RE: Deperming Pier
I have seen a nice dry standpipe system installation done by a competitor using HDPE and fusion seal fittings a few years ago on a salt water pier (Cap Sante Marina, Anacortes, WA.). I cannot remember the specific brand now, but this link is something similar: http://corrosion-products.com/PipingProducts/HDPE.htm IMHO, it looked like using the right tool. Good success, Kurt Kingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commercial Fire Protection Inc. PO Box 128 Mt Vernon, WA 98273 ph (360)-848-9093 fax (360)-848-1072 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Deperming Pier I'd be concerned about two things with CPVC- Effects of sunlight, even under the pier you'd likely get strong reflections off the water; and where are you getting 6 CPVC? I have no idea if regular plumber's PVC would work; if you have a low-pressure DPV, and you're looking at a 2.5 DPV as your activating device (and combo exhauster, it's a pretty big orifice) then wouldn't the air never be at high pressure and so it shouldn't be a problem to use PVC? NFI, just a thought that would save my tax dollars versus SS316. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Deperming Pier What if you ran plastic, CPVC is approved for fire protection above grade per NFPA 13. See 6.3 of NFPA 13, 2007. 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 Rick Green Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Deperming Pier I am installing a dry pipe system (no sprinklers) supplying four hose valves on a pier. The dry pipe valve assembly is located in a heated area. Extending out from the dry pipe valve assembly is 6 galvanized steel pipe. The steel pipe is routed below the pier out to the location of four hose valves. The pier is used for Deperming ships, submarines. Deperming is a procedure for erasing the permanent magnetism from ships and submarineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines to camouflagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camouflage them against magnetic detection vessels and enemy marine mineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mines. Anyway, there is about a 200' section of the pier that requires that all materials be non-magnetic. *Galvanized steel pipe that NAVY specified obviously want work. *CPVC plastic pipe will not work because installing dry system - correct on this right? *Provided them pricing for stainless steel, copper, brass and now they want pricing for Aluminum,. So a few questions o Ever used aluminum pipe for sprinkler installations? o Is there some other pipe type that I am not thinking about Help would be most appreciated. Rick E. Green District Manager East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. 1113 Cavalier Boulevard Chesapeake, Virginia 23323 757/485-7486(p), 757/295-0956(direct), 757/328-0131(cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: MRI preaction vs cpvc
Chris, I believe there are specific prohibitions in some states under their worker safety laws regarding using PVC (I think CPVC too) for compressed air systems. You might want to check about that as it could be construed to include fire sprinkler piping applications. As a suggestion, maybe explore using dielectric couplings before the steel fire sprinkler piping enters the MRI space and a bonded ground system for the piping inside the area? You may find that a ground system is already being planned for other needs in the MRI space and the sprinkler piping could use it too. Good success, Kurt Kingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commercial Fire Protection Inc. Mt Vernon, WA 98273 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: MRI preaction vs cpvc Have you considered using Pro Press system by VIEGA? You'd need AHJ approval, but no brazing of the copper required. Hydro to 200Psi. 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 Chris Stovall Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: MRI preaction vs cpvc Greetings, Were doing an MRI room for Stanford and I wanted to know if anyone knows where to find info on using cpvc in a preaction system. The 2007 handbook says cpvc can be used with cpvc if low air pressure, timing requirements and manufacture requirements are met. Blazemaster, Havel and Spears all say not to use cpvc in a preaction system. Are the any other cpvc manufactures? The problem is that to use copper the pipe needs to be brazed instead of soldered and the extra heat is most likely going to ruin their lead shielding. The lead shielding is a cloth like material similar to wall paper. I can have an apprentice stand around with some kind of heat shield but it would be safer and probably better if we could use cpvc. Its 2 rooms with 6 heads in each room. ___ 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) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.10/1551 - Release Date: 7/14/2008 6:49 AM ___ 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: Sand or silt clogging strainers
