL sides, thus 8.15.22.3 does not apply. This described situation would require sprinklers at the deck over the entire area because a concealed space has not been created (due to the described space being open on all sides). Providing sprinklers at the deck for 24-ft. beyond, on all sides is not correct. Just my opinion. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: partial walls in mech rooms Well, you have to go 24 feet which ends up being an area of approx, 55' x 54' that you are now required to put heads in. I Although the example in the handbook refers to a warehouse/office space in which the clarification is that protection must extend 24' over the offices and the area of greater hazard is outside the 24' zone, I guess it is similar, but it is a stretch in my opinion. In this case, the greater hazard is surrounded by a lesser hazard on 4 sides, Therefore if 8.15.22.3 applies, we will end up protecting the entire non-combustible interstitial space. Before I argue for this change order I want to make sure this is the intent on the code. Thanks, Greg On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Bob Knight bkni...@agfsi.com wrote: I think in this case you are cooling the structure in an area that heat could become a factor. 2010 ed. Requires .6 times the sq rt of the area or a minimum of 24' extended into areas such as this (8.15.22.3 .4). BK -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: partial walls in mech rooms I cannot get past the idea that we normally put water on floors, not on the tops of ceilings! -Original Message- From: Greg McGahan [mailto:g...@livingwaterfp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: partial walls in mech rooms It is not CLEAR, this section appears to refer to the cloud situation we are often running into. I am not trying to get out of something here, I am trying to document why we have to do it. We have used the 15' rule in the past, but again, that is truly intended for another situation, in my honest opinion. This section is to avoid fusing heads in adjacent areas, not require additional protection... as I read it. On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Morey, Mike mo...@bmwc.com wrote: On second reading, if you're saying the LH areas have a ceiling but the mechanical rooms don't then 8.15.22 does apply, in which case the higher area is the roof deck, which means you provide the protection for the mechanical room at the deck and for 24' in any direction away from the mechanical room over the ceiling of the LH space. -Mike Morey, SET Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. office: 317-651-0596 mobile: 317-439-2695 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of Greg McGahan Sent: Thu 3/10/2011 10:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: partial walls in mech rooms We have an issue right now with a light hazard non-combustible building in which there are multiple small mechanical rooms -3' x 8' or 6' x 7' in general size. The architect was vague so the GC is not putting in ceilings nor is he running the walls up to the deck. I have been reading and rereading chapter 8 of 13 -2010 edition, and I cannot conclusively determine what we are required to do in this case. The description in 8.15.22.1 is not exactly correct so I can't see clearly... Does anybody have a cut and dry answer? Thanks, Greg -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org
RE: sprinkler escutcheons and rated ceilings
Try IBC, 2009 713.3.2 Exception 5 And associated Figure 713.3.2(2) Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Don Lowry Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: sprinkler escutcheons and rated ceilings Forumites, We have one of those overzealous inspectors from Dept of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) TX who all of a sudden decides that the holes in the UL Listed recessed (RASCO FP) escutcheon somehow nullifies the rated ceiling construction in Nursing Homes. Even with the listing bulletins. I understand that the holes are how the sprinkler got its rating, but anyone have a quick document thats states the obvious? Thanks in Advance Don Lowry, RME Dickerson Fire Protection ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Canopy projecting from wall
Dewayne, 4-ft wide and 18-in. down is correct if the obstruction is in the middle of the space where water can throw over the top of the obstruction. However, you also said the canopies protrude from the wall, so now the 4-ft wide exemption does not apply. Water cannot throw on both sides of the canopy if it is against the wall. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Canopy projecting from wall I have a situation where I have a room with 18ft acoustical ceilings and a couple of non-combustible canopies projecting from a wall around 9ft AFF. The canopies themselves protrude from the wall only 3ft and are about 8ft long each. I don't think I would need additional protection below the canopies since the overhead ceiling is fully sprinkled, the canopies are less than 4ft wide and at least 18 down from the overhead sprinklers, and no additional floor area is created. What does the forum think? Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection New Berlin, WI ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: @#*% Hose Stations
If this is not a design-build project, and the specs do not require them, even though the AHJ does, then I agree, the plumber that wrote the FP specs blew it. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: @#*% Hose Stations I know this is a no brainer but any help would be appreciated. We are doing a warehouse system with ESFR heads, shop drawings were approved by all parties, Architect, Engineer, AHJ. The only comment was from the AHJ that stated he wanted (3) hose stations added, no big deal. We send the GC a change order for the addition of the hose stations and it gets approved; now the GC wants us to provide additional information as to why we didn't include hose station in our original bid. We explained that there were no hose stations shown in the contract drawings or in the spec's and that NFPA-13 doesn't require them. Apparently the owner is trying to get the GC to pay for them because he didn't consult his crystal ball when he bid it and should have seen that the AHJ was going to add them! I know we're clean from our end but was just trying to help the GC out, any ideas? Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 Nicet # 128476 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16540) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: @#*% Hose Stations
OK, I stand corrected. The plumber that prepared the FP specs did not know which boxes to click from their master spec writing software. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: Jeff Hewitt [mailto:je...@bistatefire.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:24 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: RE: @#*% Hose Stations If this is not a design-build project, and the specs do not require them, even though the AHJ does, then I agree, the plumber that wrote the FP specs blew it. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: @#*% Hose Stations I know this is a no brainer but any help would be appreciated. We are doing a warehouse system with ESFR heads, shop drawings were approved by all parties, Architect, Engineer, AHJ. The only comment was from the AHJ that stated he wanted (3) hose stations added, no big deal. We send the GC a change order for the addition of the hose stations and it gets approved; now the GC wants us to provide additional information as to why we didn't include hose station in our original bid. We explained that there were no hose stations shown in the contract drawings or in the spec's and that NFPA-13 doesn't require them. Apparently the owner is trying to get the GC to pay for them because he didn't consult his crystal ball when he bid it and should have seen that the AHJ was going to add them! I know we're clean from our end but was just trying to help the GC out, any ideas? Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 Nicet # 128476 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16540) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: FPE
Garth, I would say for a legit FPE (Fire Protection Engineer), the answer should be YES. However, most states do not have PE designations within specific disciplines, so the result is many non FPE types that may claim fire protection as an area of expertise whether qualified or not. Check out this link to see an outline for what is actually covered on the NCEES FPE exam http://www.ncees.org/Documents/Public/PE%20Fire%20Oct%202004.pdf Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Garth W. Warren Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FPE Does being an FPE necessarily mean that you have training in, or a knowledge of, fire sprinklers? Thanks, Garth ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: FPE
When I took the exam in 1995 it was 75%. I do not know if that is still accurate. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:09 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FPE Jeff, What percentage is a passing grade? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FPE Garth, I would say for a legit FPE (Fire Protection Engineer), the answer should be YES. However, most states do not have PE designations within specific disciplines, so the result is many non FPE types that may claim fire protection as an area of expertise whether qualified or not. Check out this link to see an outline for what is actually covered on the NCEES FPE exam http://www.ncees.org/Documents/Public/PE%20Fire%20Oct%202004.pdf Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Garth W. Warren Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FPE Does being an FPE necessarily mean that you have training in, or a knowledge of, fire sprinklers? Thanks, Garth ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Ceiling Clouds
Tony, My take is that you are obligated to provide protection at the deck 1st, and then everything else becomes a potential obstruction to sprinkler discharge below. In this case it seems you will also need to drop protection into the levels of clouds at the 8' level as well. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Ceiling Clouds I agree with going in 15' over a suspended ceiling when the space is open to another area..., but is that in the code? A different situation. I have a room about 22 ft. high that has some clouds for acoustics, at about 15 foot level. These are sprinklered up and down. There are also some clouds 6 feet in diameter at the 8' level, for mounting light fixtures. So the difference in height from roof to the 6' dia. Clouds is about 14 feet. Are sprinklers required below these lower clouds? I should mention, this is a seismic area, and the clouds are supported with wires from the roof. Tony -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: December 14, 2010 8:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Ceiling Clouds I don't think so Jimmy. Up 'til now, the consensus status quo has been to fully sprinkler up and down but I think a case can be made for going back 15' from the opening in the same spirit as going in 15' over a suspended ceiling when the space is open to another area ... SL -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Waite Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 5:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Ceiling Clouds I know this has been talked about before, but I am having trouble getting onto the archives. I have a situation in an auditorium/lecture hall that has a ceiling that steps down as you get closer to the front of the room. However, there is about a 2'-0 perimeter around the room that is open to the non-combustible space above the ceiling. In this case I'd be willing to sprinkle around the opening (sort of like 8.15.1.5 in the '07), but it seems pointless to provide coverage over this entire lowered ceiling. Is there any code that backs this up? I thought I've heard some, but I don't know where it is. Thanks, Jimmy Waite Design Engineer jwa...@piedmontfire.com mobile: 919.622.7030 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: NICET III
I suggest you get your hands on a copy of Sprinkler Hydraulics by Harold Wass Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 636-946-0011 --- On Wed, 12/8/10, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: NICET III To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 5:39 PM Read Pat Brock's book. If you understand basic hydraulics the advanced stuff is just nuance. If you don't understand what you're doing (see George's post) it will be a mystery and magic. This ain't rocket science folks--It's just fluid dynamics. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Greg McGahan g...@livingwaterfp.com wrote: Where is the least expensive and most beneficial class to prepare for the advanced calcs so we cna get his behind us? Thanks, Greg On 12/8/2010 4:56 PM, Bob Knight wrote: I'm in the same boat with two left. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:58 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NICET III What does that do to those of us who only lack one element to pass IV? Thanks, Greg On 12/8/2010 2:23 PM, Art Tiroly wrote: Soon the element testing program will not be available. The new test is comprehensive pass fail system. Check the NICET website for availability - coming soon. Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 3:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NICET III I believe that you need basic hydraulics for III, but you don't need to pass Advanced Hyd for III. You just need that for IV. It has been many years since I completed my IV, so I don't recall exactly where the breaks are. On 12/8/2010 1:19 PM, Brian Harris wrote: Am I off my rocker or is it possible to reach NICET III without having to take Advanced Hydraulics or Hydraulic Design Area? Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 Nicet # 128476 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16470) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- Greg C. McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC. 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- Greg C. McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC. 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question
Craig, Sounds like someone has some splainin to do Lucy. Just because something is done as a design-build project would not somehow negate the need for a PE. In fact, just the opposite would hold true. Design-build implies PE involvement. In addition, if I was the AHJ, at this point, it is already designed (and perhaps in for permit and rejected), and now you want to add a PE and come back with the same design stamped by a PE, I would reject that as well, as it is obvious the PE just stamped the plans after the fact, and did not do or supervise the design. Good luck. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question What if it was done by a contractor as a design-build project? No PE involved. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dale Wingard Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:55 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Craig, He has to be a PE. It is normally the Engineer that is part of the original design of the project. Dale F. Wingard, SET Design Manager Triple A Fire Protection, Inc. 251.649.2034 da...@aaafp.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Louisiana Professional of Record question I need to know from someone who regularly works in Louisiana what the submittal procedure is if drawings are produced for an owner from an outside design firm who is not the installing contractor. Is a POR required to be a PE? Where are the qualifications listed for the POR in relation to sprinkler shop drawings? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question
Regardless of a contractor's intentions, good or otherwise, I have a problem with this whole process as described. Getting a PE to stamp something, AFTER the fact, AFTER it has been already been designed, is NOT KOSHER, or at least questionable at best, especially if the PE is not qualified/experienced with fire protection. This is a violation of the PE law in most if not all states, and certainly the spirit of the NICET Code of Ethics as well. While it is obvious that Bobby's Company's intentions are good, I am certain that a LARGE number of contractors out there do not understand the legal issues involved, and view the need for a PE stamp as just one more obstacle, one more thing to do to get a permit, just another nuisance cost, and do exactly what I have described, go and get some PE, any PE that is willing for a small fee, to stamp their drawings AFTER the FACT. This is wrong, it is unethical, and illegal for both the PE and the contractor, and god forbid something happens on one of those jobs, and everyone gets called to court, or your insurance company finds out. You think you're covered, but you're not. The stamp was obtained illegally, and therefore your professional liability and errors and omissions coverage is denied. This is not another PE vs. layout technician thing. Rather, this is a statement that if a PE is required, then do it correctly. Just my 2-cents. Sorry for the rant, and no offense intended towards Bobby. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Lately we have had projects that require us to provide PE stamps. The last few projects, we were informed after award of contract and before submittal that we had to have a PE stamp on our drawings. We have a local PE that will do this, so we send in a change and get him to review and then approve. When he looks at them he researches the project, design build or not, and makes sure that everything is done per code before he will sign off. Some of the projects have a PE on record for the fire protection portion of the project and still want us to provide a PE stamp before submittal, that's the one that I do not understand; if they are the engineer of record for the fire protection on the project, why won't they do like they used to and review and stamp once it is approved through them? We have even bid a few that require this in the specs. now - even if the FP portion is engineered from the beginning. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell mailto:bobby.gill...@keyfireprotection.com bobby.gill...@keyfireprotection.com _ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Craig, Sounds like someone has some splainin to do Lucy. Just because something is done as a design-build project would not somehow negate the need for a PE. In fact, just the opposite would hold true. Design-build implies PE involvement. In addition, if I was the AHJ, at this point, it is already designed (and perhaps in for permit and rejected), and now you want to add a PE and come back with the same design stamped by a PE, I would reject that as well, as it is obvious the PE just stamped the plans after the fact, and did not do or supervise the design. Good luck. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question What if it was done by a contractor as a design-build project? No PE involved. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dale Wingard Sent: Wednesday
RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question
Bobby, If your engineer is making changes to your design and is redrawing for submittal, all the better, but I was not referring to you or your company. It sounds like you have someone that is qualified to perform these duties, and do it in a legal and ethical way. My statement is about this process in general, not about you specifically. You cannot tell me that what I described does not occur everyday all over this country, by those that either do not know, are willing to risk it, or do not care, and not just in our field of fire protection. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question I disagree. The Arch/Eng and owner require us to get a PE stamp. Yes that does create another obstacle, but we have a Mechanical (including fire protection) PE available locally that is used as the FP engineer of record by many architects on new projects in our area. When it is required, we hire him to do ours and he wants all of the specs and drawings, as well as the contacts for all involved. He researches the entire project to make sure that the fire protection is correct to the application, codes and area - including other things I am sure I am not aware of. He does his job all the way through, and at that point he will not stamp our drawings - he creates his own, calculates them himself and then stamps his drawings. These are now the drawings that are used for submittal and the project, all the way to As-Builts. If there are any re-submittals or changes necessary to his drawings, he does them - all of this is part of his fee. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell mailto:bobby.gill...@keyfireprotection.com bobby.gill...@keyfireprotection.com _ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:54 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Regardless of a contractor's intentions, good or otherwise, I have a problem with this whole process as described. Getting a PE to stamp something, AFTER the fact, AFTER it has been already been designed, is NOT KOSHER, or at least questionable at best, especially if the PE is not qualified/experienced with fire protection. This is a violation of the PE law in most if not all states, and certainly the spirit of the NICET Code of Ethics as well. While it is obvious that Bobby's Company's intentions are good, I am certain that a LARGE number of contractors out there do not understand the legal issues involved, and view the need for a PE stamp as just one more obstacle, one more thing to do to get a permit, just another nuisance cost, and do exactly what I have described, go and get some PE, any PE that is willing for a small fee, to stamp their drawings AFTER the FACT. This is wrong, it is unethical, and illegal for both the PE and the contractor, and god forbid something happens on one of those jobs, and everyone gets called to court, or your insurance company finds out. You think you're covered, but you're not. The stamp was obtained illegally, and therefore your professional liability and errors and omissions coverage is denied. This is not another PE vs. layout technician thing. Rather, this is a statement that if a PE is required, then do it correctly. Just my 2-cents. Sorry for the rant, and no offense intended towards Bobby. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Lately we have had projects that require us to provide PE stamps. The last few projects, we were informed after award of contract and before submittal that we had to have a PE stamp on our drawings. We have a local PE that will do this, so we send in a change and get him to review and then approve. When he looks at them he researches the project, design build or not, and makes sure that everything is done per code before he will sign off. Some
RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question
Chris, I have not looked, but I would speculate that every state has a similar rule in their PE laws. Something to the effect of a PE shall practice only in their areas of expertise as established by experience, education or training. So here's my question, and I would like to see your answer... How can a PE that is not qualified by training, education, or experience (any PE, not just an FPE) legitimately claim to provide personal or immediate supervision over said work? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 6:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Maybe it's a definition of design that will help clear this up. I'm a little lost at what Jeff takes issue with. How is any of this different than a tech, NICET or otherwise, qualified (which is subjective) or not, putting together a plan and giving it to his boss, the PE, for correction, comment, improvement and/or signature? Seems this issue isn't even a FP issue but a question of all engineering. Seems to me the design doesn't exist until the PE signs the drawing and supporting paper (like spec's, calc's, etc). A signed drawing is a design everything else up to that point is?...but random lines on a paper? How the design got to exist is semantics? Seems there is little difference whether the PE and techs are employed by the same company. I once learned the standard ratio is 5 techs per PE (all engineering not just FPE). Although I suspect that is a little outdated. For example I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Are we talking the definition of 'direct'? The MN PE Board ruled on a complaint I filed 10-12 years ago that a PE located MI (and lic in MN) could in fact sign the work admittedly done here by a non-PE. I can't quote the exact wording but it was to the effect they could not rule on the point of direct supervision as there were nearly infinite ways to accomplish direct supervision. Once signed it was then a design qualified by the PE and how it got to exist they weren't really interested in. If you are speaking of SFPE white paper on PE and Tech's role in design there are few states following this model that I know of. As a matter of fact the MN PE board dismissed the PE's role in sprinklers a long time ago. I don't consider the MN Board much different than the average Board. I know of some better, some worse, certainly don't know all. On Bobby's statement He does his job all the way through, and at that point he will not stamp our drawings - he creates his own, calculates them himself and then stamps his drawings. Why, if it's all right? Sounds like a marketing issue not an engineering one. I suppose that is a reason as justifiable as some others I can't think of. Does he do this as well for any techs working for him? Sounds to me like he needs new techs if so. Chris Cahill -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Bobby, If your engineer is making changes to your design and is redrawing for submittal, all the better, but I was not referring to you or your company. It sounds like you have someone that is qualified to perform these duties, and do it in a legal and ethical way. My statement is about this process in general, not about you specifically. You cannot tell me that what I described does not occur everyday all over this country, by those that either do not know, are willing to risk it, or do not care, and not just in our field of fire protection. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question I disagree. The Arch/Eng and owner require us to get a PE stamp. Yes that does create another obstacle, but we have a Mechanical (including fire protection) PE available
RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question
Also, you stated Seems to me the design doesn't exist until the PE signs the drawing and supporting paper (like spec's, calc's, etc). A signed drawing is a design everything else up to that point is?...but random lines on a paper? How the design got to exist is semantics? I cannot disagree more. Just because someone went and got a PE, any willing page stamper to seal their drawing does NOT make it a design at that point. It is not a legal design if the stamp is not legit, i.e. stamped by a QUALIFIED PE. ALL that it means is that they tried to game the system to get their permit. How is the public safety served by such abuse? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 6:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Maybe it's a definition of design that will help clear this up. I'm a little lost at what Jeff takes issue with. How is any of this different than a tech, NICET or otherwise, qualified (which is subjective) or not, putting together a plan and giving it to his boss, the PE, for correction, comment, improvement and/or signature? Seems this issue isn't even a FP issue but a question of all engineering. Seems to me the design doesn't exist until the PE signs the drawing and supporting paper (like spec's, calc's, etc). A signed drawing is a design everything else up to that point is?...but random lines on a paper? How the design got to exist is semantics? Seems there is little difference whether the PE and techs are employed by the same company. I once learned the standard ratio is 5 techs per PE (all engineering not just FPE). Although I suspect that is a little outdated. For example I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Are we talking the definition of 'direct'? The MN PE Board ruled on a complaint I filed 10-12 years ago that a PE located MI (and lic in MN) could in fact sign the work admittedly done here by a non-PE. I can't quote the exact wording but it was to the effect they could not rule on the point of direct supervision as there were nearly infinite ways to accomplish direct supervision. Once signed it was then a design qualified by the PE and how it got to exist they weren't really interested in. If you are speaking of SFPE white paper on PE and Tech's role in design there are few states following this model that I know of. As a matter of fact the MN PE board dismissed the PE's role in sprinklers a long time ago. I don't consider the MN Board much different than the average Board. I know of some better, some worse, certainly don't know all. On Bobby's statement He does his job all the way through, and at that point he will not stamp our drawings - he creates his own, calculates them himself and then stamps his drawings. Why, if it's all right? Sounds like a marketing issue not an engineering one. I suppose that is a reason as justifiable as some others I can't think of. Does he do this as well for any techs working for him? Sounds to me like he needs new techs if so. Chris Cahill -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question Bobby, If your engineer is making changes to your design and is redrawing for submittal, all the better, but I was not referring to you or your company. It sounds like you have someone that is qualified to perform these duties, and do it in a legal and ethical way. My statement is about this process in general, not about you specifically. You cannot tell me that what I described does not occur everyday all over this country, by those that either do not know, are willing to risk it, or do not care, and not just in our field of fire protection. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Louisiana Professional of Record question I disagree
RE: fire caulk sprinkler penetrations
Travis, It's in the IBC code Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:12 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: fire caulk sprinkler penetrations We have a fire marshal that is requesting that the sprinkler head penetrations through a rated ceiling be fire caulked. I thought I read somewhere that you are not req'd to fire caulk the fire sprinkler penetrations. If this is correct, can some one point me to the code/standard reference for this? Thanks in advance! -- Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 Office (480) 505-9271 Fax (866) 430-6107 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Hose Demand
Is it actually a private separate water supply, or just a private water main that is ultimately fed from a public utility source? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 2:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Hose Demand If I have a system with a pump that is fed from a private fire main as described in 3.8.1.11 (2007) am I allowed to exclude the hose stream from the calculations per 12.8.2? Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 Nicet # 128476 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16010) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Hose Demand
I don't see where you get relief from the hose allowance. It's all from a city source so it has to be accounted for, somewhere. You can only squeeze out so much, and if it is not there, it's not there. Not including it means not accounting for it, which is not correct in my opinion. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hose Demand This is an addition to an existing building so I can tie the inside hose valves to the existing system side and not have them in the calc's for the new side. I was hoping that I could eliminate the 250 outside hose. Brian Harris FDFP Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 4:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hose Demand Is there any place on the system to take a hose demand? At 03:54 PM 10/5/2010, you wrote: Is it actually a private separate water supply, or just a private water main that is ultimately fed from a public utility source? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 2:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Hose Demand If I have a system with a pump that is fed from a private fire main as described in 3.8.1.11 (2007) am I allowed to exclude the hose stream from the calculations per 12.8.2? Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 Nicet # 128476 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16010) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16010) http://www.pctools.com/ === === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16010) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Control Mode vs. ESFR
With most control mode, you have Group A plastic and pallet storage limitations that you would NOT have with ESFR K14 or K17. If these are areas of concern, then that would be an issue. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Control Mode vs. ESFR Having issues with an existing job that was laid out using ESFR K17's, it was mentioned by a local PE that using a Control Mode sprinkler may be the answer. What are the pro's and con's with using a Control Mode sprinkler in a warehouse type setting? I've looked at some of the product data sheets and right away you can see the end head pressure is quite a bit lower than the ESFR. Are the obstruction rules the same? Etc... Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 Nicet # 128476 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15940) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Question on sprinklering an attic space
Sounds like your consultant is correct in accordance with NFPA 13. But that does not address whether there are any specially adopted requirements via the Department of Health. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Schwarzauer Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 3:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Question on sprinklering an attic space I have a single story residential-style structure used for housing semi-dependent residents for the State Department of Mental Health. The unit is an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded, but is viewed as a nursing home by the state agencies. The building is non-combustible construction; CMU bearing walls with light gauge metal trusses and standing seam metal roof. The single floor is fully sprinklered that is where my problem begins. My boss had me direct the Consultants to eliminate the sprinkler in the attic, to save money, as the building was of non-combustible construction. Now the Fire Marshal reviewer for the State Health Department are telling me that all the PVC vent stacks and piping insulation is non-compliant. My Consultant is telling me that, as these are concealed spaces, the IBC allows non-combustible limited combustible materials to be present without sprinklers. Any thoughts? Thanks, Dennis M. Schwarzauer Eley Guild Hardy Architects PA 418 East Capitol Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201 T 601.354.2572 F 601.355.2006 www.eleyguildhardy.com P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Eley Guild Hardy Architects PA. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Eley Guild Hardy Architects PA accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: ESFR Heads
The K14 and K17 are the only ESFR with the 32-ft building option. It is allowable to utilize the 35-ft. building design criteria instead. Please be aware that K25 ESFR does not protect the same things that K14 and K17 do, mainly idle pallets, and uncartoned or exposed Group A Plastics. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads The ceiling height is right at 32', I'm hoping to be able to use the k...@20 since it will keep the pipe sizes down. However the K25 are about 3 times as much as the K16.8 Regards, Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 3:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads Is the ceiling height 32 or 35ft? It is odd that 32' is the only height that only offers two choices where all the others offer four choices. But both the Handbook and FMDS 2-2 have some comments related to the selection of sprinklers. If you did not have 40-60psi to use for the system and a k...@20 psi for instance lists its use as applicable to your conditions I can't see any reason why you could not use a K-25 ESFR sprinkler. But understand that a plan reviewer may not accept your alternative since it's not listed on the chart. Per the NFPA 13 Handbook: The criteria in Table 16.2.3.1 have been expanded to permit broader applications of ESFR sprinkler technology based on large-scale test results reviewed by the Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria. FMDS 2-2 The K14.0 (K200) pendent, being the original suppression mode sprinkler, has the widest array of applications. Do not assume that other suppression mode sprinklers can be used for applications where the K14.0 (K200) pendent sprinkler is permitted. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 craig.pr...@ch2m.com http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR Heads Quick question about ESFR heads, In my particular situation I'm using table 16.2.3.1 (pg.150) Storage height is 25ft, ceiling height is 32ft. Per the table I'm given the choice of either 14.0k or 16.8k, am I limited to these two options or can I use any K as long as the data sheets support it? Also, If it helps the calc's can you go up a level to the 35ft ceiling row and use those heads? Thanks! Brian Harris Design Engineer First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville NC 28078 br...@firstdefensefire.com www.firstdefensefire.com outbind://80/www.firstdefensefire.com Ph: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15320) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe
RE: Small Orifice Sprinklers in Water Curtain
