RE: swimming pool

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

We should really start a "Reasonable AHJ of the Year" award. I nominate that 
guy.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 1:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: swimming pool

technically, yes. However...

You may be dealing with a situation where the fire risk is substantially lower 
than the risk of some kid hanging off of the sprinkler pipe while goofing off 
with their friends.

I have seen a pool where it was the AHJ that specifically required NO heads 
anywhere over a pool because they are impossible to maintain. (municipal 
facility)

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2022 2:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tony Silva 
Subject: swimming pool

A sprinklered swimming pool having water slides, stairs and platforms.
Wouldn't those over 4 feet wide be obstructions requiring additional sprinklers 
underneath? What is the general opinion?
Tony
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http*3a*2f*2flists.firesprinkler.org*2flistinfo.cgi*2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,l5KJoyK3KEPe0IbQP_VBNMoouNhmxWQFMi5tPsO2F0jhiE1Bjbmhjuequ_8I_aMXEEUuA8ibOryEnibtSxt8hA4uIAXl08O7Ry7HOY14OoOG3YL6dsKN&typo=1__;JSUlJSU!!Ba8_KKAT!fK2g6emTS0gWOABYldclqpS16Qmd8P8eC0gM_CPS0luZQFYiE7rb7ePxnvLyO34KcmE$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!fK2g6emTS0gWOABYldclqpS16Qmd8P8eC0gM_CPS0luZQFYiE7rb7ePxnvLyPlZ8Duk$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: question about Storage height

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Yeah, but the commodity is really the plastic container, right?

Is the open-top container/tote still an issue from code standpoint if it's only 
ever on the lowest level? I thought the real problem with open-top containers 
that catch water was when they are above ground level. In this case, the 
container wouldn't be stopping the water from reaching the commodity. And one 
would assume that the racks are designed to accommodate a container full of 
liquid on the lowest level, so I wouldn't anticipate a structural issue with 
sprinkler water filling the open container.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Mackinnon via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 11:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Mackinnon ; Art Tiroly 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: question about Storage height

Thank you everyone who replied, it appears it's not as clear cut as one would 
think lol. 

The plastic tote below does have a solid top, but I would assume there would be 
opening in the cover to allow any spillage or leaks to fall into the vessel. 
And allow any sprinkler water to fill the totes... but again, these are one 
time usage only. 

Not sure if it helps, but there are only 3-5 of these in the warehouse... 

I just find it hard to wrap my head around protecting 10 foot of storage for 
only 5 feet of commodity. 

Thank you again!

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Art Tiroly 
Subject: RE: question about Storage height

Is the spill container open top? That will be an issue. These sound like 
plastic totes. If the liquid is not combustible the empty tote is still a lot 
of plastic

Art

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Scott Futrell ; Mike Hairfield 
Subject: RE: question about Storage height

You didn't mention what the liquid is. If it is a hazardous material as 
recognized by the International Fire Code then the 'empty' container is still 
considered full unless completely cleaned.

Scott
 
Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: Re: question about Storage height

It should be 10 feet even though the other container is empty it's still 
plastic.

Mike

From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Steve Mackinnon via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Cc: Steve Mackinnon ; Peter Howard 
Subject: question about Storage height

Good morning all,

We have a storage situation where the liquid commodity is in a 5 foot plastic 
storage cube, with an equally sized empty plastic container below.

The empty container below is only there to act as a spill collection vessel.

The question our office has been banging around, what is the storage height???

Would this be considered 5 feet of storage or 10 feet?

Would you take any exception to the plastic containers (like when we change the 
commodity classification with wood to plastic pallets)?

Thank you in advance
Steven
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesp__;JSUl!!Ba8_KKAT!bhK9lo5RKIAANSjG2ZShIdM15axf0XxnEDish6T1WT1VQrln0OlWqINa-pbXyh3-keo$
 
rinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C
01%7C%7C0d961840310a423de85308d9e0d49405%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%
7C1%7C0%7C637788025897874973%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ
QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=gZPzEokK%2FC%2F
BPf%2FyCzVVjYGR3%2FRAFZEAkLsE2Cn2Qjk%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!bhK9lo5RKIAANSjG2ZShIdM15axf0XxnEDish6T1WT1VQrln0OlWqINa-pbXvmsgmwM$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!bhK9lo5RKIAANSjG2ZShIdM15axf0XxnEDish6T1WT1VQrln0OlWqINa-pbXvmsgmwM$
 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!bhK9lo5RKIAANSjG2ZShI

RE: [External]RE: Exposed CPVC pipe and residential upright sprinklers

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

SHOULD or SHALL?

Mwahahahaha...

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:17 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External]RE: Exposed CPVC pipe and residential upright 
sprinklers

I just received information from the Blazemaster rep that we should follow the 
rules for quick response upright sprinklers when using residential upright 
sprinklers.

Thank you,
 
Dewayne Martinez
Fire Protection Design Manager
 
TOTAL Mechanical
Building Integrity

W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
Pewaukee, WI  53072
dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
Ph:  262-522-7110
Cell: 414-406-5208
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.total-mechanical.com/__;!!Ba8_KKAT!ays1jkiZF4thgiA0f17SBgdyEHLJ7zNBIdur3ytOk4IJY0CSeK2VHvrTq9WCtVh9l4E$
  
   


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [External]RE: Exposed CPVC pipe and residential upright sprinklers

They are a newer product... maybe have not been added to the install guide yet? 
Have you called a manufacturer?



Matt Grise
Alliance Fire Protection
130 w 9th Ave
North Kansas City, MO
913.526.7443

sent from mobile device



 Original message 
From: Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum 

Date: 1/21/22 12:34 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Subject: Exposed CPVC pipe and residential upright sprinklers

I don't see an option for using residential upright sprinkler on exposed CPVC 
pipe in any of the manufactures installation manuals.  Am I missing something 
or is QR uprights my only option?