Nice strainer and a helpful link! Thom mentioned concerns over the time it would take for your pump to fail, but has the local FD hooked up to the nearest hydrant and run the pump in their truck to see what will happen if THEY try to respond to a fire? Although it would not be a velocity flush, air scouring might be an option. Link to explanatory article: http://www.environmental-expert.com/files/8563/articles/4055/4055.pdf. I have seen it used with good improvement on a project some years ago involving old underground hydronic mains. Just thinking about it while working on a much simpler problems, Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sand or silt clogging strainers A self cleaning strainer! That's a new one for me, and listed to boot! Sounds like this may be the answer. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sand or silt clogging strainers I don't know if it fits the specific situation, but I have used Hellan strainers for situations involving zebra mussels (sp?). Admittedly, I have only glanced over the responses. Here's the link: http://www.hellanstrainer.com/ I hope this helps. James L.(Jim) Roberts, PE/SET Fluor Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Drive - C104F Greenville, SC 29607 864.281.5149 864.281.4916(Fax) Fletcher, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/24/2008 04:08 PM Please respond to sprinklerforum To sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org cc Subject RE: Sand or silt clogging strainers Hi Thom, Sorry the main is 12 and we opened hydrants to verify fire flow at about 4,200 gpm. The strainer to the PLD and in the cooling line plugged up and we had rocks o-plenty. Then one day the pump started for an unknown reason, overheated, burst into flame and would have burnt down the pump house if it weren't for the sprinklers. Hey there's sprinkler success story. What we are hoping to find is some type of self cleaning strainer. We are even considering putting a solenoid in a flushing line to discharge outside whenever the pump is running. Probably a little bit outside any sort of recognized code or standard but at this point we are just looking for a way to save the pump should there be a major event. The pump serves an 600,000 sqft. warehouse distribution center via the yard loop with hydrants. Ron Fletcher -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sand or silt clogging strainers I'm surprised that there is enough turbidity to raise the sand and mud in a 16 main at 1500 gpm, That main must just be full of mud when there is no flow, since at 1500 your only about 1 FPS. If it's half full of mud, your probably moving the water at 3 or 4 FPS over the sediment. With a problem like yours the only thing that can eliminate the sediment is some type of settling pond, but I'm sure your pump is not sized to operate without the incoming water pressure. You never said but I'm assuming that before the pump test is over you strainers are full, and plugging up the works. Large strainers on the pilot lines may resolve the situation long enough to run the test, but what happens when there is a real fire? How long until it fails then? Good Luck! 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 Matthew J. Willis Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sand or silt clogging strainers - - It's a potable city water main that was not properly - flushed and at this time the city doesn't have the pump - capacity to achieve any where near 10 fps. - Watch NFPA #20,..., the flushing values are a bit higher when there is a pump involved..., table 14.1.1.1(a). R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Living Water Fire Protection, LLC. 1160 McKenzie Rd. PO Box 877 Cantonment, FL. 32533 850-937-1850 Voice 850-937-1852 Facsimile [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: NFPA 13 Building with residential heads
Dewayne, A short summary of my experience in this situation was the AHJ required the 3000 square feet if it was a 13 system. I did use 7psi head pressure to prove a minimum area density of 0.10/3000 vs. the residential head listing pressure required for the spacing within the 3,000 square feet. I hope someone else can give you better news. Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. Mt Vernon, WA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA 13 Building with residential heads NFPA 13 (07ed) I am designing a sprinkler system for a Hotel that falls under NFPA 13. The floors containing the residential units have a combustible concealed space that does not require sprinklers (8.15.1.2.6) but does not qualify for the 3000 sq ft exemption of 11.2.3.1.4 (4) for unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces. If I am using residential sprinklers, are they exempt from this rule because they are a specific application sprinkler and not an area/density or room design method? 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)
RE: CPVC Issues - Plumber's soldering flux
FWIW we have had several CPVC leaks develop within a couple of years of flux dripping onto the CPVC. The copper plumbing was installed above our CPVC piping. The areas became chemically degraded into a softer material where the spots of flux landed. With these wild steel/metal price increases it would be nice if it was a better alternative. 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)
RE: Kohl's
Joe, FWIW I haven't done a Kohl's but my ESFR-25 notes say you will need a minimum 36clearance to commodities. It sounds like you have 2'. Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Burtell Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:43 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Kohl's Has anyone done a Kohl's store lately? In particular I am interested what was done in the storage room. I asked some questions about the storage and I get the usual, we've never done that before response. Here is what they have: 17' to deck 15' of storage, 2' wide solid shelf racks, they are really shelf storage but it over the 30 limit due to back to back configuration Class I-V and Group A plastics Cartoned, unexpanded I let them know that due to the solid shelf they will need 1 level of in-rack sprinklers. They gave a .45/2000 which works fine without solid shelves. Any opinions? 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)
RE: ICC Version of 13d