Steve, Just thinking out loud, and do not have a copy of 13 in front of me Aren't closely spaced sprinklers and water curtains listed outside of the occupancy classification section? I am not certain that a water curtain configuration can be classified as Light Hazard, and if it cannot, then your argument loses validity. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Small Orifice Sprinklers in Water Curtain Scenario: 3-story Light Hazard (Residential) occupancy, fully sprinklered per 13. Situation: Exterior exit stairs are too close to glazed openings in exterior walls and 45-minute window protection is required (from inside out) for several 2'x3' fixed windows on all three floors. Challenge: Can't use window sprinklers because exterior walls are bearing. Am proposing to use water curtain provisions of the building code, and furnish 3 GPM per lineal foot per 13. Question:Since the windows are only 2' wide, and there are up to 3 windows in a cluster, we will have sprinklers at 4' apart in several areas and will be provided a baffle of some sort.I can easily hit my minimum flow rate with small orifice sprinklers and do not see any restriction in 13 regarding orifice size in a water curtain. Since it's all Light Hazard, can anyone think of a reason why we can't use 4.2K pendents? Steve Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING 2851 Camino del Rio South, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92108 - Ph: 858.751.2930 - ext. 102 Fax:858.751.2933 Cell: 619.972.5696 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Small Orifice Sprinklers in Water Curtain
Steve, I do not disagree, just wanted to make the point. Also, if the AHJ accepts it, that would be another route to take. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:37 PM To: Jeff Hewitt; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Small Orifice Sprinklers in Water Curtain Interesting point, but there is arguably no more nor less fire load at the perimeter of a residential compartment where the windows occur, so the hazard group is the same . in theory. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA From: Jeff Hewitt [mailto:je...@bistatefire.com] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:26 PM To: Steve Leyton; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Small Orifice Sprinklers in Water Curtain Steve, Just thinking out loud, and do not have a copy of 13 in front of me Aren't closely spaced sprinklers and water curtains listed outside of the occupancy classification section? I am not certain that a water curtain configuration can be classified as Light Hazard, and if it cannot, then your argument loses validity. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Small Orifice Sprinklers in Water Curtain Scenario: 3-story Light Hazard (Residential) occupancy, fully sprinklered per 13. Situation: Exterior exit stairs are too close to glazed openings in exterior walls and 45-minute window protection is required (from inside out) for several 2'x3' fixed windows on all three floors. Challenge: Can't use window sprinklers because exterior walls are bearing. Am proposing to use water curtain provisions of the building code, and furnish 3 GPM per lineal foot per 13. Question:Since the windows are only 2' wide, and there are up to 3 windows in a cluster, we will have sprinklers at 4' apart in several areas and will be provided a baffle of some sort.I can easily hit my minimum flow rate with small orifice sprinklers and do not see any restriction in 13 regarding orifice size in a water curtain. Since it's all Light Hazard, can anyone think of a reason why we can't use 4.2K pendents? Steve Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING 2851 Camino del Rio South, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92108 - Ph: 858.751.2930 - ext. 102 Fax:858.751.2933 Cell: 619.972.5696 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5282 (20100715) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5282 (20100715) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Size considerations
Thom, Here's my 2 cents... I just have to say, I agree in principle with your beef against PE's that are seemingly unqualified to be writing specs. I am even OK with issuing licenses based on disciplines tested. My problem is this, I do not feel it is acceptable to complain about PE's if we are not also willing to file complaints against these problem PE's. In every state, PE's are a self policing profession. Each state's regulatory board relies on the complaint process to investigate license holders. They do not have crystal balls to keep an eye on everything. So as I have stated on this Forum in the past, if you complain about unqualified PE's you also need to report them to their respective regulatory agencies for investigation. If we are not willing to do this, and give the regulatory agencies the assistance they need to investigate these bad actors, then we have NO right to complain. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Size considerations Ok here's my 2cents on 13 as a spec. NFPA 13 1.1* Scope. This standard shall provide the minimum requirements for the design and installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems and exposure protection sprinkler systems covered within this standard. So saying Comply with NFPA 13, edition will allow the contractor to price the lowest level of protection required, as well as the cheapest materials allowed. This is not always in the best interest of the owner. Take our Gov. for example. They want the buildings they build to last! Sometimes they want them to withstand explosions or harsh environments. But generally they are looking for more than the Minimum. Like you say for 98% of all projects that simple Comply with may work. But you're missing a very practical financial aspect of the common practice. That is the owner typically pays the Arch. And Engineer EXTRA for providing Fire Protection spec. and drawings. I think the going rate is about 1% of project cost, but I could be wrong on that. Some contracts allow $xxx.xx per plan sheet and $xx.xx per spec sheet. Since the spec. is already done, and the drawing doesn't really have to show much, if the responsibility is shifted to the contractor, this is easy money, and why we see so many ME or PE's and not FPE's doing this. I often look at the SFPE's white paper and really find it hard to not lash out. They are so worried about what NICET Layout techs' are doing they have just given up on all the PE's who are not qualified to run a 300 machine. Talk about working Outside of their area of Expertise or Knowledge This is where they should focus. Make every state LIC. FPE's and all engineers by discipline. Provide grandfathering and comity for anyone who has a FPE engineering degree and is lic. in another state, but make all others test. Whoops, off subject again. Ok so the reason it's not just do it to 13 is 1) Financial 2)Doesn't have a ERO unless they require the contractor to supply one. 3)Some owners or AHJ's want more than 13's minimum design/ materials or? 4) Outside the scope of 13 is one of Rolland's favorite phrases, which to me means Call in the FPE's! (Like they are some kind of Light Brigade Onward Rode the 300 or some such.) Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Size considerations
Yes, you do. It is not for you to decide or investigate, let the regulatory agency do their job. If they get enough similar standard of care or area of expertise complaints it very well may add up to them taking action. To do nothing means nothing will ever happen. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Size considerations In my case what am I to exactly complain about. 45 pages of really nothing gives me reason to question IF they are competent. Especially when their title is mechanical engineer. In MN we're not licensed by discipline so technically no foul. Allowing sched 30 pipe gives me another reason to question. But just because I've never heard of sched 30 being used, maybe in theory it is allowed/used elsewhere. He has a 20k sq.ft. building divided into 2 system. Not wrong but FM apparently has gone to unlimited areas but this bus parking facility needs 2? One place says OHI and another OHII. And one could argue large busses should be EXII for the shielding. OHI, II or EXII is more a matter of judgment than a formal violation considering NFPA 13 A.5.3.1 says automobile parking is OHI. Granted these ain't automobiles but neither are Suburbans. And when one reads EXII examples as asphalt saturating that by comparison sounds worse to me than a bus. Listing 6 mfg's or equal of each devices (OSY, check valves...) and with a few mfg's I haven't heard of gives me reason to question. Say Venus - fire sprinklers or Shurjoint Piping Products or GMR International Equipment - FDC's or Corcoran Piping System - grooved couplings; perhaps they are all small market folks that really exist. Just because in one paragraph he says all piping ...standard weight...then the next paragraph says wet piping...standard weight or sched 30...makes me question. Then the next paragraph says Standard pressure, wet...2 1/2 to NPS shall be Thinwall galvanized or black steel. Again questions, it's all a standard pressure wet system(s). All the questions add up to I don't think they are qualified but nothing in itself is wrong. Do you complain about the not wrong but clearly don't know sprinklers well enough to be competent? Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Size considerations Thom, Here's my 2 cents... I just have to say, I agree in principle with your beef against PE's that are seemingly unqualified to be writing specs. I am even OK with issuing licenses based on disciplines tested. My problem is this, I do not feel it is acceptable to complain about PE's if we are not also willing to file complaints against these problem PE's. In every state, PE's are a self policing profession. Each state's regulatory board relies on the complaint process to investigate license holders. They do not have crystal balls to keep an eye on everything. So as I have stated on this Forum in the past, if you complain about unqualified PE's you also need to report them to their respective regulatory agencies for investigation. If we are not willing to do this, and give the regulatory agencies the assistance they need to investigate these bad actors, then we have NO right to complain. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Size considerations Ok here's my 2cents on 13 as a spec. NFPA 13 1.1* Scope. This standard shall provide the minimum requirements for the design and installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems and exposure protection sprinkler systems covered within this standard. So saying Comply with NFPA 13, edition will allow the contractor to price the lowest level of protection required, as well as the cheapest materials allowed. This is not always
RE:
Yes. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Robert Thompson Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: was there ever an ordinary hazard group III? and existing system designed to ord III .21/2000 non storage building. Thank you Robert Thompson DAKOTA FIRE PROTECTION 1710 N. Washington Street Grand Forks ND 58206-5327 Phone # (701) 772-8820 Fax # (701) 772-7932 Email rob...@dakotafire.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Seismic Restraint Standards
It was also amended by the 2004 IBC Supplement to IBC 2003, and the 2007 IBC Supplement to IBC 2006 Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic Restraint Standards What edition of ASCE are you referring to as the latest?To my knowledge, the 2005 is the latest and sections 13.6.8.2 and 13.6.8.3 speak directly to the exclusion as you call it. The 2007 edition of NFPA 13 included revisions, specifically tables 9.3.5.3.2(a) and (b), as well as Table 9.3.5.6.2 and the associated steps in the calculation procedure, that meet the prescribed force and displacement requirements of Section 13.3.1 and 13.3.2, if I'm not mistaken. All that taken together means that a system designed with seismic bracing in accordance with NFPA 13, 2007 or 2010 editions in fact DOES meet ASCE 7, and in turn the requirements of Chapter 16 of all IBC editions up to and including 2009. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic Restraint Standards TO all; The IBC refers to ASCE 7 as the Standard for earthquake bracing, if I remember correctly the ASCE 7 standard in effect at the time of the adoption of the 2003 IBC specifically excluded NFPA 13 as a standard for earthquake bracing through the reference in ASCE 7 excluding NFPA 13 seismic bracing since NFPA 13 requirements did not meet the requirements of ASCE 7. In the latest edition of ASCE 7 the NFPA 13 seismic bracing exclusion was removed from ASCE 7. Be aware of the version of the IBC that is being enforced in your area of operation since the IBC is considered the legal code which tells the designer, owner and design professionals what the requirements are for the building based on occupancy, construction type, ground floor area, building height and exposure to building. Jim Davidson Davidson Associates Fire Protection * Medical Gas * Code Consulting 302-994-9500 Fax:302-234-1781 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic Restraint Standards We get those cross referenced type specs now and then. For mechanical piping, plumbing, duct, etc, SMACNA. For Fire Protection, NFPA 13. SMACNA isn't referenced in the NFPA INSTALLATION Standard, because 13 has it's own rules to follow. SMACNA is also no longer referenced in the IBC as of the 2003 edition. ASCE 7 was established as the accepted standard. However there was some verbiage placed in the Code which would permit acceptance of other design standards if approved by the AHJ. So if the MEOR wants to apply SMACNA to Mechanical piping and duct systems he needs to request permission from the AHJ to use that standard. But as previously stated, NFPA 13 is the applicable standard for design of seismic bracing for Fire Protection service piping not SMACNA. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 craig.pr...@ch2m.com http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Cyr Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:01 PM To: American Fire Sprinkler Association Subject: Seismic Restraint Standards Forumites: General Mechanical specs often refer to SMACNA for seismic restraint of piping systems. Sprinkler specs often refer to General Mechanical. Question: Does NFPA 13 seismic bracing requirements take precedence over SMACNA? How was the battle won with the MEOR when he says SMACNA is the preferred standard for bracing of piping systems? Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you, Ed Cyr *Alpha Fire Sprinkler Corp.* San Luis Obispo, CA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field
RE: FM-200 System
Hydrogen hydroxide Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FM-200 System dihydrogen monoxide -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FM-200 System I will be robbing this thought some day, nice. Got to think about putting it right in our letterhead. Sentry Fire - Your Green Contractor - We use only Dihydrogen Oxide, the best and most environmentally friendly fire fighting agent on the planet. Chris -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: FM-200 System Just tell the IT guy that the fire protection in his 120 sqft is being provided by the new wonder chemical di-hydrogen oxide that is cheap, renewable, safe and is the best fire fighting medium known to man. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:24 AM, John Drucker john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Adding to Jim's post, here some more critical red flags, all references to 2006 IBC/IFC Table 503 Notes 1. and 3.; Section 504.2, Allowable height increase due to automatic sprinkler system installation., Section 506.3, Allowable area increase due to automatic sprinkler system installation. Table 601 Note e.; An approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 shall be allowed to be substituted for 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction, provided such system is not otherwise required by other provisions of the code or used for an allowable area increase in accordance with Section 506.3 or an allowable height increase in accordance with Section 504.2. The 1-hour substitution for the fire resistance of exterior walls shall not be permitted. Table 1005.1 Egress width per occupant served- With and Without Sprinkler System 1005.2.1 Two exits or exit access doorways. Exceptions; 2. Where a building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the separation distance of the exit doors or exit access doorways shall not be less than one-third of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served. Table 1016.1 Exit Access Travel Distance - With and Without Sprinkler System., Notes b c; b. Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2. See Section 903 for occupancies where automatic sprinkler systems in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2 are permitted. c. Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. Table 1017.1 Corridor Fire Resistance Rating - With and Without Sprinkler System; Note c; Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 where allowed. Hope that helps, John Drucker, CET Fire Protection Subcode Official Fire/Building/Electrical Inspector Fire Marshals Office Borough of Red Bank, NJ -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FM-200 System Remember that the building code requires the building to be sprinklered throughout and the use of alternative fire suppressions systems instead of sprinkler systems does not met the requirements of the building code. Be very careful if the building is classified as an unlimited area building under the building code because the substitution of a clean agent system for the code required sprinkler system would violate the large area building protection requirements of the building code. The owner has no choice but to comply with the building code. I have seen a few building code officials shut down large area buildings because the IT manager had the sprinkler system removed from the IT server room and replaced with a clean agent system. The building code official has the last word when it comes to the building being sprinklered throughout. Have a fire safe day! Jim Davidson Davidson Associates Fire Protection * Medical Gas * Code Consulting 302-994-9500 Fax:302-234-1781
RE: Extended Coverage Heads Used in Corridor
NFPA 13, 2007 11.2.3.3.6 for Room Design Method, and 11.2.3.3.7 otherwise both stateor when extended coverage sprinklers are installed, all sprinklers contained within 75 linear feet in the corridor Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Craig Leadbetter Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:24 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Extended Coverage Heads Used in Corridor We have a p[roject where we are using extended coverage sprinkler heads in a light hazard corridor. What is the least number of heads we would be able to use in our calculation? Craig Leadbetter Safeguard of Marquette (O) 906-475-9955 (F) 906-475-5474 (C) 906-362-5393 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: ESFR Spacing NFPA 13 2002 vs. 2007
You are allowed to move up to 1-ft. to avoid obstructions to discharge,
either along branch lines, or between lines, but not both at the same time.
Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member)
Corporate Engineer
Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation
241 Hughes Lane
St. Charles, MO 63301
636-946-0011
636-946-5172 (fax)
314-574-6989 (cell)
Fire Sprinklers Save lives.
Can You Live Without Them?
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ken Holsopple
(forum)
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: ESFR Spacing NFPA 13 2002 vs. 2007
Dear forumites,
I have a situation on a building where have have been contracted to do the
addition. The building is 40'+ at the peak. The existing and new building
are all protected (to be protected) with ESFR. The problem is that the
existing layout consists of several places where the branchlines (running
perp. to the bar joists) are spaced greater than 10'-0. The increased
spacing runs anywhere from 10'-1 to 10'-9. Each of the existing sprinklers
does not exceed the 100 sq. ft. In reading NFPA 13 ('02) Section 8.12.2.2.3
I see that an additional 1'-0 is allowed along the branchline when trying
to miss obstructions created by trusses/barjoists as long as the listed
criteria is met. Note that this only allows moving ESFR ALONG the line. No
mention of increased spacing between lines till you get to Section
8.12.2.2.4. But this section only applies to running parallel with the
steel. I will also note that the equivalent in the 2007 edition expands
8.12.2.2.3 to include wind bracing (what I would call x-bridging and/or
Horizontal Bridging). But it still states that sprinklers can only be moved
along the line. The GC would like us to continue with the spacing of the
original layout. I am resisting. My contention is that no matter what, the
distance between the branchlines should not exceed 10'-0. Am I right in
questioning the additional spacing between the lines or am I being to
literal in my interpretation?
Best Regards,
Ken Holsopple
Designer
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates
I think you are missing the point. You have found the references within each Code, but do the Codes apply to Fire Suppression piping? Read the SCOPE of each document and you will find that it does NOT include Fire Suppression piping. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates IPC 2006 305.8 Protection against physical damage. In concealed locations where piping, other than cast-iron or galvanized steel, is installed through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or similar members less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest edge of the member, the pipe shall be protected by shield plates. Protective shield plates shall be a minimum of 0.062-inch-thick (1.6 mm) steel, shall cover the area of the pipe where the member is notched or bored, and shall extend a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) above sole plates and below top plates. IMC 2006 305.5 Protection against physical damage. In concealed locations where piping, other than cast-iron or steel, is installed through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or similar members less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest edge of the member, the pipe shall be protected by shield plates. Protective shield plates shall be a minimum of 0.062-inch-thick (1.6 mm) steel, shall cover the area of the pipe where the member is notched or bored, and shall extend a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) above sole plates and below top plates. Here's how we deal with this. We nail plate the sole plates(one or up to 3 depending on the construction, houses with gypcrete floors typically have an extra plate or two depending upon how thick the gyp is.) and slip a steel sleeve around the riser coming thru the plate.(We find we have enough scrap pipe around to keep a constant supply of 8 sleeves. We use 8 because we have base moldings here that go to 10 high on occasion.) Most walls we see are double plates at the top. Only the upper plate is the actual Top Plate the second plate has a name I forget right now. Any way we nail plate both plates and have our Nominal 2 below the top plate. We've never had any problem with doing this from any inspector. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: IMC, IPC and nail plates Had an interesting encounter with an AHJ this week. He stopped by a jobsite where we're installing CPVC in walls, and found fault with the nail plates we're using. I called to follow up on why he didn't like them, and asked for a code reference. He replied even if it wasn't in the code, he'd enforce nailplates extending further than ours as a safety issue. So I reminded him that his authority was to enforce the PA UCC as adopted, not safety issues he took a personal liking to. His code reference arrived by USPS this AM. He cited the IPC and IMC as applicable to sprinkler piping, which I disagree with. Any thoughts or previous rulings by other AHJs? George Church Rowe Sprinkler ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates
Chris, I respectfully disagree, IFC 2006 102.7 and 102.8 can only be applied within the overall SCOPE of the entire IFC document which is limited to Fire Suppression conditions, not Mechanical, and not Plumbing. The Scope is found in IFC 2006 101.2 Also, according to IFC 2006 102.6 Referenced Codes and Standards, the codes and standards referenced in this code shall be those that are listed in Chapter 45 and such codes and standards shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference. The commentary to IFC 2206 102.6 states: the application of referenced standards is limited to those portions of the standards that are specifically identified. Please note that in IFC 2006 Chapter 45, where the reference standards and codes are listed, IPC 2006 305.8, and IMC 2006 305.5 are NOT specifically listed/referenced. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates Does our family of codes go into this level of detail? If not and I don't think it does, the authority for the AHJ to use what Thom quoted is IFC 102.7 or IFC 102.8. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates I think you are missing the point. You have found the references within each Code, but do the Codes apply to Fire Suppression piping? Read the SCOPE of each document and you will find that it does NOT include Fire Suppression piping. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates IPC 2006 305.8 Protection against physical damage. In concealed locations where piping, other than cast-iron or galvanized steel, is installed through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or similar members less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest edge of the member, the pipe shall be protected by shield plates. Protective shield plates shall be a minimum of 0.062-inch-thick (1.6 mm) steel, shall cover the area of the pipe where the member is notched or bored, and shall extend a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) above sole plates and below top plates. IMC 2006 305.5 Protection against physical damage. In concealed locations where piping, other than cast-iron or steel, is installed through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or similar members less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest edge of the member, the pipe shall be protected by shield plates. Protective shield plates shall be a minimum of 0.062-inch-thick (1.6 mm) steel, shall cover the area of the pipe where the member is notched or bored, and shall extend a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) above sole plates and below top plates. Here's how we deal with this. We nail plate the sole plates(one or up to 3 depending on the construction, houses with gypcrete floors typically have an extra plate or two depending upon how thick the gyp is.) and slip a steel sleeve around the riser coming thru the plate.(We find we have enough scrap pipe around to keep a constant supply of 8 sleeves. We use 8 because we have base moldings here that go to 10 high on occasion.) Most walls we see are double plates at the top. Only the upper plate is the actual Top Plate the second plate has a name I forget right now. Any way we nail plate both plates and have our Nominal 2 below the top plate. We've never had any problem with doing this from any inspector. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday
RE: PODs storage again
Ron, it's better not to use hangers on this one, put it under water. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: PODs storage again I think the consensus was to hang the building for from a fusible link over a pond. Is it a new building? If so it would be interesting to see what the EOR or architect did for a hazard analysis. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Sprinkler Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 2:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: PODs storage again I tried to search the archives, but keep getting a file not found error. I am looking at a PODs storage warehouse. There was a lot of discussion on the forums a while back, but I can't access all of it. The facility I am looking at has 24' storage. What is the general concensus of the protection req'd for these areas? Thanks in advance for your help. Travis Mack, SET ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Seismic - NFA 13 vs. IBC
Ken, I disagree. The requirements for the 2-in. clearance is to prevent damage to the sprinkler or drop due to excessive movement of the piping, not the due to movement of the ceiling. If the ceiling is held to a more strenuous standard making it more rigid, that will not remove the requirement for the 2-in. clearance. However, I do agree with you that these are separate issues. Being able to utilize NFPA 13 to satisfy ASCE 7 and the IBC for seismic bracing requirements is separate entirely from whether those drops need the additional 2-in clearance protection mandated by ASCE 7 or IBC. I personally do not agree with this provision for 2-in clearance located in ASCE 7, and thus the IBC, since NFPA 13 already has allowances/requirements for branch line restraint, which apply to hard ceilings, but not your everyday typical mineral type acoustical ceiling panel, as described in the commentary of NFPA 13 on this topic. The ASCE 7 and IBC documents make no clarification on this. At least for this issue, there seems to be a lack of consistency. Just my 2-cents. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of ParsleyConsulting Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Seismic - NFA 13 vs IBC Rich, I think the supplement provides a great deal of clarification, if what Joe Powell's question dealt with was Does the IBC allow NFPA-13 criteria to be used for seismic protection. I understand your reference regarding the oversize rings, but I think it's relevant to note that the section you're quoting is a part of ceiling requirements, not seismic protection of sprinkler systems, with one exception. Item (e) in 13.5.6.2.2 requires the 2 oversize ring for sprinkler penetrations in ceilings which are not rigidly braced (see the exception to item (b)). Information we've received suggests that ceilings in seismic design categories D-E-F are going to be required by ASTM C635 and ASTM C636 are going to require rigid bracing of the ceiling components, which would eliminate the need for the 2 oversize ring. The important distinction here is that the ASCE7 reference is not for rigid bracing of the drops to the sprinklers, but rather to the ceiling itself. -- PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax R Richardson wrote: Even with the new language in the supplement as referenced by Steve, the issue is not clear. The language in the supplement indicates that NFPA 13 is essentially equivalent to section 13.6.8 of ASCE. However, the requirement for 2 in. oversized rings is not in section 13.6.8. It is in section 13.5.6.2.2, and that section still speaks to sprinkler heads thought suspended ceilings needing 2 in. rings. Not that I am an advocate of the 2 in. ring, we haven't really even enforced it yet thinking it was going to go away, but it seems to still be required. Rich Richardson Seattle Fire Department Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com 03/13/2009 13:29 I call Jeff a little while ago to thank him for that post; if you have interest in this issue, there is free download at ICC's web site (you do not have to be a member). http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-08cycle/2007Supplement/IBC07S.pdf The clarification is in new section 1613.6.3, page 128 of the supplement (page 132 of the PDF). Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: CEILING CLOUDS - AGAIN
Travis, Since we have no specific guidance on this topic, my recommendation is that you must protect to deck first, and deal with the obstructions second. With this criteria, I would recommend both above and below the clouds. Just my thoughts Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) 314-574-6989 (cell) Fire Sprinklers Save lives. Can You Live Without Them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 3:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: CEILING CLOUDS - AGAIN I have a project with lots of floating clouds. The clouds slope with the roof deck and are 1' below the roof deck. If I place a sprinkler in the cloud, is one req'd in the space above the cloud? I would normally put sprinklers above the clouds, but with the deflector already at 12 below the roof deck based on the cloud height, do you really need the sprinklers above the clouds? Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Travis Mack, SET mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Sprinklered vs Sprinkled
kinda like nuclear vs nucular --- On Wed, 1/14/09, bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com wrote: From: bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com Subject: Sprinklered vs Sprinkled To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 10:47 PM Actually this is a serious question. Is there anywhere in the country where the term sprinkled is commonly used by sprinkler industry types to describe a building with a sprinkler system? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 410-544-3620 Phone 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: solid unit load examples
Dewayne, We did a job a few years ago for a landscape block manufacturer. They used a solid plastic skid/tray/pallet, call it what you want, it was 4 inches this, and solid plastic. They stacked these in an accumulation area and recycled them back thru the automated process. The accumulation area needed protection for solid unit load of Group A plastics. Along these lines I am sure you can use your imagination and come up with some others, such as plastic/plexiglass sheets stacked solid just like drywall, or similar arrangements. Each situation would need to be evaluated to come to an agreement whether the storage configuration was a solid unit load. just my 2 cents.. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (fax) --- On Tue, 12/23/08, Dewayne Martinez deway...@dbfp.net wrote: From: Dewayne Martinez deway...@dbfp.net Subject: solid unit load examples To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 11:05 AM Could I please get some examples of a solid unit load of nonexpanded plastics? I am having trouble picturing a load that does not have any voids (air) within the load. Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Fire Pump Controller
Joe, Try this: NFPA 70, 2005 edition, 695.6 (F) Junction Points. Where wire connectors are used in the fire pump circuit, the connectors shall be listed. A fire pump controller or fire pump power transfer switch, where provided, shall not be used as a junction box to supply other equipment, including a pressure maintenance (jockey) pump. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Burtell Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Fire Pump Controller I just had a job site meeting with a electrical contractor. He stated the engineer wanted to feed the jockey pump controller from the fire pump controller. Something about a tapping rule or exception. I cautioned against it, told him to research it first. Can anyone give me a section that prohibits this arrangement from either NFPA 20 or NEC? Best regards, Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS Burtell Fire Protection, Inc. Phone: 406.652.7697 Fax: 406.652.7743 Cell: 406.861.4507 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: design and coordination roles and responsibilities.