Thank you,

Dewayne Martinez
Fire Protection Design Manager

TOTAL Mechanical
Building Integrity

W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
Pewaukee, WI  53072
dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
Ph:  262-522-7110
Cell: 414-406-5208
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.edgepilot.com/s/a78b9ae2/DFvmkjjXJk_YMzdspaPGvA?u=https:**Alinkprotect.cudasvc.com*url*a=http*253a*252f*252fwww.total-mechanical.com*252f*26c=E*2C1*2CI79na4vKieqBXg17CUMFaePStL2KXgTmBoYikkWtWeTtJqyhOiHQLHhQ2rtupf4r38iP9BHKPW0hbJzkUVKbAxh6xRxyjVUqHAtLtFRyAfhm8_QzwLBhzg*2C*2C*26typo=1__;Ly8vPyUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Ba8_KKAT!ays1jkiZF4thgiA0f17SBgdyEHLJ7zNBIdur3ytOk4IJY0CSeK2VHvrTq9WCWWCZba4$
 



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.edgepilot.com/s/0c5365bd/Tze7eVTIMkqdlgPEZTx_Ow?u=https:**Alinkprotect.cudasvc.com*url*a=http*253a*252f*252flists.firesprinkler.org*252flistinfo.cgi*252fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org*26c=E*2C1*2Cxt49ULo4tYlgvw1vORviyWzmlujjY-48Ho1ZcNNth-NanVn_BNMx1jespAVxgSbR4bzvjHcrpEb8Ri99uEu-OzE4enl9EIFnCoRYu3-F7DSnj-zP*26typo=1__;Ly8vPyUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Ba8_KKAT!ays1jkiZF4thgiA0f17SBgdyEHLJ7zNBIdur3ytOk4IJY0CSeK2VHvrTq9WCrSxxRCE$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.edgepilot.com/s/e7314454/xby0LHgqp0iS4EBBnhC1bQ?u=http:**Alists.firesprinkler.org*listinfo.cgi*sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;Ly8vLw!!Ba8_KKAT!ays1jkiZF4thgiA0f17SBgdyEHLJ7zNBIdur3ytOk4IJY0CSeK2VHvrTq9WCTC0gde0$
 
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!ays1jkiZF4thgiA0f17SBgdyEHLJ7zNBIdur3ytOk4IJY0CSeK2VHvrTq9WC60wDMfU$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: ESFR obstruction shift

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Allen is right when looking at the SxL rule that's normally applied to 
sprinkler spacing. But ESFR sprinklers have specific allowances for this 
condition [see 8.12.3.1(3) & (4) in 2016 edition, which is what I have in front 
of me], which is what Matt is applying.

It's pretty common to do a spacing like: 10-10-9-11-10-10-9-11... That I'm sure 
is OK. Matt's situation of 9-11-9-11-9-11... is less common but I still think 
it meets the intent of the allowance in the code.

-Kyle M


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 2:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR obstruction shift

Allan,

I am not sure I follow how you are applying the OH spacing rules to ESFR 
listings. These sprinklers are still covering 100sf each on average, and the 
spacing adjustment is spelled out specifically in NFPA 13. The discharge is not 
designated by coverage area, it never goes up or down depending on the head 
spacing.

I agree that the shorter gap gets more water than the longer gap, but it seems 
that the longer gap has been found to perform ok?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
Subject: Re: ESFR obstruction shift

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

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

Allan Seidel

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

RE: ESFR obstruction shift

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Matt,

I haven't dealt with that situation in real life, but have in theory had 
several conversations about it. I am in agreement with you that this should be 
allowable per the code language. You never exceed 110 s.f. and the average 
ACTUAL FLOOR AREA (not SxL) does not exceed 100 s.f.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR obstruction shift

No - since we are moving along the line, when one space goes from 10 to 11, the 
space on the other side goes from 10' to 9'

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: ESFR obstruction shift

Are you not creating a 10x11 situation since you are moving every other 
sprinkler?

If so, you may be violating the 100 sq ft per average requirement for moved and 
adjacent?

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: ESFR obstruction shift

I am looking at a warehouse layout where we can get a very nice head pattern by 
laying the heads out 10ft by 10ft, and then shifting the ones that land near 
joists 1ft along the line as allowed by NFPA 13.

The only issue is that we have to shift every other head. Making a 9ft - 11ft 
pattern along the branch line. As far as I can tell, this meets the letter of 
the code, but it seems like a stretch.

Has anyone come across a similar situation where so many heads needed to be 
shifted to avoid roof structures?

Matt

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http*3a*2f*2flists.firesprinkler.org*2flistinfo.cgi*2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,l1exGGqk0cDcPNoSdqRWtD1YmZdqStCzx0CUF-Olhi1rqB9Iz8Fn6d7eBTNXNMfF8T-7GZY94qom2OweTyV4Gyin1hiL-CJ82tDF4yhwF7g0ofhpr4fwsNalRZM,&typo=1__;JSUlJSU!!Ba8_KKAT!eogk1pEssHmJtaZHhoNM1xMOrahW4a40OEoiC7xHQPIDjpwV0fnvj8Sfjpv8d1bFGzI$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http*3a*2f*2flists.firesprinkler.org*2flistinfo.cgi*2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,faagUYTvRqNofSbZjC709kxTbRDQVTelhUkbtQ0AWq4V349KeRLZVnCRia1Vjt6yQqBjB_beLshOylNEy-3N0UIJJJFKTWvWeUpRcWUx-0A,&typo=1__;JSUlJSU!!Ba8_KKAT!eogk1pEssHmJtaZHhoNM1xMOrahW4a40OEoiC7xHQPIDjpwV0fnvj8Sfjpv8sH-n2sk$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!eogk1pEssHmJtaZHhoNM1xMOrahW4a40OEoiC7xHQPIDjpwV0fnvj8Sfjpv8Su2SCv4$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Food trucks inside a building

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

It's always been my understanding that the different hazard classifications are 
based upon the fuel load of a potential fire, not the likelihood that there 
will be a fire. So whether there is a stove in operation or not shouldn’t 
really change the hazard.