Michael, I am admittedly a suspicious curmudgeon where NAHB is involved, but aren't those trade-offs, exceptions and exemptions in the footnotes on page RP29 and RP30 far more generous than IBC? Thanks for posting the link as I had not seen it yet and found it very interesting. Kurt Kingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commercial Fire Protection Inc. Mt Vernon, WA 98273 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael O'Brian Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 6:19 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: ICC Version of 13d Okay Sprinkler Guys Today at the ICC code hearings the Plumbing Committee heard RP3 and RP8. See the code change here (scroll one or two changes down to RP3) http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-08cycle/ProposedChanges/V2_RP1-8.pd f This is a code change which would give installation requirements for multi-purpose piping for sprinkler systems in the body of the residential code (a modified pipe schedule like system). RP3 passed and RP8 was denied. Now this was the committee action and it may be debated on the final action hearings in September. The code change only applies to multipurpose piping in one and two family dwellings. It has many layers of built in safety. A designer would still be allowed to utilize a 13d system and this really provides an option for the user. I am just curious what you all think? I know as sprinkler designers we may feel like we should not like this, but the intent is to make sprinkler installation in homes as convenient as possible. (ps there was a floor amendment which clarified hangers and some other issues) Michael O'Brian Code Savvy Consultants 313-618-6401 fax 313-557-0294 www.codesavvyconsultants.com www.inspector911.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)
RE: Parking Garage Sprinkler System
Reza, A few random comments: 2- When we have the pressure and flows available the Tyco EC uprights (like EC-11) have worked out well on a few recent jobs but you really start accumulating over discharge on the branch lines quickly with the higher end head pressures. That issue also tends to fight dry system design goals by creating bigger pipe size, more system volume, etc., so IMHO for some layouts a good argument can be made for standard coverage heads instead of EC's. 4- It is not necessary to sprinkler above each car. 5- Fully sprinklered would include the ramps too if covered. 9- A couple of FWIW notes that come to mind on a single dry riser for the building you describe = concerns over dry system trip time, total dry system volume and air compressor size. Good success, Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. Mt. Vernon, WA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:17 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Parking Garage Sprinkler System Hi All, I would like to ask about sprinkler system design in a car parking garage. The parking garage has two stories (Basement Ground floor). It is only for car parking application which can hold about 350 cars. There is No mechanical devices to transport cars, and cars will drive to their own parking palaces. The area of each story is about 44,000 square feet, and ceiling high is about 10 feet. We are going to design a dry pipe sprinkler system for this car parking garage as piping are subjected to freezing during the cold weather. I looked up in NFPA codes for designing car parking garage, but I couldn't find that much helpfull information in NFPA-88A. In NFPA-13 I saw that automobile parking and showrooms are specified as Ordinary hazard occupancies (Group 1). I am going to design a tree dry pipe sprinkler system some inside fire hoses in the garage. My questions are as followings: 1- What is your recommended Area of sprinkler operation and Density for my application after determining from the Density/Area curve? 2- I am going to use upright sprinklers, what kind of sprinkler is more common for such an application? standards coverage/extended coverage...? 3- What is the common distance between sprinklers and maximum area of coverage per sprinkler for a parking garage? 4- Is it necessary place a sprinkler exactly at above each car or not? 5- Is it necessary to place sprinklers in corridors ramps where no cars are parked and only cars are moving? 6- What is the NFPA recommended duration for sprinkler system inside hose stream? 7- Can I connect the inside hose to the dry sprinkler system piping? or shoud I connect the inside hose piping directly to the fire pumps? 8- I will place some insde fire hoses in the garage that provides 1 1/2 in. hose stations and according to NFPA-14 the minimum residual pressure at the outlet of most remote 1 1/2 in. hose stations should be 65 psi for hydraulically designed systems, so I think my fire pump head should be at least 80 psi? What do you think about this fire pump head, do you think it is low, high or good? 9- I want to protect both strories with a single riser using a 4 dry pipe system to feed my sprinkler system fire hoses, what do you think about it? Thanks for your kind help in advance, Reza - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ 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
In my situation I have an AHJ that is saying that a gridded system doesn't use branch lines but rather all piping components in a grid system are either feed or cross mains and so even 2 and smaller piping needs to be braced. I sent him a copy of the Appendix brace location examples for gridded systems in December and was hoping he would go away, but I may end up doing as Roland suggested and send in for a formal interpretation. Thank you all for your comments, Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. ph (360)-848-9093 fax (360)-848-1072 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: 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)