That's a good story!! PE's like that deserve to be cut off at the knees. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: design and coordination roles and responsibilities. My favorite story in the ongoing battle between the professionals is the difficulty Steve Leyton had with a registered PE who informed him that by the virtue of his lack of registration as a PE that he was unqualified to discuss the issues related to standpipe design, use, and compliance with NFPA-14. The fact that Steve was a member of the NFPA-14 committee at the time escaped the notice of the individual, and in a delicious moment of irony Steve pointed to his name in the front of the book. That was a day I'll long cherish. PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website Ron Greenman wrote: Once I was called incompetent by the architect because in the field there was one inch of clear space between the bottom of the beams in a parking garage and the minimum low clearance for the cars and I couldn't fit a four inch pipe in the space (and I couldn't touch the beams. He drew nine inches but the excavator screwed up, the garage got poured and it was my problem somehow. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Thom McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your RIGHT! Because the sprinkler contractor is now the only one that does his layout in 3D he visualizes all of the problems the others call Field Conditions. Architects get really pissed off when you point out that they and their consultants didn't co-ordinate space above the ceiling even with their own structural engineer. Yeah the ceiling to bottom of floor is 36, and there are recessed lights in the ceiling with lenses that make them 8 deep. And yes you clearly show the 16x30 duct, and the cable tray and our main is only 6, so what's your problem? COULD IT POSSABLY BE THAT W30 beam we're all shown crossing? Since ancient times the builder of empires and Architects have had the same theory, KILL the messenger!! Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: design and coordination roles and responsibilities. One of the consistent problems we have up here is the electrician. They don't take part in the coordination process, they often don't even have CAD drawings and they just run everything where they want. And the GC's tend to let them get away with a lot of it. I find that more problems with the architect's concepts surface in the sprinkler design that any of the other trades. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: White papers and definition of roles
Very narrow minded Craig. Do you actually believe that Sprinkler System installation is ALL that there is in the FPE realm? I would say now what I have said in the past. If you have had a bad experience with a so called PE practicing fire protection, turn them in to the appropriate state regulating agency/board. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: White papers and definition of roles I've held the position that no one should receive a PE license until they've actually worked in the field as an installer or helper for a contractor in their respective field for at least two years. I've seen far too many young engineers given responsibility over projects just because of those letters when they knew nothing more than a collection of calculation methods. But corporations, lawmakers and others foster the idea that 4+/- years of book learnin', time as EIT, and pass the test to get those letters, earns you the title of Expert. So we suffer with that misguided definition of expert. Over the years it has been obvious which PE's (fire prot and others) have never been to the construction site to see their creation first hand. Trying to convince someone that just because you can draw it doesn't mean it can be built is one of the greatest challenges. Having worked for both Mechanical and Fire Protection contractors, dealing with Engineers was often the most difficult part of the project. I have learned to appreciate FPE's like Jim Roberts for his mentoring attitude and investment in the people he works with. Thanks! Craig L. Prahl, CET Lowly Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Cc: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: White papes and definition of roles Ken, I have been saying this for years. Within my large organization, I get frustrated with PEs (and non-Fire Protection PEs) thinking they know fire protection. We've since reorganized in Greenville and don't have a separate department, but at one time we had up to 27 fire protection auxiliary systems engineers and designers. I insisted that our engineers get their Level IIIs - minimum. In looking at resumes and conducting interviews, I was more interested in people who realized that no one is an expert in all aspects of fire protection, or for that matter automatic sprinklers systems. If someone claims it, watch out! James L.(Jim) Roberts, PE/SET Fluor Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Drive - C104F Greenville, SC 29607 864.281.5149 864.281.4916(Fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ParsleyConsulting Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/07/2008 12:44 PM Please respond to sprinklerforum To sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org cc Subject Re: Fire Pump Suction Steve, that's what makes that idiotic best-of-all-possible-worlds white paper on the role of the PE and the designer so funny. It makes two assumptions which are absolutely brainless. First that there are enough PE's to do all that work, and second, that those same PE's actually know what they're doing. I used to be in awe of those two little letters, until a very proud of himself PE informed me that the appropriate remote area in a military BOQ was the 300' long hallway, which was 5'-0 wide, thus resulting in a 1,500 square foot remote area. On that day I became aware that those letters by themselves don't convey competence. What a pity. PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website Steve Leyton wrote: I wonder how many projects out there have been scrambled like eggs by the EOR ... Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 6:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Pump Suction Sadly I hang my head when I hear where was the EoR. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey I wonder how may projects there are out there with no EoR? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080
RE: White papers and definition of roles
Thank you Thom, That is my point exactly. The PE profession is self policing. Regulating boards will not and cannot act unless someone files a complaint. Let them look into it, that's their job, but by all means FILE the COMPLAINT. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 3:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: White papers and definition of roles As with most things in life, people only do what they have too, to get by. PE's are no exception, only if they are held to a standard they cannot comply with will they respond by doing what is necessary to meet that level of competence. Many states don't even have continuing education requirements. At least NICET got that part right. Lic. By specialty, continuing education, and a higher level of competence won't happen without someone complaining about what is happening now. Don't fix what isn't broke, is the rule most Quasi Gov. bodies live by. If you want it to change YOU WILL have to make it happen! PE's that don't know ESFR from SSP, will continue as they are, unless someone speaks up. As George would say Just say NO! to people working outside their area of expertise. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 On a complaint they have to prove competence you do not have to prove incompetence. This is especially true in States where PE's are general and not licensed by specific testing. For example I passed the fire protection PE exam. With the PE I can sign civil drawings IF I have training and experience in such issues. I do not have to take the CE exam. If ever called before the board I'd have problems because I have no training or experience in CE matters. Perhaps there are others with FP and CE training and experience that could sign both legally by passing the EE test. Chris Cahill, P.E. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions
Just curious If you have NO intentions of listening to the good advice you are getting here on this forum, why ask the question to begin with? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions It has nothing to do with competiveness. I'm not a contractor. It is a matter of replacing a public supply with A 1500gpm pump and 350cum Tank. Not a small change. Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 November, 2008 3:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions Really? Two heads will keep you from being competitive? That must be some real close bidding. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions If you add the flow of two additional heads below obstructions you won't be low bid. The added flow will probably drive your main sizes up a pipe size and it may affect the fire pump as well. It isn't all that dissimilar to storage racks. We know if racks with solid shelves are added to a warehouse the flow for the in-rack sprinklers would have to be added into the roof calc yet we don't make an allowance for them in the shell system, at least we don't. Around here TI contractors chop up ESFR systems by adding heads at demising walls and under ducts but they don't do a new roof system calc. I would bet that 8 out of 10 ESFR systems in Phoenix don't calc after TI but AHJ's around here either don't care or more likely don't know. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:48 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions Well, I read all that and it seems that all you need are 12 heads Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 November, 2008 7:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR Heads below obstructions Dan, All references here are from the '07 edition of NFPA-13: 14.4.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 15.4.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 16.2.3.5 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations 16.3.3.6 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 17.2.3.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 17.3.3.5 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 22.4.4.6.4 The requirements of 22.4.4.6.1 to include every sprinkler in the design area to be included in the system discharge shall not apply; where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers from one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculation. Based on what I read in the ROP just published it doesn't look like any of these have been removed, although it appears that the wording in 22.4.4.6.4 has been moved around a bit, and a new 22.4.4.6.4.1 has been added (See 13-462, Log CP82 in the ROP) Hope that is what you were after. * *PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website
RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions
So, that makes it ok, then? You know better, but you go ahead and do it wrong anyway? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions If you add the flow of two additional heads below obstructions you won't be low bid. The added flow will probably drive your main sizes up a pipe size and it may affect the fire pump as well. It isn't all that dissimilar to storage racks. We know if racks with solid shelves are added to a warehouse the flow for the in-rack sprinklers would have to be added into the roof calc yet we don't make an allowance for them in the shell system, at least we don't. Around here TI contractors chop up ESFR systems by adding heads at demising walls and under ducts but they don't do a new roof system calc. I would bet that 8 out of 10 ESFR systems in Phoenix don't calc after TI but AHJ's around here either don't care or more likely don't know. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:48 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions Well, I read all that and it seems that all you need are 12 heads Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 November, 2008 7:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR Heads below obstructions Dan, All references here are from the '07 edition of NFPA-13: 14.4.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 15.4.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 16.2.3.5 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations 16.3.3.6 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 17.2.3.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 17.3.3.5 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 22.4.4.6.4 The requirements of 22.4.4.6.1 to include every sprinkler in the design area to be included in the system discharge shall not apply; where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers from one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculation. Based on what I read in the ROP just published it doesn't look like any of these have been removed, although it appears that the wording in 22.4.4.6.4 has been moved around a bit, and a new 22.4.4.6.4.1 has been added (See 13-462, Log CP82 in the ROP) Hope that is what you were after. * *PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website danarbel wrote: Question regarding the number of ESFR heads required for hydraulic calc. The nominal number is 12. There was a requirement to add 2 heads if there are heads installed below beams or AC ducts. If I'm not wrong the addition of 2 heads was abolished. Please confirm or correct me, Dan Arbel ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1765 - Release Date: 11/3/2008 4:59 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL
RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions
Travis, I understand the position that you are trying to explain from others, but I have to disagree with the premise. This is suppression mode protection, NOT control mode protection. All research and testing has clearly indicated that ESFR protection is very sensitive to obstructions. I still shake my head in amazement at the attempts by some to justify doing something less. We DO include an allowance for additional ESFR heads in our calcs, up front, and it's amazing, we still manage to compete, while doing the right thing. To me it's a cop out. As to the comment Why calculate the system to 14 heads if the tenant never has additional heads due to obstructions or other items? I have yet to see an ESFR system that did not have obstruction issues requiring additional heads at some point. I don't think we (collectively) are being honest about this if we believe otherwise. Just my 2 cents. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions I think what Ron is implying is that the shell system is designed for one thing, but the tenant later comes in and puts in solid shelves or adds heads under ductwork. The original system was designed, reviewed, approved, installed, inspected and accepted per NFPA and local requirements. When the TI contractor comes in later down the road (1 day - 10 years later, who knows), they often do not do the due diligence to calculate the extra heads under obstructions. If a contractor is to bid a shell system with 14 heads flowing vs 12 heads, they may as well not even bid. You have bigger pipes and possibly a bigger pump. While 14 may be the prudent thing to do, you have to also go with practical. Why calculate the system to 14 heads if the tenant never has additional heads due to obstructions or other items? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions So, that makes it ok, then? You know better, but you go ahead and do it wrong anyway? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions If you add the flow of two additional heads below obstructions you won't be low bid. The added flow will probably drive your main sizes up a pipe size and it may affect the fire pump as well. It isn't all that dissimilar to storage racks. We know if racks with solid shelves are added to a warehouse the flow for the in-rack sprinklers would have to be added into the roof calc yet we don't make an allowance for them in the shell system, at least we don't. Around here TI contractors chop up ESFR systems by adding heads at demising walls and under ducts but they don't do a new roof system calc. I would bet that 8 out of 10 ESFR systems in Phoenix don't calc after TI but AHJ's around here either don't care or more likely don't know. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:48 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Heads below obstructions Well, I read all that and it seems that all you need are 12 heads Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 November, 2008 7:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR Heads below obstructions Dan, All references here are from the '07 edition of NFPA-13: 14.4.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 15.4.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations. 16.2.3.5 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations 16.3.3.6 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one
RE: Fire Pump Suction
Dan, That is incorrect information. This is still a requirement in NFPA 13. Some had previously reported that FM was planning to remove it from the FM Data Sheet requirements. Someone was confused, as it has not, nor was it ever planned to be removed. In fact, as currently worded, the FM requirement could lead to including MORE than 2 additional heads in an ESFR remote area. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 10:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Pump Suction Question regarding the number of ESFR heads required for hydraulic calc. The nominal number is 12. There was a requirement to add 2 heads if there are heads installed below beams or AC ducts. If I'm not wrong the addition of 2 heads was abolished. Please confirm or correct me, Dan Arbel ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Attic Question
Will NFPA 13, 2007, 8.15.1.5 work for you? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Attic Question I have searched the archives and can not find an answer. I am working on a detention center that is of steel, block and concrete construction. The attic area has insulation right under the roof. There is a concrete walkway where we will be placing electric HVAC units. My question is do I have to sprinkle the entire attic, and would it need to be dry, or should I have them enclose the walkway and just sprinkle the mech room? Karen Purvis Designer Facility Systems Consultants 714 S Gay St Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mezz design area