So you come back to fuel load, which is present whether you are cooking in the 
truck or the truck is parked. So, are you allowed to park taco trucks in a 
parking garage? In order to call a parking garage Ordinary Hazard Group 1, do 
we need to have signage on the entrance that prohibits taco trucks from 
entering?

My biggest questions would be: 
1. Since they are likely parked long-term, do the have additional fuel or other 
combustible supplies that wouldn't be present in a vehicle moving from location 
to location?
2. Is there a buildup of grease that needs to be considered based on how the 
ventilation air is treated?

I don't think ordinary hazard would be out of the question. I think my first 
attempt would be to go OH 2, and make someone convince me that it needed to be 
more than that. 

Full disclosure, I don't have the necessarily letters after my name to act as a 
consultant, and I tend to be a little less conservative than our other brothers 
and sisters on this forum. 

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:30 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Edk 
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; Fpdcdesign 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Food trucks inside a building

Shielded fires wouldn't be my primary concern, fuel density and fire intensity 
would be my concerns.  A little fire in a truck can be handled by a fire 
extinguisher. I'm not sure if food trucks are required to have anything other 
than that for fire control.  But a fire in one of these units is not going to 
be shielded for very long if it isn't brought under control almost immediately.


Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.jacobs.com__;!!Ba8_KKAT!ZrXP5SK6t5glR-DVUQLAZqoO-M8IgbnbLSNz1_g0q5s8iY5IgvuCyhGm_e3Ao6KYcFE$
 
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 11:57 AM
To: Edk ; Sprinklerforum 

Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Food trucks inside a building




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



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



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



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



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



 Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)

860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)

860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)







>
> On Jan 13, 2022 at 10:08 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>
>
>
>  I'm working on a small project (approx. 7,200 sf) that is a noncombustible 
> structure used for parking operating food trucks indoors. The plan shows 6 
> trucks spread out near the perimeter with the middle of the building open for 
> pedestrian traffic (maybe tables?). Ordinary Group I hazard (parking garage) 
> seems very inadequate. Extra hazard group II (manufactured home assemblies) 
> seems a bit strong. Thoughts? Ed K 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!RcX5JP4LeGO09FAr8CBattqY0kW-M8-52sufDsdeL1NcQ7PBWPXO05AHXjBEwkvHNg$
>
>



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!RcX5JP4LeGO09FAr8CBattqY0kW-M8-52sufDsdeL1NcQ7PBWPXO05AHX

RE: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

In the FM Datasheets, it looks like the minimum design area is 768 sq ft (64 x 
12), EXCEPT when sprinklers are required in every channel created by obstructed 
construction. In the case of sprinklers in every channel, it appears as though 
you just calculate the required minimum number of sprinklers. I THINK 
(certainly not a leading authority on this) that the heat from a fire will be 
directed along the channel, which minimizes the concern for "skipping".

Anyone else have thoughts on this, either in agreement or otherwise? 

It looks like I can protect it per FM Global criteria, but I'd rather not open 
that can of worms if there's a legitimate way to apply NFPA 13. I guess it all 
comes down to whether the minimum spacing applies if there is a solid 
obstruction between the sprinklers. I'm confident that it wouldn't with 
standard spray sprinklers, but looking for some reassurance (or rebuke) when it 
comes to ESFR.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 12:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Mike Hairfield 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

Deflector distance isn't a problem, I can either run the branch line up high in 
every pocket/bay or utilize an upright ESFR (Tyco ESFR-17).

I was thinking that the minimum spacing didn't apply when there was an 
obstruction/baffle between the heads (in this case, the legs of the concrete 
tee) and the heads are installed in "every bay channel formed by solid 
structural members". This is specifically allowed in the FM Datasheets, but I 
believe they also have a minimum remote areas size that would require you to 
add sprinklers to the remote area. 

Is the consensus among the group that this building (concrete tees with legs 5 
feet on center) just cannot be protected with ESFR sprinklers per NFPA 13?

And, if that's the case, are we also saying that any time there is a 
beam/obstruction in an ESFR system that the heads on either side of it still 
need to be at least 8 feet apart? You can't have a head 3 feet away on each 
side of the beam (heads 6 feet apart but with a solid obstruction/baffle 
between them)?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 12:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

I don’t believe ESFR sprinklers can be installed in a concrete tee building.
Minimum spacing is 8’-0” and what is the deflector distance.
Mike 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2021, at 2:11 PM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm dealing with an existing concrete tee building that the owner wants to 
> retrofit with an ESFR system. Heads will be closely spaced due to the 
> obstruction caused by the tees; 5-foot on center. Does NFPA 13 have a minimum 
> remote area size, or is it just 12 heads?
> 
> -Kyle M
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesprinkler.org*2Flistinfo.cgi*2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04*7C01*7C*7C2243e8f422f447e9e98808d9caff0ba5*7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435*7C1*7C0*7C637764019046194532*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000&sdata=pbf*2BoThaf77nppLZONRpZrs9AwSkwAHo*2FPdId21LXD8*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Ba8_KKAT!cFpuCO_w9YY4Ug5JApVoeXhH0dAjA9mRe1AyvYgW_8Szjt_tnI_096ZtrSXQJ6oSgXY$
>  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!cFpuCO_w9YY4Ug5JApVoeXhH0dAjA9mRe1AyvYgW_8Szjt_tnI_096ZtrSXQNV76eoU$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!YTVAuSzdiMYPwqZfcNAGOrGotgsI64o1BjqnawO_wJ_H_lOjDSSwHAUJxZFtTaUFcBg$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Deflector distance isn't a problem, I can either run the branch line up high in 
every pocket/bay or utilize an upright ESFR (Tyco ESFR-17).