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)
RE: Non-Hangar Hangar
Greg, Also: - An item to note I've seen applied by a building department from NFPA 409 whether you are using NFPA 13 or not is when a new hangar can become a hangar complex with existing structures, changing the classifications as well as add perimeter protection - references such as 409,2-2, 2-3.3 might help explain. - Some of the new hangar doors fold in half length wise and then swing out and up like this link shows: http://www.hydroswing.com/ Good success, Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. Mt Vernon, WA 98273 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Non-Hangar Hangar As I have relayed to this forum before, qualified FP engineers, and/or PE's with significant experience above Ordinary Hazard are non-existent down here. Because of this we are often backed into this corner where we MUST supply a price which would include the engineer's fee for the entire job; get the job and then get the engineer involved. No price - no job. The engineer we want to use is unavailable so I asked the question on the forum. Thanks for the replies. Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:07 PM To: AFSA Forum Subject: Re: Non-Hangar Hangar Not that simple (unfortunately) sometimes. Did one last year that was called a Maintenance Hangar on a design-build basis for the USMC (Navy rules). They didn't even have design criteria so we negotiated an ad-lib taken from the ceiling protection criteria in 409. I think we provided .17/5,000 sq. ft. But our building was WAY smaller and especially it was shorter too. Depending on door height, yours could meet the dimensional criteria for a Type 1 or Type 2 hangar, so I do agree with Todd that you should tread lightly. Steve Leyton Away from the office - sent from my BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Todd Williams - FPDC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:21:57 To:sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Non-Hangar Hangar Greg, If the design documents call it a hanger, I would consider it as a hanger and figure the systems accordingly. You may run into a liability issue if you don't. Or at least end up with an underbid job. I would assume that all of the fuel has been removed from the tanks and they have been purged before the planes end up in the space. Hopefully the Engineer (when he or she becomes available) will be able to clarify the spec and doesn't ask you to do his job At 05:20 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote: We have a hangar for the storage of retired - stripped aircraft that is specified in the design documents to be referred to as a hangar, but it is not a hangar by definition or military definitions. This is on a military base but is a non military building. The aircraft will be stripped of almost everything but the seats and maybe wiring. YES, I want the engineer to do his job, but he is unavailable and the GC needs a budget immediately. In addition, the engineer will probably be looking for input as well: 87' tall at the peak, 45' at the eaves with flexible membrane (no info available at this time) covering. Question: Would this be more suited for Ordinary Hazard or should this fall into the real Hangar protection in 409? Thanks for any quick input, Greg 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://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Riser or Riser Nipple Revisited
I don't have a copy here at the moment, but is there anything in the IBC Section 1621 design requirement references for components and ASCE 9.6 that provide exemptions of items that weigh less than x pounds that might help? If so, maybe it could be applied to a 6 oz. riser nipple and that might satiate the literal mind? Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. Mt Vernon, WA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Riser or Riser Nipple Revisited Hopefully the fact that smaller branch lines are not required to have sway braces would influence the decision making on the 4-way brace. Roland On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Jason Norton wrote: I think Roland it the nail on the head with excessively literal mind. There is no way NFPA can come up with a code that tells you exactly what to do in every situation. DSA is quickly becoming the new OSHPD. Just double your bid next time and you can afford to do what the excessively literal mind wants. Of course that is not the best solution, education is. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Cyr Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Riser or Riser Nipple Revisited Thanks for the feed back. I'd like to pursue this thread further. When running a branch line with offsets for duct work or any other obstruction, do you 4 way brace both sides of the vertical offset or just the riser side in the direction of water flow? Is there a point to when to much bracing can be detrimental? Wouldn't line restraint in lieu of seismic bracing prove to be adequate for all portion of the branch line including the riser nipple? Also finding adequate structure to brace to can also become a problem. Utilizing a 4 way brace on a 1 1/4 x 06 RN seems like over kill. Do you subtract lateral load factors from main braces for the added bracing of the branch line? Thanks, Ed Cyr -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Norton Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Riser or Riser Nipple? DSA has also been trying to require all drops over 4 ft. to be restrained. Seems they think a drop is no different than a sprig. Go figure. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Riser or Riser Nipple? Sprigs are a separate category independent from risers. That alone would not convince many folks that have an excessively literal mind. Fortunately, we can then ask, if a 4-way brace is required why would 13 state: Sprigs greater than 4 ft shall be restrained? This issue come to our attention when looking at riser nipples. That's why we now have the 3 ft allowance. Beyond that, if it's feeding more than one sprinkler, I think you have to treat it like any other riser. Roland On Jan 7, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Ed Cyr wrote: Forum, In the past I posted a thread about an AHJ requiring that riser nipples regardless of length be 4- way braced at the top. NFPA 13 defines a riser as any vertical pipe. Recently, the Dept of State Architects (DSA) in California has brought this issue up again. Riser nipples of any length with or without flexible couplings are on their radar. Question: 1. Is a riser nipple a riser requiring a 4 way brace, or a branch line component requiring restraint only? 2. Does every change of elevation (vertically) on a branch line also require a 4 way brace? Comments anyone? Thanks, Ed Cyr Alpha Fire Sprinkler Corp. San Luis Obispo, CA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: construction type - extra heads
Todd, I'm not sure I've got the big picture on this one, but it sounds like the only exposed combustibles is the exposed deck at the top of the beams? Maybe the HVAC guys/equal could take up rolls of sheet metal sheared 2'9 through the ceiling access, screw it onto the underside of the deck. Then does it become a '02 8.14.2.1 limited combustible space not requiring sprinklers? If you still need sprinklers, maybe they could do two layers of metal and the lower level would make your 22? Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: construction type - extra heads bulls-eye I guess one could simply use those bowed wire every couple of feet (like one uses for insulation under the flooring in a house) but I wouldn't be comfortable with that. What are you guys typically using to reliable hold the insulation up? Roland On Dec 26, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Dewayne Martinez wrote: Todd, I think we talked somewhat about this in prior postings that the 22 deflector distance couldn't be modified so one of the ideas was to have non-combustible insulation installed at the deck to make the deflector to now within the 22 limit. Now keeping the insulation up in the pockets bring about another problem. Dewayne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: construction type - extra heads I have 30 deep beams spaced at 2'-9 o.c. If I space sprinklers in every pocket, I have 18 sprinklers protecting a 625 sqft unoccupied room. I was trying to look for a way out of it, since it does seem excessive and will have a monstrous effect on the calcs. The space is only accessible by a 2' x 2' hatch with a ladder, so bringing up sheetrock to cover the ceiling is not practical. Looking for thoughts or ideas. At 10:37 AM 12/26/2007, you wrote: did you start with the definitions? How can you call it anything but obstructed? I ASSUME the TC put the 3 to 7-1/2 ft since beam and girders assemblies are TYPICALLY spaced at a minimum but structural loads are not always typical so neither are the beam placements. Don't let the general description in the ANNEX get in the way of defining ceiling type since it does NOT conflict with the base definition. Considering wood joists have the same impact on heat flow and discharge, where's the beef? The only time the minimum spacing will cause a REAL problem is exceeding the 22 inch below the ceiling with concrete tees that are less than 3 ft apart. Twin tees are pretty common. Roland On Dec 24, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Todd Williams - FPDC wrote: I am working on room that is approximately 25 x 25. The roof deck is two layers of 3 thick tongue-and-grooved plank. Supporting this is a series of 30 deep steel beams spaced 2'-9 O.C. This room is presently unoccupied and will remain that way. (The space above was contained a water tank. This is in a tower of an old mill). In my pre-Christmas reading of the construction types, this seems to be an anomaly. How do you address construction where the beam spacing is less than 3 feet? Obstructed Construction only includes beams spaced between 3 and 7.5 feet. If you go to Chapter 8, assume obstructed construction and look at the deflector distances, I would have to include a sprinkler in each bay (since my beam depth exceeds 22). I know I shouldn't be applying logic to sprinklers, but 18 sprinklers to protect a 25 x 25 unoccupied room does seem to be overkill. Any thoughts? I think they are way over budget on this project, so the idea of adding a ceiling will be met with resistance. Any thoughts? Merry Christmas to all 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 ___ 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)
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. I am encountering differing opinions as to whether additional bracing is required on branch lines and which ones those would be. 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)
RE: boat storage