I would be careful stating that the entire mezzanine is an obstruction to the overhead deck sprinkler protection, and you don't have to calculate it. That is not a valid argument. This is a separate area. What pipe sizing are you going to use? What will you base that on? There are many unanswered questions here. The NFPA 13 standard states that you do not have to include heads added due to obstructions to the hydraulic calculations, for a head or two here and there, but to apply it to an entire 50 x 50 mezzanine is a BIG stretch. Just my 2 cents Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mezz design area Assuming both are the same occupancy, which area is going to be your hydraulically remote, the roof or under the mezzanine? Is the use on or under the mezzanine different than the use of the open floor area? If the roof is your hyd. remote area then the mezzanine is just an obstruction and you don't need to calculate it if the design criteria is the same as the roof. If they are different occupancies then they are different zones. What bearing does a stair opening in the middle of a 100K sf building have on the design area? It's a floor opening, just don't run your pipes through it. LOL Adjust your remote area to include the required number of heads for the calcs. The remote area isn't always a perfect rectangle. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mezz design area I think we've talked about this before but couldn't come up with anything in the archives. Roof elv. just over 20'. All quick response heads. 50' x 50' mezzanine in a corner so that one 50' side is open to above. This situation also comes when you have a hole in a first floor open to the second. At the roof the design area is 1500 but what about under the mezz? I tend to lean to a full 1500 sq.ft. under the mezz. but that's just conservatism and I don't think it's really supported in code either way. Even if the wall is around all 4 sides you might have a stair opening wrecking the reduced remote area if that's otherwise allowed. What about a two story 1,000,000 sq.ft. building with a 33.34' x 30' stair opening in the middle? I can see doing by the opening 1500 sq.ft. but what is by the opening mean. How far away until you are no longer near. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pesticides Storage
Ray, NFPA 30 or even 30B if you have any aerosols is a good place to start. If you don't find anything to your liking, you may also want to review the applicable FM Data Sheets on Flammable and Combustible Liquids to see if they have a protection scheme to match your situation. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pesticides Storage Esteemed Collegues: Can anyone give guidance on a Pesticides Storage warehouse and the approriate fire protection requirements? NFPA-434 doesn't give prescriptove requiremetns or a definitive path to follow. It only indicates a risk analysis be done by a competent individual (I read PE or FPE) to determine the extent and type of fire protection to be provide. Without regard to storage arrangement and heights, what TYPE of commodity would be appropriate to consider, since the amount stored is over 10,000 lbs and is extermely varied in the types and configurations of products to be stored? I am leaning towards NFPA-30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids to begin my analysis, but would like the opinions of anyone who has had experience with this process. Thanks in advance, Ray Vance -SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.comblocked::blocked::http://www.waynefire.com/ (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Mattress stroage
Andy, Be careful with this one. It seems to me that the storage as described would constitute Uncartoned (Exposed) Expanded Group A Plastics (NOT Class IV), which have VERY limited applicability for ESFR. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Andy Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:28 PM Subject: Mattress stroage I am working on a bid for a warehouse. I was given a floor plan for the new building and a copy of the fire plan from the same building they just finished in another state. The also sent photos of the existing building. The pics show mattress in plastic bags staked on end all lined up in a row. Just like in dramatic burn video I recently watched. The other area of the warehouse has couches bagged the same way. Sitting on 12'3 bay racks. The sprinkler plans for the this are list it as Class IV commodity protected with EFSR heads and no in rack system. Even if they put the stuff back in the boxes I can't see how they a class V commodity Is there some thing I am missing before I call the engineer? Thank you for your attention. Andy Johnston Andy Johnston Master Craft Plumbing Contractors Inc. Phone (386)252-7047 Fax (386)898-0322 Your are welcome to call my Cell (386)547-4970 The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. No reader may make any use of it's contents with out the written approval of the sender. The recipient should not act or use the information in this transmission or any of its attachments without separate authentication of its authenticity or approval. If you have received this in error I apologize please notify me so I can correct my records. Thank you for your cooperation. ___ 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: Floating Ceilings
I have been watching this thread with interest, and finally have to ask (and yes, I am sure this will stir the pot as well) This particular issue is one which requires more than just mundane interpretation of the NFPA 13 standard. Who should be doing the interpreting??? NICET technicians, or PEs, or ??? My gut feeling here is that if you choose to support the more liberal interpretation, that this will NOT require both above and below protection, especially without any significant test data to back it up at this point, that this is not the place for a NICET technician to make this decision, or for that matter to try to sell it to the local AHJ. Do you really want that liability? Not to mention whether you are exceeding your authority under NICET rules for practicing engineering? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Rick Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:38 AM Subject: RE: Floating Ceilings NFPA 13 2002 Edition - Section 8.14.1.2.2 - Noncombustible and limited combustible concealed spaces with limited access and not permitting occupancy or storage or combustibles shall not require sprinkler protection. The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings such as those used as return air for a plenum. Maybe I did not describe correctly the ceiling construction. The ceiling will be installed throughout the space(s) at the same elevation. The openings are 7 gaps along the perimeter walls or between sections of the ceiling within the room. This only occurs in a few of the spaces/rooms and those rooms are separated by full height wall from other spaces. I believe the section above may adequately address this issue to the point I can meet with AHJ concerning sprinkler protection above the ceiling space. ___ 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: Floating Ceilings
As a PE, lacking any further guideance or test data to make any sort of engineering judment or equivalency argument, NFPA 13 only gives you one obvious interpretation. In my opinion, based on the situation described, it is not a concealed space, therefore sprinklers may not be omitted above the ceiling, and I would not entertain any offers to make a contrary judgement. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:23 PM Subject: RE: Floating Ceilings As a PE, what approach would you take if faced with this situation? Russell Rewis Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc. 107C Hemlock Street Valdosta, Georgia 31601 229-244-8130 My gut feeling here is that if you choose to support the more liberal interpretation, that this will NOT require both above and below protection, especially without any significant test data to back it up at this point, that this is not the place for a NICET technician to make this decision, or for that matter to try to sell it to the local AHJ. Do you really want that liability? Not to mention whether you are exceeding your authority under NICET rules for practicing engineering? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) ___ 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: Floating Ceilings
Pardon me for making some suggestions to add to your decision making process. You did indeed bring the issue to the forum, and you got several angles to think about, including mine. Far too many times the aspects that I mentioned are not considered. I simply pointed them out to you. Is the forum an appropriate place for a negative response such as yours? No one was questioning your authority to ask the forum for insight to make themselves feel better. Perhaps you should re-read the post. As for bravado? There are others on this forum than just you, that may appreciate others' perspectives on issues such as this. I make NO apologies for this. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Rick Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; Rick Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:50 PM Subject: Re: Floating Ceilings I bring this issue like others to the forum for a place to throw out ideas hoping for feedback I believe it is important in a forum environment to share ideas with others who have experienced similar situations My earlier comments were provided so forum members know what my brain is thinking My interpretation is based on reading the code and comments from NFPA specific as I could get to the issue. No, I did not complete fire tests or call my local PE for an answer before starting this thread. I did not know this forum required such high a threshold Feel free to question my authority to ask the forum for insight if that makes you feel better. I know that bravado provides absolutely no value to the forum Sincerely, Exceeding my authority but thankful for the forum --Original Message-- From: Jeff Hewitt To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org ReplyTo: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Aug 5, 2008 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Floating Ceilings I have been watching this thread with interest, and finally have to ask (and yes, I am sure this will stir the pot as well) This particular issue is one which requires more than just mundane interpretation of the NFPA 13 standard. Who should be doing the interpreting??? NICET technicians, or PEs, or ??? My gut feeling here is that if you choose to support the more liberal interpretation, that this will NOT require both above and below protection, especially without any significant test data to back it up at this point, that this is not the place for a NICET technician to make this decision, or for that matter to try to sell it to the local AHJ. Do you really want that liability? Not to mention whether you are exceeding your authority under NICET rules for practicing engineering? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Rick Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:38 AM Subject: RE: Floating Ceilings NFPA 13 2002 Edition - Section 8.14.1.2.2 - Noncombustible and limited combustible concealed spaces with limited access and not permitting occupancy or storage or combustibles shall not require sprinkler protection. The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings such as those used as return air for a plenum. Maybe I did not describe correctly the ceiling construction. The ceiling will be installed throughout the space(s) at the same elevation. The openings are 7 gaps along the perimeter walls or between sections of the ceiling within the room. This only occurs in a few of the spaces/rooms and those rooms are separated by full height wall from other spaces. I believe the section above may adequately address this issue to the point I can meet with AHJ concerning sprinkler protection above the ceiling space. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http
Re: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions
Brian, I believe it should be read to mean that the most/furthest away you have to be is a maximum of 36-in. The 36-in. is the maximum limit. Without this provision, you would instead need to be 4 times away or 96-in. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Forum, I know I must be reading this wrong but as usual I am in a hurry and could use some help. NFPA-13 (2007) 8.8.5.2.1.3 states that the sprinkler shall be positioned a minimum of 4 times the maximum dimension of the obstruction, but then it goes on to say a maximum of 36 clear space. In my case I have a 24 column I'm trying to avoid which by the 4 times rule would get me 8' away, how does the max. 36 clear come into play? Also look at Figure 8.8.5.2.1.3, I'm so confused Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.354) Database version: 5.10250e http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ ___ 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: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions
Brian, NFPA 13, 2007 8.8.5.2.1.3 states...the maximum clear distance required (for extended coverage UR/Pendent heads) shall be 36-in.. What needs to be clarified? This already is clarified from previous editions. I think it's pretty clear. 36-in. is the MAXIMUM, regardless of the actual 4 times dimension. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:18 PM Subject: RE: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Jeff, That's the confusing part, how can 36 work when the book also says it needs to be 96? I think some clarifying in the next release may be in order. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Brian, I believe it should be read to mean that the most/furthest away you have to be is a maximum of 36-in. The 36-in. is the maximum limit. Without this provision, you would instead need to be 4 times away or 96-in. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Forum, I know I must be reading this wrong but as usual I am in a hurry and could use some help. NFPA-13 (2007) 8.8.5.2.1.3 states that the sprinkler shall be positioned a minimum of 4 times the maximum dimension of the obstruction, but then it goes on to say a maximum of 36 clear space. In my case I have a 24 column I'm trying to avoid which by the 4 times rule would get me 8' away, how does the max. 36 clear come into play? Also look at Figure 8.8.5.2.1.3, I'm so confused Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.354) Database version: 5.10250e http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ ___ 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) E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.354) Database version: 5.10250e http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.354) Database version: 5.10250e http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ ___ 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: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions
Brian, Sorry, I don't see it that way. It does not say that this only applies to obstructions up to 9-in wide or your up a creek. What it does say is that if you are 36-in away that is all the further you need be. Contact me by phone to discuss this. I am in the office. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:48 PM Subject: RE: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Jeff, Basically the 4 times rule is only good for obstructions up o 9 wide then, why not just make 36 the number and be done with it? Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Brian, NFPA 13, 2007 8.8.5.2.1.3 states...the maximum clear distance required (for extended coverage UR/Pendent heads) shall be 36-in.. What needs to be clarified? This already is clarified from previous editions. I think it's pretty clear. 36-in. is the MAXIMUM, regardless of the actual 4 times dimension. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:18 PM Subject: RE: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Jeff, That's the confusing part, how can 36 work when the book also says it needs to be 96? I think some clarifying in the next release may be in order. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Brian, I believe it should be read to mean that the most/furthest away you have to be is a maximum of 36-in. The 36-in. is the maximum limit. Without this provision, you would instead need to be 4 times away or 96-in. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Sprinkler Pattern Obstructions Forum, I know I must be reading this wrong but as usual I am in a hurry and could use some help. NFPA-13 (2007) 8.8.5.2.1.3 states that the sprinkler shall be positioned a minimum of 4 times the maximum dimension of the obstruction, but then it goes on to say a maximum of 36 clear space. In my case I have a 24 column I'm trying to avoid which by the 4 times rule would get me 8' away, how does the max. 36 clear come into play? Also look at Figure 8.8.5.2.1.3, I'm so confused Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.354) Database version: 5.10250e http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ -- -- ___ 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: ESFR Sprinklers over 8' library shelves
Mark, What about maintaining adequate flue spaces, and no solid shelves? It sounds like your bin boxes/shelf units have neither, ragardless of storage height. 150,000 sq.ft. is an fairly large area for something that doesn't really conform to the intent of ESFR protection. Are you maybe thinking this is an ordinary hazard occupancy, and ESFR is allowed over OH occupancies? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Phelps, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:23 PM Subject: RE: ESFR Sprinklers over 8' library shelves Joe, Thanks for the response. To give you a little more detail, the shelf units are approximately 14 deep by 4' wide with 5 shelves high to 6'. The shelving is all sheet metal with solid backs and ends. The shelves are arranged in rows, back to back, and share a common divider, (like double row racks without a longitudinal flue). They have 4' aisles and are open on the top shelf. This storage arrangement occupies an area of about 150,000 square feet in a building that encloses 500,000 square feet. There are 2 X 4 foot light fixtures, AC ductwork up to 26 inches in diameter and banks of conduit up to 3 in diametter and over 2' wide through-out the ceiling space of this building. To clarify your second paragraph, when you refer to meet the obstruction rules, I assume you mean these obstructions at the roof, as I have just discribed, and not the shelves themselves? Thanks again, Mark at Aero -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Hankins Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Sprinklers over 8' library shelves Mark, First and foremost, this is an application that (due to what I presume are solid shelves) takes advantage of none of ESFRs strengths but is subject to all of their weaknesses. Unless these shelves are in a small area of a facility that is otherwise a good fit with ESFRs, ESFRs are the wrong choice. If the ESFR protection is already existing and the shelves meet all definitions of shelf storage, then you are OK as long as you meet the obstruction rules. The bottom line is that, in order for suppression to reliably occur, you have to meet the obstruction rules, regardless of storage height. While lowering the storage height makes a fire easier to suppress, increasing the clearance makes it harder. The solid shelves further exacerbate the challenge. Joe Phelps, Mark wrote: Mr. Joe Hankins, If you are on line, could you comment on the application of ESFR (K14 at 75 PSI) installed below a 40' high roof protecting class I thru IV misc storage on library style shelves (not an actual library). My specific question is, do all of the design requirements and obstruction requirements (conduit banks, lights, ducts, etc.) and exceptions apply equally as if it were double row racks of I thru IV stored to 30'? Mark at Aero ___ 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: Max flow for class I standpipes