I was thinking that the minimum spacing didn't apply when there was an 
obstruction/baffle between the heads (in this case, the legs of the concrete 
tee) and the heads are installed in "every bay channel formed by solid 
structural members". This is specifically allowed in the FM Datasheets, but I 
believe they also have a minimum remote areas size that would require you to 
add sprinklers to the remote area. 

Is the consensus among the group that this building (concrete tees with legs 5 
feet on center) just cannot be protected with ESFR sprinklers per NFPA 13?

And, if that's the case, are we also saying that any time there is a 
beam/obstruction in an ESFR system that the heads on either side of it still 
need to be at least 8 feet apart? You can't have a head 3 feet away on each 
side of the beam (heads 6 feet apart but with a solid obstruction/baffle 
between them)?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 12:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

I don’t believe ESFR sprinklers can be installed in a concrete tee building.
Minimum spacing is 8’-0” and what is the deflector distance.
Mike 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2021, at 2:11 PM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm dealing with an existing concrete tee building that the owner wants to 
> retrofit with an ESFR system. Heads will be closely spaced due to the 
> obstruction caused by the tees; 5-foot on center. Does NFPA 13 have a minimum 
> remote area size, or is it just 12 heads?
> 
> -Kyle M
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesprinkler.org*2Flistinfo.cgi*2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04*7C01*7C*7C2243e8f422f447e9e98808d9caff0ba5*7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435*7C1*7C0*7C637764019046194532*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000&sdata=pbf*2BoThaf77nppLZONRpZrs9AwSkwAHo*2FPdId21LXD8*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Ba8_KKAT!cFpuCO_w9YY4Ug5JApVoeXhH0dAjA9mRe1AyvYgW_8Szjt_tnI_096ZtrSXQJ6oSgXY$
>  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!cFpuCO_w9YY4Ug5JApVoeXhH0dAjA9mRe1AyvYgW_8Szjt_tnI_096ZtrSXQNV76eoU$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I'm dealing with an existing concrete tee building that the owner wants to 
retrofit with an ESFR system. Heads will be closely spaced due to the 
obstruction caused by the tees; 5-foot on center. Does NFPA 13 have a minimum 
remote area size, or is it just 12 heads?

-Kyle M

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mixing ESFR Sprinklers

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

How do you guys calc these systems? Just the K22 section and the K17 section 
separately? Or a combo? I think there are situations where having one line of 
K17s (at 52 psi) in your remote area would be the "worst-case" scenario because 
that 52 psi would drive some overflow in the two lines of K22s (that only need 
40 psi at that height). Or do you actually split the systems (zone boundaries) 
so that there isn't a system that has both types?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 3:48 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Jamie Seidl 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mixing ESFR Sprinklers

Yep, typically end up with K22's down the center at the peak, with a K17 
sandwich to the outside.
Jamie Seidl

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 1:41 PM Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Here is the situation:
>
> Building has 40'-8" Maximum Ceiling height at the ridge, the building 
> is designed with K16.8 ESFR's.
>
> Can the areas that are over the 40'-0" maximum ceiling height be 
> designed using K22.4 or K25.2 ESFR's and be approved?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Hairfield
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cg
> i/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!a7NwbGit-6dyv1Yq8Jg4tE
> ZyjB-DjWMrCPViH_HpelfxKczficVerWb6qDNJu50YskU$
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!a7NwbGit-6dyv1Yq8Jg4tEZyjB-DjWMrCPViH_HpelfxKczficVerWb6qDNJu50YskU$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Shoe store complications

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I would assume that there are tons of these that exist with OH2 sprinkler 
designs. Are there any examples of fires in any of those and information about 
whether the fire was controlled or overwhelmed the sprinklers? If the theory 
says it should be protected like Group A plastics, but the history shows that 
OH2 has proven sufficient, then what do you do?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Spencer Tomlinson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:04 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson ; Steve Leyton 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Shoe store complications

I have worked with a very large insurer of mall properties that treats the 
commodity class of any shoe store as storage of Group A unexpanded plastics, at 
whatever height, etc., that applies.

Spencer Tomlinson, PE
Owner, Fire Protection Engineer


Ph:  316-202-6412
Fax: 316-202-2346
Cell: 620-955-7293

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Shoe store complications

Has anyone got any experience with design or classification of a discount shoe 
store that displays shoes in 8' shelving units?   These are particle board, 
storage to 10', with shoes on attachments to the front of  the shelving units 
and densely packed boxes with stock in the shelving.   Today's shoes can be 
made of textile or leather uppers, but more and more the inventory is 
characterized by synthetic materials, often nylon and polyester materials.   
Except for traditional dress shoes that may still have wood or leather soles, 
most shoes have various densities of foam layers for inner and middle soles, 
with rubber outer soles.

Classifying the mix is challenging because of fast inventory turn-over, 
especially the discount chains.   Not all are using the taller fixtures, but 
many do and we've got fire officials asking for protection of stored plastics.  
I can't really impeach that finding since the stores aren't able to state 
equivocally what shoes will be in stock at any time.   We're assessing a format 
that's moving into a retail shell that was a Walgreen's store and will now be 
discount shoes with the aforementioned 10' of storage and a 25' deck height (an 
existing mezzanine is being demolished so roof is high  for a standalone retail 
pad).Seems to me that Chapter 20 is the way to go and I'd value feedback or 
additional info it anyone's got something to offer.

Thanks,

Steve Leyton, President
Protection Design and Consulting
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectiondesign.com&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB&s=UCRVIIqu4Op0eXLcV4o2_0u-dFnahjOclK5zGCvxS0w&e=
 

2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire 
Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB&s=Uph4KkSswfWfRZn_CTml0WdAGdoOAhI1M1WR_kudugI&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB&s=Uph4KkSswfWfRZn_CTml0WdAGdoOAhI1M1WR_kudugI&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: mixing EC sprinks with SC sprinks

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

This is actually a really interesting question, I think. My opinion would be to 
calculate the systems as standard response (no quick-response reduction) but 
install QR sprinklers. I'm not sure I can justify that, just kind of my gut 
feeling.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of bill.brooks brooksfpe.com via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: bill.brooks brooksfpe.com 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: mixing EC sprinks with SC sprinks

And this seems to be the difference between the Classification of the 
Occupancy/Commodity (hard part performed by EOR) and figuring out what 
sprinkler and spacing to use in a particular compartment with clouds, soffits, 
skylights, beams, joists, hidden spaces, piping configuration, hanger 
placement, bracing, hydraulic calcs, submittals, etc. (easy part performed by 
sprinkler designer/contractor).