Same in this NW Washington State area; boats loaded with fuel and full gear. The storage operators even advertise how quickly they can have your boat in the water after you call them. The boat rack issues seem very similar to Pod Storage Facility concerns, but with Roland H's additional comment of water filled boat weights and structural support. I'm not very fond of adding more technology to our sprinkler systems, but it seems that the only hope of dealing with boat racks or pod storage is to use rack deluge zones capable of multiple types of sensing in addition to the overhead system. But now we have no testing, applicable standards, or guidelines for either. Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff Whitfield Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: boat storage Craig, The boats that are stored in these facilities around this part of the country do not have the fuel tanks purged or the batteries disconnected. They are usually 18' to 25' pleasure/ski/fishing boats that can be removed from the rack, dropped in the water and ready to go in a few minutes. Like someone has already mentioned, this is the kind of job to walk away from until there is definite guidance given by an NFPA standard. Cliff Whitfield Fire Design, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: boat storage In doing some reading on the topic is appears from a risk standpoint that the boats stored in the rack configuration had a lower risk of being involved in a fire than those which are moored in the water under the dock roof. Reason being that those stored on the racks were drained of fuel and had batteries disconnected and had no access from the owners or others during storage. The boats that were stored in the water were often larger and while docked were involved in more on-board repair work as well as having on-board heaters running (while unoccupied) during cold weather to prevent plumbing pipes from freezing. It appears that heaters were a common source of on-board fires. Ignition of flammable vapors ranked up there as well. But agreed, the rack storage arrangement is a very complex situation with little to no guidance from the Code realm. In one recent project this situation came up and NFPA 312 Standard for Fire Protection of Vessels During Construction, Conversion, Repair and Lay-up was applied along with NFPA 306 Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels. Note: that this was not a pleasure craft facility. But there was no way NFPA 13 could be applied to this facility. NFPA 312 has very strict procedural guidelines and also ties into some CFR Regs. Those tightly restrictive procedures allow for a more simplistic approach to fire protection. 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.lg.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: boat storage True that. Some of the steel people are beginning to figure the weight of the water in the rack design. This issue MUST be addressed and put to rest by the IBC, NFPA, FM or someone soon, or I think disaster is in the wings. I have no replies with successful saves IN a boat storage facility from this forum. Greg Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: boat storage The issue is not boats in a berth sitting in the water. That one is simple since it is just a building covering a low level of storage. He is asking about boats stored on racks several levels high. It's a nasty item. No contractor in their right mind should attempt to DESIGN it. Even with the engineers copying designs from contractors in the Florida panhandle, LEAVE IT TO THE ENGINEER. Now I can say no engineer in their right mind would touch it unless the client was willing to make some very limiting modifications to the layout of the racks. Many of the facilities have adjustable racks to accommodate boats of different heights. I've heard of people putting side wall heads in the columns to cover the area beneath the boats. You think maybe they were ignoring that you need the heads to activate in order for the water throw to count as covering the area? Group A plastics on racks with LOTS
RE: Backflow: Sprinkler System
Don't causing any more backflow trouble by asking those kind of questions! http://www.campbellmfg.com/catalog/j01.htm Next the water district girls will be out there with their little hard hats and confined space equipment inspecting RP's in the vaults we are going to be required to put in front of every hydrant...vaults with sump pumps in case they flood. Oh and the pump discharge through an oil/water separator: Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Backflow: Sprinkler System Technically Yes this is a potential cross connection, and should be protected. But who owned these fire hydrants? Usually the water authority. And who is responsible for a cross connection control policy? Right, the water authority. So obviously their policy is to ignore this situation, at least until all the other possible cross connections have been addressed. Or until someone invents a cost effective way to protect this that isn't a maint. nightmare. Buried 7 ft underground. All you would be inventors out there, here's your chance at fame and fortune. Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - From: Matsuda, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:00 AM Subject: RE: Backflow: Sprinkler System I like this Forum...so many varied perspectives from so many different parts of the country and so many different occupations. Here in Dallas we use dry barrel fire hydrants so they don't freeze during the winter. All of them have a small weep hole below grade to allow the water in barrel to drain after use...I guess it's something like the ball drip on the fire dept connection. The fire hydrant is usually located near the street, and the ground there is subject to all kinds of pollutants, like grease, oil, and even an occasional dog. So here are my questions: 1. Is this arrangement a cross-connection? 2. If so, then is backflow prevention required? 3. If not, then why not? I'm not expressing any opinion...just asking some questions. The earlier responses on this subject were slowing down so I thought stir the pot again. rick matsuda, city of dallas, bldg insp dept. ___ 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: What does not fully functional mean?