Fully sprinklered building, 1000-gpm max. for standpipes. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Dewayne Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: Max flow for class I standpipes What is the max flow for class I standpipes in a fully sprinklered building? I have 4 in a building and have been taught in the past to only calculate 1000 gpm max (7.10.1.1.3, NFPA 14 (03 ed)) but section 7.10.1.2.3 seems to contradict this. Thanks, Dewayne ___ 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: NFPA13 Dwelling vs Mercantile
Russell, My take is that if you are using residential heads, and residential head design criteria, then the 3000 sq.ft area does not apply because you are not utilizing an area/density design. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. ___ 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: Corrosion Resistant Concealed Sprinkler Plate
Bobby, I hope this works for your application. Besides corrosion, our concern was with hot water and steam eventually eroding any wax coating. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Bobby McCullough [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:08 AM Subject: RE: Corrosion Resistant Concealed Sprinkler Plate Jeff: I received an off forum response from Globe. Their concealed model 5604 (old style stair step cover) is listed as corrosion resistant when manufactured with the polyester coating. When you order this, just specify (very clearly) that you want a white poly sprinkler with wax touch-up installed in the cup. Bobby -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Corrosion Resistant Concealed Sprinkler Plate We recenly went through this for a USDA application in a clean room for meat cutting, where hot water and steam are used to clean up every day, causing a corrosive environment to exposed sprinkler heads. We looked, and no such animal exists. The closest you can get is an MRI room head that is non-ferrous brass, with a plastic concealer housing, but still no corrosion resistance listing on it. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Bobby McCullough [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:24 AM Subject: Corrosion Resistant Concealed Sprinkler Plate Does anyone know of a concealed sprinkler and plate with a corrosion resistant finish? I have a spec requiring this sprinkler over a pool. Thanks, Bobby McCullough Allsouth Sprinkler Company678-730-4312 [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) ___ 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: Failed Bucket Test
Brian, Just curious... What were the circumstances that led you to use a test conducted by the Fire Department? Are there conservation limitations imposed or something like that? Why would you not have performed your own test? Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: RE: Failed Bucket Test Chuck, Yeah that was one of the first things we did, we also had the local Utility Dept. go out and check and they found nothing. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Bowman Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Failed Bucket Test Brian, Has anyone checked to make sure all the valves are fully open, just a suggestion. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Failed Bucket Test Fellow forum people: I have a situation where we have designed and installed a 13R system, it is completely finished and wham-o we fail the bucket test! Our system was designed based on the flow test provided by the city fire dept., turns out that a test taken now with the failed test shows a 25% drop in static residual pressures, hence the failed test. Of course the owner is looking to us to pull a magic rabbit out of our #$% , err I mean hat, we have tried a few different things but with that big of a pressure loss there's really not much we can do. I don't feel it's our liability at this point since we went off the city's water flow test and per the calc's we were good, any thoughts? Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) Database version: 5.09560 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ ___ 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) E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) Database version: 5.09560 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) Database version: 5.09560 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ ___ 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: Do you look up?
Todd, Without getting into specific cases, I have turned in more than 15 on the consulting/specifying side. I have had no negative experiences from this. All complaints are addressed by the state, and they send letters explaining any actions taken or agreed to. I also have a rubber stamping problem in my area, and it is not limited to Fire Protection. I am fortunate to have an active Regulating Board here in Missouri. In all cases, the State was not aware there was an alleged problem, until the complaint was filed. They do the investigating, they do the follow up. Our job is to let them know. Todd Williams - FPDC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff, You, as a PE on staff with a contractor is very much the exception, rather then the rule, especially in this part of the planet. Off hand, I can only think of one contractor in CT with a PE on staff and that is because it is a family business and the son went to school specifically to do that. As an independent, the only time I am invited back is if there is a significant enough change that someone thinks I need to address it, or it is required for sign-off by the AHJ. Fortunately, most of my clientele are focused on doing the job right so in the installations I have seen I rarely see obvious problems. Just out of curiosity, how many PE's have you 'turned in'? My total is one. Never heard anything back from anyone. Todd At 11:17 PM 4/3/2008, you wrote: Again, sorry for the late response, I'm away from the office. Todd, while it was off of my point, let me answer your question directly, how many times has an installer changed my drawings? NONE!! Not once without my knowledge and blessing. I set the standards for my company, our drawings and installations are completed under my supervision as a licensed engineer, and our fitters do not make changes without asking first, they know better than to try. And yes, I do check my company's installations. And yes, I realize that I am an exception. I am not a consultant for hire, but rather a full time employee of ONE contractor, beholden to that contractor only. I think you have directed my comments off point. I realize and agree that there is plenty of blame to go around, from specifying PE's to Layout techs and installers. Don't get me started on that tangent. My comments are specifically directed at those repeated complaints about unqualified engineers that show up on this forum from time to time. I understand the frustrations involved, I have to deal with them myself. Installers and layout techs creating problems is one thing, but PE's, we're talking about licensed professionals here. If they're not qualified, they need to be cited and stopped. Same as doctors and other regulated professions. No excuses. gather your evidence and turn them in. My experience has been that it does not take much for most of them to wake up when the Regulating Board comes calling. I realize you were addressing the installations, but Mark did play the PE card. Todd Williams - FPDC wrote: The complaint here is not about the engineering, but the installation. We are talking about what is physically in the building. You're a PE, Jeff; how many times has an installer changed your drawings? My guess is a lot. I know in my situation, I am rarely asked to certify an installation once it is complete. I don't hold up anybody's money and I don't hold up the CO. Then the last eyes for seeing the job was done right is the AHJ. If it is not caught there, that's how it remains. The fault may well be with the specifying engineer (if there is one), but it may lie elsewhere. At 10:07 PM 4/2/2008, you wrote: Sorry for the late reply to Mark's comments, I've been travelling all day. I saw this and felt compelled to repeat my previous thoughts on this issue. Mark's comments bring me to a statement that I have made on here before, and I will likely again, the next time this comes up. You cannot just complain about this PE issue. Turn them in!! There is no other way. Their regulating Boards can do nothing without a complaint, and for that matter thay will NOT even know about it, unless WE speak up and do something about it. Yes, that's right, an engineer telling you to turn in a fellow engineer. I will not defend anyone that claims this or anything else as an area of expertise when they are not actually qualified. Turn them in! And don't get fed up if nothing happens right away. Their investigations may take a while. Again, rather than seeing all of these complaints about inept specifying engineers, let's all do something different now, or it will only get worse. Gather your facts, file the complaint, and turn them in. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, MSFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation St. Charles, MO 63301 Mark Sornsin wrote: When I look up at work
Re: Gaggle of closets
Chris, Don't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. Another case of it says this or it doesn't say that so I can do it. I think you should be very careful here. Dig a little deeper and get to the logical intent, and not just what it says or doesn't say in black and white. This is an area separate from the dwelling areas, and is likely to be crammed full of who knows what. In addition, there is no mention of wall or ceiling contruction (which could affect one's direction on this issue). I agree with Greg that this is not likely what the NFPA standard committee intends for this exception. In reading the commentary in the Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook on this issue, I believe there is merit to the fact that the standards committee intended small rooms to mean small light hazard/low fuel load rooms. This would not seem to be low fuel loading, and is not, in my opinion, is an ordinary hazard area rather than light hazard. And because it's storage, and you don't know what could go in there, OH1 ain't good enough, it needs to be OH2. Just my opinion Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Chris Mak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Gaggle of closets Could you foresee a fire senario where the 47 extra heads would operate. I think that this is exactly what the exception is for. Regards - Original Message - From: Paul Pinigis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22/02/2008 05:30 PM EST To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Gaggle of closets Don't you just love it when the letter of the code works in your favor. I really don't think that this is what the NFPA 13 committee had in mind when they developed that section. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 5:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Gaggle of closets I am looking an apartment building which is to be designed according to NFPA 13. On the first level, there is a room which contains 55 - 3'x5' tenant storage closets (mostly filled with shelves). These would need to be sprinklered, which is fine, but the issue comes in the hydraulics. Section 14.4.4.4.2 states that closets with a single sprinkler may be omitted from the calculation. There could be up to 47 closets in the remote area. I have used this exception numerous times, but never in this quantity. The standard says nothing to the contrary, so I could eliminate 47 sprinklers in the remote area because they are in closets? Is there something I am overlooking? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ 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) This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent written confirmation of its contents. Accordingly, our company disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including in negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information prior to the receipt by those persons of subsequent written confirmation. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer. The Unsolicited Electronic Message Act 2007 (The Spam Act) came into effect from 5 September 2007. As a valued client you may receive communications from us from time to time, including electronic publications, invitations and related information. Please advise if you wish us to stop sending these communications to you. Otherwise we will assume you wish to continue receiving these communications from us. Any form
Re: Delta Flows
Why so touchy Brian??? Looks to me like Cliff was offering to help you out. You're the one requesting help, a little more gratitude would go a long way, lest some of us decide it's not worth the effort, if that's the response we'll get. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:35 AM Subject: RE: Delta Flows Cliff, Why are you so quick to cut somebody down? I thought this forum was here to help each other. If you must know the individual that holds our license is one of the most highly rated contractors in this industry, he is on vacation and I don't think this is a life or death situation that warrants me interrupting that. I just got a phone call from another highly qualified forum member that agreed with my solution, thanks for your time. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff Whitfield Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Delta Flows Brian, Apparently the person in your office that is qualified to hold your contractor's license is out of pocket or he could help you solve the problem. Contact me off-forum with a phone number where I can call you and I will see if I can help. If you can email me your dwg file, it will help speed things up. Cliff Whitfield, SET Fire Design, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:04 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Delta Flows I am working on a job and the calc's are kicking my butt! My most demanding head has a delta flow of 0, which makes sense, but allot of the other heads in the remote area are overflowing by up to 10! The calc of course doesn't work, it's 40 pounds over, I've tried everything I know. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ ___ 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: Delta Flows
Am I missing something here?? I have re-read Cliff's post an do not see the phrase bought it anywhere. As for someone directing this comment towards me that all those abbreviations after your name were bought, not earned. , I would simply shrug it off, as I know my abilities, and the person making those comments obviously knows nothing about me, but is entitled to their opinion, incorrect though it may be. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:50 PM Subject: RE: Delta Flows Am I the only one that read he was suggesting that our qualified license holder bought it? Read his post again and tell me you wouldn't get offended if someone said all those abbreviations after your name were bought, not earned. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Delta Flows Why so touchy Brian??? Looks to me like Cliff was offering to help you out. You're the one requesting help, a little more gratitude would go a long way, lest some of us decide it's not worth the effort, if that's the response we'll get. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:35 AM Subject: RE: Delta Flows Cliff, Why are you so quick to cut somebody down? I thought this forum was here to help each other. If you must know the individual that holds our license is one of the most highly rated contractors in this industry, he is on vacation and I don't think this is a life or death situation that warrants me interrupting that. I just got a phone call from another highly qualified forum member that agreed with my solution, thanks for your time. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff Whitfield Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Delta Flows Brian, Apparently the person in your office that is qualified to hold your contractor's license is out of pocket or he could help you solve the problem. Contact me off-forum with a phone number where I can call you and I will see if I can help. If you can email me your dwg file, it will help speed things up. Cliff Whitfield, SET Fire Design, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:04 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Delta Flows I am working on a job and the calc's are kicking my butt! My most demanding head has a delta flow of 0, which makes sense, but allot of the other heads in the remote area are overflowing by up to 10! The calc of course doesn't work, it's 40 pounds over, I've tried everything I know. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ ___ 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
RE: Wet Manual Standpipe
Tom, NFPA 14, and IBC 2003 and 2006 have all been updated to clarify the intent here. It IS acceptable to use a manual wet standpipe, in NON HIGH RISE buildings, whwere there is not enough pressure for the standpipe demand, but an adequate supply for JUST sprinklers is provided, making use of the standpipe system to supply a comination system. The Fire Department pumper is considered to be the fire pump for the standpipe demand, vis the FDC. That being said, I can see providing a fire pump just large enough to feed the sprinkler demand only. This assumes all other facets are there, adequate supply for suction for pumper to provide standpipes, etc...I have seen many cases where there was adequate volume for standpipe demand, but not pressure, and the pressure and/or volume were adequate for the sprinkler system. So, in my opinion, the engineer does not have his b**ls in a vise. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, MSFPE (Prof. Member) Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation St. Charles, MO 63301 Tom Duross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always thought if you install a pump to feed a standpipe and spkrs, it had to feed the standpipe and spkrs. I've seen some odd installations where the pump was only sized to meet the sprinklers. Some engineer has his b**ls in a vise in my opinion. If you don't have the supply to satisfy a pump to satisfy the standpipe, why install the pump? Get a variance. TD Absolutely it can be done. If there is not enough water to supply the standpipes with a pumper truck, then there isn't enough water to feed it with a fixed pump and there is a secondary problem. But in practical application it is common down here to use a small pump for the system and use manual wet standpipes in low-rise buildings. In fact; didn't someone on the NFPA #14 committee said that it was never the intent for a fixed pump to solely satisfy the standpipe requirements without assistance from the local Fire Department? Or did I imagine this? Greg Is there enough water to supply the pump? Are there hydrants to supply the fire truck and standpipes with adequate water? Art @ ATCO Fire Can this be done and is there any value?? Local water pressure is pitiful. Provide wet manual standpipes (2), sprks need max 250 GPM at 40 PSI so use a 250 at 40 pump and there is an emergency generator which can connect to this small pump. We save money on the pump, pipe sizes are reduced and the wet manual meets code for a 4 story hotel. Anyone ever do this?? Thanks in advance. ___ 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: When a Spec is a Spec...