Just joking about who has the easy part.

Bill Brooks (Member)

William N. Brooks P.E.
Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 4:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ed Kramer 
Subject: RE: mixing EC sprinks with SC sprinks

I think making the new SC sprinklers standard-response is the best solution in 
this particular situation.

I could see these EC sprinklers being used as both 20'x20' and 14'x14' in
the same compartment in order to protect odd-ball areas.   Then adding new
SC sprinklers and deciding if they should be QR or SR gets more complicated.
I was hoping 13 would provide guidance.

Ed

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Taylor Schumacher via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Taylor Schumacher 
Subject: RE: mixing EC sprinks with SC sprinks

We follow how they are listed. If the 3mm bulbs are spaced at SR, we utilize SR 
5mm bulbs for adjacent standard coverage sprinklers. 


Taylor Schumacher



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey 
Subject: RE: mixing EC sprinks with SC sprinks

I would say if they're all being used as an SR sprinkler based on listing, I 
would put in SR sprinklers.  Is there an AHJ you can lean on?  That's what I 
would approach them with as far as logic.

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager * Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 /  cell
260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ed Kramer 
Subject: mixing EC sprinks with SC sprinks

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Forumities,

This has likely been previously addressed, but it's just not coming back to me 
. . .

 

I've got an existing ordinary hazard area that is protected by existing EC 
sprinklers.  The existing EC sprinklers have fast response (3mm) elements and 
are listed as standard-response for the 20'x20' spacing they are protecting.  
If these sprinklers were protecting an area of 14' x 14', they would be listed 
as quick-response.

 

I need to add a couple standard-coverage sprinklers due to wall changes.
Should the new standard-coverage sprinklers be quick-response, or 
standard-response?

 

NFPA 13 (2019) section
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttp-3A__9.4.3.5-5F-5F-3B-21-21FaxH778-21NjvBLXYl2Y98ErgMyq9iF&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=iih4NVEkD89x14qk7m6LbFsl49j-eQ0kuCE55fl2VOI&m=EQOAnHh_Yu58O-jJpDHThSpSw5Wxu_LAvMSKgI0iFfk&s=B08Eq9KCGacJUUOrNuBeq7Iqs8lYnP1nzgcOejLRTVc&e=
VRSvqAUyYKBmSwdF1FH-Y30MG_-ngt9IAYtt0y1QUQd$  gives me guidance if I were 
adding an identical EC sprinkler, but that's not what's happening.

 

Thanks in advance,

Ed K

 

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttp-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_spri&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=iih4NVEkD89x14qk7m6LbFsl49j-eQ0kuCE55fl2VOI&m=EQOAnHh_Yu58O-jJpDHThSpSw5Wxu_LAvMSKgI0iFfk&s=bVdSWiH7RabLavK2IkHtJ3etG4jTD1-nF7_bYmzd7Mo&e=
nklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!NjvBLXYl2Y98ErgMyq9iFVRSvqAUyYKBmSw
dF1FH-Y30MG_-ngt9IAYttwf-jBd3$ 

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive th

RE: [EXTERNAL] Definitions

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

That's the sole purpose of a draft curtain, so it better be acceptable for that 
use. In fact, I think your question is more directly addressed in 12.3(2) where 
it says the requirements of 12.3(1) shall not apply where the areas are 
separated by a draft curtain...

Maybe I'm not understanding the question, but it seems pretty clear cut.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 1:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: tston...@comcast.net
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Definitions

Chapter 12 adjacent hazards or design methods, What is meant by "Barrier or 
Partition Capable." ? (12.3)

Is a Draft Curtain as referred to in Chapter 8 and 12.1.1 acceptable?

 

I ask this because I would like to separate Tire Storage from the Tire Service 
Installation area of same building.

 

Thank you in advance. 

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=1Idm-MgkwlWmfD_oU-za3PBotjlT2ziuC6pYu6mpsms&s=PwGOhUO5eYrGS7LtyXldRGEcz3nGaOOOt33tQk5MKHc&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Transfer Switches

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

It's probably worth double-checking the jurisdictional requirements. I've dealt 
with some jurisdictions that state that if a backup generator is provided, it 
shall be sized for the fire pump. Their thought process is that if the building 
can remain operable (lights on, etc.) during a power outage then the intention 
is probably to keep people working during said outage. And if people are still 
working in the building, then they want an active/functioning fire sprinkler 
system. I'm not here to argue the validity of that thought process, simply to 
state that it's a possible AHJ requirement depending on where you're working.

Outside of a special AHJ requirement, I'm pretty confident the national codes 
would not a backup generator to power the fire pump in your scenario.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 8:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Transfer Switches

A point to be mentioned:  a fire pump is only supplied by normal power and if 
desired or required, "standby" power.  "Emergency" power is different.
"Shedding" of power is fully allowed with standby power.

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org
 
 

   


*Our members are at the heart of everything we do.*

*Get in the (Fitter) Zone!*


AFSA's "Fitter Zone" features live webinars designed specifically for fire 
sprinkler fitters. These live presentations are held on Saturdays whenever 
possible, so you don't have to take your fitters out of the field during the 
workweek. If you cannot attend live sessions, these webinars will be recorded 
and can be purchased for on-demand access.  Learn more *here* 
.