We often have difficulty getting the underground velocity flush certificate on projects and that results in completed systems remaining off. Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What does not fully functional mean? My guess is that someone had not turned the water on. If it was tested and passed the inspection than the only thing missing would be water. Maybe they felt that the water should not be turned on until the building was occupied. Karen Purvis Designer Facility Systems Consultants 714 S Gay St Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Reinhardt Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: What does not fully functional mean? Detail.url The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to: http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3634335v ersi on=17locale=EN-USlayoutCode=TSTYpageId=3.2.1 Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. ___ 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: ceiling change
Todd, I'm working on a similar sounding situation in an IHOP Restaurant currently in review by the AHJ with 14/12 pitch and a flat area about 3' wide at the peak. As Scott posted the heads probably would activate better on the flat, but...it seems in a situation of a steeply pitched ceiling and a narrow flat area that the slope interferes with the spray pattern of a head installed on the flat. I chose on the slope and within 1'. Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: ceiling change I am working on a project in a church sanctuary that has (until now) a sloped ceiling that goes to a peak in the middle. There are 4 branch lines running the length of the sanctuary, parallel to the ridge line. The architect now wants to flatten a section of the ceiling in the center. Of course the two center lines, which are already piped, are located right above the change from slope to flat. We now have to locate the sprinklers either on the slope or on the flat, but within a foot or two of the joint. What would be the preferred location? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.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: Galvanized sprinkler pipe at 130F
Dee, Sorry that I can only throw out a guess; I am reading it as required for 130F and lower, and not required above 130F. My guess is that above 130F there would be reduced corrosion anyway so the galvanized would be optional. Several mill projects that I recall used galvanized pipe everywhere including the kilns and with galv (or SS) attachments and hangers. Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dee Lockwood Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Galvanized sprinkler pipe at 130F Has anyone experience with accelerated corrosion of hot dipped sprinkler pipe used in a dry pipe system? My application is galvanized pipe on a dry pipe system protecting an attic that will see temperatures of 130F for a few hours a day and a month or so each year. FM Global Data Sheet 2-8N, 3-2, requires galvanized pipe in dry pipe system except where ambient temperatures exceed 130F. Section 2-3.1 references a lumber dry kiln. Obviously the operating conditions vary greatly between an attic and a dry kiln. The chemistry in a dry kiln is probably very complex. I contacted the American Galvanizing Association. They are unaware of any accelerated corrosion at 130F and feel galvanizing is stable to 350F. Thanks Dee Lockwood P.E. ___ 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: Flammable liquid storage cabinets in retail stores
Michael, One solution we used to keep everybody happy (happier) was to use some commercial Velcro in strips on the cabinet face and also on the backs of empty product containers. The products are displayed on the exterior that way. I think I was watching a news story of a human dart contest in NZ with guys throwing their Velcro jumpsuit equipped mates onto the walls in a bar, so you must have ready access to the Velcro product down there? Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael James Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Flammable liquid storage cabinets in retail stores Hello, We have a retail store that sells a limited amount of class 1B flammable liquids in 4 litre plastic containers for paint thinning and brush cleaning and the sprinkler protection schemes seem very expensive compared to what is required for the rest of the store. The quantity stored is around 500 litres hence our AHJ has suggested that flammable liquid storage cabinets would be an acceptable alternative. Does anyone know of a manufacturer of flammable liquid storage cabinets complying with NFPA 30 that would be suitable for a retail store i.e not a bright red or yellow steel box but possibly something with fire rated glass fronted doors or a roller shutter closing on a fusible link. While I don't mind the look of a bright red box the merchandising department has other ideas. Thanks, Michael James Fire Safety Engineer Pacific Consultants Auckland NZ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Outside Restaurant Seating
Greg, We were recently looking at a very similar situation and did not see anything definitive either but decided to go ahead and protect it since the regular use of tables, chairs, equipment, might be construed as combustible storage per 2002 8.14.7.4. Kurt Kingston Commercial Fire Protection Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:17 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Outside Restaurant Seating We are looking at a large (1,300 sqft) noncombustible balcony that is going to be used as restaurant seating as part of a Country Club. Previously we bid this as protected because the balconies had exposed combustible ceilings. Since they have revised this to stucco noncombustible finishes I am not sure how to look at it. Thanks for your help, Greg McGahan ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