Brian, I think you write a clearly worded RFI, requesting clarification that the drawings are for intent only, and not necessarily for head placement. I think it also depends on who is taking engineer of record responsibilities. We prefer to take engineer of record responsibilities, and via RFI, make any changes we wish, within the intent of NFPA 13, as long as hydraulics back it up. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:12 PM Subject: When a Spec is a Spec... How do most of you interpret when a spec or notes on the FP drawings specify that the max. head spacing is not to exceed 130 sq.ft. but you have plenty of water/pressure to go extended coverage. Do you go e.c.? Stay 2 130 max, call the GC? Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ ___ 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: Seismic Bracing and 2002 NFPA 13 Appendix
Tom, I feel that this should be clarified further. My understanding, at least as affected by the ICC Codes, is as follows: The 2003 edition of IBC removes the reference to the use of NFPA 13 from ASCE 7 2002 edition. (The version of NFPA 13 referenced is NFPA 13, 1999, NOT NFPA 13 2002). NFPA 13, 2002 TIA 02-1 was the fix for this snub, but IBC never actually issued a formal interpretation or Supplement judgement stating that. The 2006 edition of IBC does not have the same verbage removing NFPA 13 that IBC 2003 did, and also uses the NFPA 13, 2002 edition as the reference document, NOT NFPA 13, 1999, but does add other stipulations for its use. The 2007 Supplement to the 2006 IBC removes all remaining hurdles by simply adding a new section to the IBC 2006 Earthquake provisions, allowing the use of NFPA 13 , with no other stipulations. Please note that the NFPA 13 2002 version is STILL the reference document to IBC 2006, NOT NFPA 13, 2007. There is currently no version of IBC that references NFPA 13 2007. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Thom McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:43 PM Subject: Re: Seismic Bracing and 2002 NFPA 13 Appendix Remember that if your spec. requires you to meet ASCE 7 requirements that NFPA 13, 2002 was found not to meet these, however 2007 was accepted as substantially meeting these requirements. Also there was a TIA to 2002 to move toward meeting ASCE 7, but 2007 is much better. Most AHJ's will accept the new Standard if presented as an alternate. Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - From: Kurt Kingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:10 AM Subject: RE: Seismic Bracing and 2002 NFPA 13 Appendix I'm re-posting this and any opinions or comments as to whether the seismic bracing locations shown figures in the 2002 NFPA 13 Appendix are OK to use would be appreciated. Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kurt Kingston Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 8:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Seismic Bracing and 2002 NFPA 13 Appendix I would like to obtain your opinions as to whether the locations for the seismic bracing in the 2002 NFPA 13 Appendix figures A.9.3.5.6(a),(b),(c), and (d) are OK to use as shown if 2 and smaller branch lines, and the structure is adequate to support the brace spacing. Thank you for your time, Kurt Kingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commercial Fire Protection Inc. Mt Vernon, WA 98273 ___ 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
Bill, Are they propped open with a fusible link??? You know, the 3-hr. wooden or rubber wedge fusible link?? Seriously, if these are light hazard spaces, the doors being open may not matter if you have minimum 8-in. lintels. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:13 AM Subject: Room Design When you are performing an inspection of a system calculated using the room design approach, how do you handle all of the doors that are propped open? Or, how do you calculate these systems? Do you always go with the extra two sprinklers and assume the doors will be held open? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 410-544-3620 Phone 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ 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: When is Earthquake Bracing Required?
This is a building code issue, not NFPA 13. IBC 2003, Section 1621 Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical Component Seismic Design Requirements, stipulates compliance with ASCE 7, 2002 edition. IBC 2006, Section1613 Earthquake Loads, stipulates compliance with ASCE 7, 2005 edition. You do NOT utilize the maps in NFPA 13, instead you utilize the prescribed method in ASCE 7, in conjunction with soil studies, seismic use group, seismic design category, spectral acceleration obtained from USGS maps, , etc...all used to arrive at a force factor which likely differs from the 0.5 factor default value in NFPA 13. Also, for mechanical piping, and NOT building structural importance factors, fire protection piping would be an importance factor of 1.5, regardless, because it is regarded as piping necessary for life safety. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Jimmy Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: When is Earthquake Bracing Required? I have a question for the experts this morning. Out here were are under the IBC, and I believe that the Arch. and Structural Engineer have done their jobs, but I still don't know if earthquake bracing is required. According to the generic seismic zone maps available in NFPA, and according to previous work that we've done in the area, we have NOT installed seismic bracing before in this area. BUT according to the structural engineer, this is categorized as a design class C, use group III, and has an importance factor of 1.25. So, my question simply, is do we have to provide seismic bracing when under these requirements? The second, and more complicated question, is where can I find (if there even is one) a chart, or a list, or ANYTHING that will tell me when seismic bracing is required? Which design classes require bracing and which do not? Is the bracing requirement dependent on the use group or vice versa? I'd appreciate any guidance I can get on this issue. Thanks in advance. Jimmy Waite Burtell Fire Protection, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (406) 652-7697 ___ 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: Design Area and Density
Ken, I am not in the office, and don't have my copy of my 13 handbook, but off the top of my head, so to speak, I disagree with Ed's last post. It is my understanding that the NFPA 13 verbage states words to the effect of... the 3000 sq.ft adjustment shall be applied AFTER all other adjustments have been applied. Any suggestion of applying the QR reduction afterward is, in my opinion, incorrect. So, while I agree with any previous statement that you may slide along the appropriate occupancy class design curve to the appropriate lower density corresponding to 3000 sq.ft, it is not appropriate to apply additional corrections after the 3000 sq.ft. adjustment. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed, So, if I understand you: If I have an OH1 occupancy, and fall under the same criteria, say with a 10'-0 ceiling, I could design: a) With a minimum remote area of 3,000 square feet, using a density of 0.12 gpm/sqft, based on the area/density curve for OH1, and standard response sprinklers. b) With a minimum remote area of 3,000 square feet, using a density of 0.10 gpm/sqft, based on the area/density curve for OH1, with the area being reduced by use of quick-response sprinklers without revising the density, but not less than 3,000 square feet, as required by 11.2.3.1.4(3). Is that about right? PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com website Ed Kramer wrote: Ken, Question #1: Yes Question #2: it depends. For light hazards, the answer is effectively 'no'. Section 11.2.3.2.7.2 says to apply the 3000 sf after all other modifications. Since the light hazard curve goes no higher than 3000 sf, the credit for QR sprinklers does you no good. On the other hand, the curves for the ordinary hazards go up to 4000 sf. So a designer could select an initial density/area of .15/4000 (ord group II), then apply a QR reduction, then increase the area back up to 3000 sf for a final density/area of .15/3000. But the final area must always be 3000 sf minimum. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO ___ 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: 5 Gallon Bucket Storage
Steve, I agree with 40-ft building height design, and exposed unexpanded Group A plastic, but at that point there is no longer an advantage with K-25 due to the increased 12 head @ 50-psi design (due to the exposed plastics), and flow per head is approximately 178-gpm, for a total of at least 2136-gpm. Instead, I would look at K-14 12 heads @ 75-psi, or K-17 12 heads @ 52-psi, which both only require approximately 121-gpm per head, or 1452-gpm total, to protect the very same exposed plastic, especially if you need a pump anyway. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: RE: 5 Gallon Bucket Storage Sounds like exposed unexpanded, with a building height of 40'. I think the pitch is okay for ESFR, so try K25 at 50 PSI. And bring your pump. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Pugh Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: 5 Gallon Bucket Storage Folks, I am working on a facility that will be used to store 5 gallon buckets. They will be stored on pallets. The pallets will be stacked 4 high, making a total storage height of 20'-0. There are no racks. The eave height of the building is 28'-0, and the peak is approx. 38' high, the pitch is 1/2 on 12. The buckets will be stored open end down. The Production Manager at the plant couldn't tell me what type of plastic the buckets are composed of. Do any of you have any advice as to what design criteria will be required. I have pretty good idea, but it's always good to have an outside opinion. Thanks for the help!! Merry CHRISTmas! Kevin R. Pugh Sales / Project Manager International Fire Protection, Inc. 5462 Able Court Mobile, Al 36693 ___ ___ 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: (no subject)
Joe, try the FM data sheets. There is a section on how to handle mezzanines and platforms in ESFR systems. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Joe Burtell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 10:28 AM Subject: (no subject) I have an ESFR system with an area of racks with a open grate mezzanine floor. What would be the spacing of the intermediate level sprinkler below the open grate? Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS Burtell Fire Protection, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.burtellfire.com ___ 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: Carpet Rolls
Joe, Try FM Data Sheet 8-30 Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Joe Burtell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:26 PM Subject: Carpet Rolls What standard or FM sheet covers solid pile of carpet rolls? Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS Burtell Fire Protection, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.burtellfire.com ___ 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: ESFR Draft Curtains
Look in the IFC In IFC 2003, 910.3.4.1 Construction. Draft curtains shall be constructed of sheet metal, lath and plaster, gypsum board, or other approved materials that provide equivalent performance to resist the passage of smoke, Joints and connections shall be smoke tight. 910.3.4.2 Location and Depth. The location and minimum depth of draft curtains shall be in accordance with Table 910.3. I don't see any options there for draft curtains of 24-in. depth. It looks like 48-in. to 72-in. depths depending on the Use Group and storage height. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) Corporate Engineer Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation 241 Hughes Lane St. Charles, MO 63301 636-946-0011 636-946-5172 (FAX) This e-mail and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately at the above captioned address. - Original Message - From: Gregory Lindholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: SprinklerFORUM SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:08 PM Subject: ESFR Draft Curtains A GC is asking us what they should use for a draft curtain between the ESFR's and standard heads as specified in 2002, 8.4.6.4.1. The project in question has the separation right along a 28 bar joist. What other guidelines can we give them other than noncombustible 24 ion depth? Does the draft curtain have to be sealed at the roof deck? Greg Lindholm ___ 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)