On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 11:41 AM David Williams via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Or you “shed” the refrigeration from the generator sizing during a 
> fire event. That much ice cream will stay cold for the period of time 
> the fire pump needs the power.
>
> David Toshio Williams, PE*, FPE
> (*Registered in MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, ND, VT)
> (218) 279-2436 direct | (218) 310-2446 cell LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE 
> DRIVEN DESIGN
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> on behalf of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date: Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:25 AM
> To: Mark Phillips , Richard Mote < 
> spri...@aol.com>, sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: Steve Leyton , Richard Mote < 
> spri...@aol.com>
> Subject: RE: Transfer Switches
> It's ice cream; depending on local health code requirements, a "save"
> might still be a profound or total loss.
>
> After a long time in this racket, I find myself falling back more and 
> more on Chapter 1 of all the standards wherein we find the intent statement,
> which is to provide a "reasonable" level of protection against fire.If
> they want/need a generator to keep ice cream from melting in this fully
> sprinklered building, then plug one in.   But it's also fair to undertake a
> cost/benefit analysis if backing up the pump means doubling the cost 
> of the gen set and if the owner doesn't see the value, so be it.  
> Keeping in mind that at no point in this discussion has there been any 
> allusion to the power supply not meeting the reliability requirements of NFPA 
> 20.
>
> SL
>
>
> From: Mark Phillips [mailto:philli

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire Pump Backflow

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Now you’ve piqued my curiosity.

So what happens when you start the pump? Does it just cavitate and get 
little/no water flow?

And how did you initially fill the system to get all the air out? I’m curious 
if it’s just not priming properly or if the pump really just cavitates before 
it can open the backflow.

I’m not sure I understand the reconfigured jockey pump idea. If the jockey pump 
suction comes from downstream of the BFP, won’t it have the same problem. And 
if the jockey pump suction comes from upstream of the BFP, then don’t you still 
have the same concern of potentially contaminating the potable water?

Whatever you do, keep us posted on what worked.

-Kyle M

From: Joe Burtell 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Prahl, Craig/GVL 
; Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire Pump Backflow

This is a real problem, it is installed and during the fire pump test, it was 
discovered. This is a potable water system, so this is why the backflow. Yes, 
the idea to come off the discharge of the jockey pump to between a check valve 
and the backflow to pressure up the portion of the system to have enough 
pressure to initially open the backflow until the fire pump can get going to 
keep water moving. I just didn't want to try all these things if someone on the 
forum already did and failed. That is the beauty of all you smart people on 
here.

Best regards,

Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS

[Burtell Fire_Small]

Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text 406-204-4653

116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101

Email: j...@burtellfire.com<mailto:j...@burtellfire.com>

Web Site: 
http://www.burtellfire.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.burtellfire.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=5mQcAHuxkcsSONwEyTs0VcwG9X5GNkYk0JjxcfOpe5k&s=Fbk4izyDeF9Uw3wz6BIiQG0Bgno6UUOjnsiOGsMyQmw&e=>

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

NOTICE:  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended only 
for use of the individual or entity named above.  This e-mail transmission, and 
any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or other information 
attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally 
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail transmission, 
or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, 
distribution, copying or other use of this transmission or any of the 
information contained in or attached to this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If 
you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please immediately notify 
us by return e-mail transmission and destroy the original e-mail transmission 
as well as its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner.  Thank 
you.


On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:30 AM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Joe,

Is this a real problem or a theoretical problem? What I mean is, are you still 
in the design phase or is it actually installed like this and causing a problem?

I could see there maybe being some trouble initially just getting all the air 
out of the system. Maybe you could use a valved bypass around the backflow just 
to prime everything. Or is there a small backflow preventer with a lower 
opening pressure that you could run in parallel with the larger one?

But once the system is primed and full of water, that backflow is going to open 
when the pump kicks on for sure. Maybe you have a negative gauge pressure on 
the suction side for a split-second but is that enough to cause a problem with 
the pump? Unlike a pool pump, there is no way for air to enter the system if 
the pump pulls a vacuum, so I think the pump would just pull the backflow open 
and you'd be on your merry way.

If I'm wrong (and there's a pretty good chance of that), I'd appreciate a 
lesson in the physics of how/why?

-Kyle M


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:44 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>; 
Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Fire Pump Backflow

I have doubts that the "engineer" has any clue what a jockey pump does or how 
it works.

So, you'd have a connection on the suction side of the fire pump that typically 
connects back to the discharge side of the pump. Does the engineer think you 
are going to take and route another connection off the discharge of the jockey 
back to the inlet side of the BFP?

J

RE: Fire Pump Backflow

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Joe,

Is this a real problem or a theoretical problem? What I mean is, are you still 
in the design phase or is it actually installed like this and causing a 
problem? 

I could see there maybe being some trouble initially just getting all the air 
out of the system. Maybe you could use a valved bypass around the backflow just 
to prime everything. Or is there a small backflow preventer with a lower 
opening pressure that you could run in parallel with the larger one? 

But once the system is primed and full of water, that backflow is going to open 
when the pump kicks on for sure. Maybe you have a negative gauge pressure on 
the suction side for a split-second but is that enough to cause a problem with 
the pump? Unlike a pool pump, there is no way for air to enter the system if 
the pump pulls a vacuum, so I think the pump would just pull the backflow open 
and you'd be on your merry way.

If I'm wrong (and there's a pretty good chance of that), I'd appreciate a 
lesson in the physics of how/why?

-Kyle M


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Fire Pump Backflow

I have doubts that the "engineer" has any clue what a jockey pump does or how 
it works.

So, you'd have a connection on the suction side of the fire pump that typically 
connects back to the discharge side of the pump. Does the engineer think you 
are going to take and route another connection off the discharge of the jockey 
back to the inlet side of the BFP?

Just think about this.

I don't think I've yet seen why this BFP is part of this system?  Is the tank 
dual purpose, potable and fire?

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobs.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=88jST93e_Oe8-2XMNGySKXvF1erV-mY3sycrFA20UKA&s=yIn1a-3qh8lN41LbJVnadB5QFxk0vddC8nfYTKxTzJI&e=
 
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:19 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Fire Pump Backflow

For the jockey piping - I wonder if the engineer meant to say that you could 
pressurize the portion of the piping between the backflow preventer and the 
fire pump with the jockey pump. Maybe have an additional check valve after the 
BFP, but before the pump. Then when the pump first activates, there would be a 
certain amount of water present in the impeller with positive pressure to 'get 
things moving'. It seems like an interesting idea, but I don't know if it would 
actually help or not (I have never tried/heard of anything similar).

I don't suppose the school has the budget for a break tank?

Matt


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 8:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Fire Pump Backflow

I never had this problem before, but it looks like a Deringer 20 backflow has 
lower opening pressures.  You may also consider something like several smaller 
Watts 2000B-FP in parallel, depending on the flows you need.

I don't think piping the jockey differently would help, but let me know if you 
get a good explanation on that one.



Skyler Bilbo

1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct
217-347-7315 Fax

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https*3a*2f*2fwww.wenteplumbing.com&c=E,1,h2okMwFsjIDCQhmya-Kx06mz3tFZupKU7w05xn3QZHOB0--IU_VdrTM1lonijtBzoi9cjzdvmsUyOm6BPXv89zxI0Sy1rmwwqd6UERe8cHOeY704KFPtZmmvJLg,&typo=1__;JSUl!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!TTHVu3P9zPjyVb6NpB9AS2V987_FU3EZOWFLItv8uvHaNSNBZHRy6nVpsyIJdgSJ_g$


On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 6:19 PM Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> What is your site elevation AMSL?  Have you tried to operate the pump yet?
> While we typically don't run pumps below 0 psi, it can be done by 
> figuring in by also accounting for air pressure.  While not 
> recommended, as long as you are not cavitating the impeller, the system 
> should work.
> I had a similar situation on an alternate water supply (seismic) 
> ground level pool surface that was roughly 1' below the pump inlet. We 
> discussed it with an engineer, and he said we could figure on 
> approximately 14 psi of additional pressure (PSIA) acting on the 
> surface of the pool.  When we tested it, it worked without a hitch.
> Once you pass the opening spring pressure, BFP's typically drop in 
> loss to a point.  PSIA may give you enough pressure to make the system work.
> I've used th

RE: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I think it's reasonable if there is no fuel load beneath the conveyors. 
Probably depends on the configuration and height of the conveyors and if there 
are any safeguards put in place to ensure there won't be anything place under 
the conveyors in the future.

And by safeguards, I don't necessarily mean that there has to be physical 
barriers that prevent anything from being placed under the conveyors. It could 
be based on the practices and procedures of the facility. Keep in mind that 
operation of many of these facilities is heavily reliant upon knowing exactly 
where every box is at all times (aisle, row, rack). It's unlikely that they 
would just be stacking random boxes under the conveyors.

I'm not sure there is a good code section to lean on to back me up. But then 
again, the code isn't always reasonable.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 9:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tony Silva 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

An ESFR building has conveyors over 2 feet wide and some even over 4 feet wide. 
The owner/tenant is of the opinion that sprinklers below the conveyors are not 
required as there are no hazards below, regardless of the width of the 
obstruction.

Is this a reasonable conclusion?

Tony
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Xv7zrjjG8VZ_DYq3lqYhUUJD9WGqss3j3SKkwQzgZbk&s=VxEDODYb_3vCChKQ454TozHo8O11_loBKZvgkVywXOs&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Solid-Piled and Palletized Storage Arrangement

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Thanks a lot, Bruce. I think that answered my questions.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: bherman...@tristarfire.com  
Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Solid-Piled and Palletized Storage Arrangement

I think you need to look in the IFC. Us forward thinkers in Michigan are still 
in the 2015 IFC which is Table 3206.2 and section 3207.
Not sure if there are more current versions where the sections may have changed.
Bruce Hermanson

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 2:45 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'

Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
Subject: Solid-Piled and Palletized Storage Arrangement

What determines the maximum size (length and width in plan view, not height) 
and/or minimum aisle width between storage piles when you've got palletized and 
solid-piled storage without racks? Or is there no aisle requirement?
Everything I'm finding in NFPA 13 with regard to aisles is in relation to rack 
storage, but I assume you can't just have a 40,000 square foot continuous pile, 
right? I just can't seem to find the right place to look.

Thanks, guys.

-Kyle M
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Cn2Qib1uweXkmm7hFwWUCorYdBSzVD8ni1wsgeS_W3c&s=VsIqnSLLmp6Sfe4C12hQuHtyedxCMso5LrsJ0y9lsv0&e=
 

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

Solid-Piled and Palletized Storage Arrangement

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

What determines the maximum size (length and width in plan view, not height) 
and/or minimum aisle width between storage piles when you've got palletized and 
solid-piled storage without racks? Or is there no aisle requirement? Everything 
I'm finding in NFPA 13 with regard to aisles is in relation to rack storage, 
but I assume you can't just have a 40,000 square foot continuous pile, right? I 
just can't seem to find the right place to look.

Thanks, guys.

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: CURIOUS

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Well, if you send me the price for 5 gallons, I'll crunch the numbers using my 
secret formula and figure out what one gallon would cost. Sorry, I can't share 
the formula, too valuable.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Glen Buelow, Inc. via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 6:36 AM
To: vince ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Glen Buelow, Inc. 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CURIOUS

Vince
I only know of 5 gallon


*Glen Bue**low*

*Glen W. Buelow, Inc.*
*Fire Protection Design and Consulting216-469-7390** <330.665.4439>*


On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 9:31 AM Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Good morning, Forum -
>
> Can I get a per gallon price range for antifreeze premix?
> Please, no manufacturer names!
>
>   thanks, 
> Vince
> --
>
> 11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
> Strongsville, Ohio 44136
> Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876Cell 440 724-7601
>
> /
> Vince Sabolik /
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkle
> r.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZ
> QLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=EztL
> 3sF_h3e-7NlUMHsrDMmGZkiU-xpsyBVpzjWrSEU&s=YWwEVPwL__8dVLcTkCkZPc5r60QW
> vUWi4Q9XYIRA_nk&e=
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=EztL3sF_h3e-7NlUMHsrDMmGZkiU-xpsyBVpzjWrSEU&s=YWwEVPwL__8dVLcTkCkZPc5r60QWvUWi4Q9XYIRA_nk&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

That's kind of the crux of my issue. For the new system, demand x duration 
probably uses about half of the tank. But since the tank is sized for site fire 
flow (hydrants... I assume, at least) then do I have to consider that demand as 
part of what depletes the tank? Or is that completely separate and I just have 
to include sprinkler demand and the associated hose allowance in this case?

-Kyle M 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 11:40 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

If you didn't have a pump at all and put the same tank 100' above ground, you'd 
calculate to the minimum anticipated water level after demand x duration is 
subtracted from the fill turn on point would you not?  What would make this any 
different?  Genuine question, I've always used minimum water after duration x 
demand as my water elevation and thus suction pressure.

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager * Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 
260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Caputo 
Subject: Re: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

No, you are not permitted to use elevation pressure from a gravity tank.
You do not know the elevation of the water in the tank which is depleted during 
the operation of the systems in fighting the fire.  You are permitted to use 
the pumps productive curve at 150% of rated flow and 65% of rated pressure

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I'm working on a project where they are adding a new building to an 
> existing campus. There is an existing fire water storage tank and fire 
> pump  that serves the site underground fire loop. The new building has 
> a very demanding sprinkler system that just barely exceeds the fire 
> pump's pressure available at the demand flow (using just the pump 
> curve as the water supply).
>
> Normally, I would be conservative and use just a few psi as my water 
> supply from the tank (as though it were nearly empty). But, is that 
> overly conservative? The tank is mounted on the ground, at the same 
> elevation as the fire pump, but it is nearly 45 feet tall, with a 
> total capacity of over
> 500,000 gallons. Can I use some of that elevation pressure, or do I 
> need to design and calc as though the tank is nearly depleted?
>
> -Kyle M
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cg
> i/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKA
> a_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0gy0_Q9T8$
>
--
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKAa_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0gwxnxtdZ$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKAa_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0g0ODmqgj$
 > 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKAa_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0g05HKijt$
 > 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKAa_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0g16NvBL1$
 >
   
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKAa_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0gyzgiHw2$
 >

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for 
Sprinkler Fitters 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Education/Apprentice_Training/WWW/Education/Apprenticeship_Training.aspx?hkey=e88ef09e-d74c-407f-abcd-995aff866149__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKAa_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0g0qznzuU$
 >, you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's 
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Education/Apprentice_Training/WWW/Ed

Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I'm working on a project where they are adding a new building to an existing 
campus. There is an existing fire water storage tank and fire pump  that serves 
the site underground fire loop. The new building has a very demanding sprinkler 
system that just barely exceeds the fire pump's pressure available at the 
demand flow (using just the pump curve as the water supply).

Normally, I would be conservative and use just a few psi as my water supply 
from the tank (as though it were nearly empty). But, is that overly 
conservative? The tank is mounted on the ground, at the same elevation as the 
fire pump, but it is nearly 45 feet tall, with a total capacity of over 500,000 
gallons. Can I use some of that elevation pressure, or do I need to design and 
calc as though the tank is nearly depleted?

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

RE: UL list concrete anchor

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Hilti HDI appears to be UL-Listed for fire protection.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Sean Lockyer 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] UL list concrete anchor

Is there a UL listed concrete anchor on the market (similar to the Sammy screw) 
? I am having an engineer require a UL listed anchor and to my knowledge, this 
isn't any sort of concrete anchor that has a listed or approval beyond that of 
FM. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Sean Lockyer
AIT Life Safety











___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=jBgl8Ey-FSzlE34GFBN369kmHdJEfSarwsBAvt5R6Tg&s=kJuCzAJoYt-7EWuE0bICYu-xBgX3Ogk-GLQYtr6boTA&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire pump test through flow meter

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Not to beat a moot horse, but one thing to be careful of with flowmeters is to 
make sure that you have the appropriate amount of straight pipe upstream and 
downstream of device. There will be a manufacturer's recommendation for these 
lengths and from my experience it does seem to make a difference. 

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:29 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire pump test through flow meter

  
  

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

  

  
  
>   
> On Apr 19, 2021 at 5:05 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  I bet if there was a partially closed gate, or a check, or a blockage; that 
> might cause it. Are they’re any good resources about testing a fire pump with 
> a flow meter where it feeds back into the suction piping? I have been given a 
> couple of tests with very screwy results. Thanks Todd G Williams, PE Fire 
> Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT  860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  
> (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc)  860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054)  (tel:860-554-7054) 
> (fax)  860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (tel:860-608-4559) (cell) 
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=kQGO6Mkp82Ong9rNP0Gk1v7gBkCoh7uNy6YJIC9ycyU&s=aGUTvW_qogJiISwgJdgeTLrVd5j61MXTh-CEAmaaF7g&e=
> 
>
>   
  
  
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=kQGO6Mkp82Ong9rNP0Gk1v7gBkCoh7uNy6YJIC9ycyU&s=aGUTvW_qogJiISwgJdgeTLrVd5j61MXTh-CEAmaaF7g&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Hose reel FM Approval

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Kind of a tangent, but Mike is 100% correct here. FM's authority over the 
project only goes as far as the owner will allow.

That being said, my experience with FM reviewers is that they are pretty 
accommodating and usually try to make the best decision for their customer (the 
owner) and understand that some of their recommendations are just 
cost-prohibitive.

The worst is when the job specs call for FM criteria, but there is no actual FM 
representative to be able to make the call on what items can be modified.

-Kyle M


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:19 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey ; Luis Perea 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hose reel FM Approval

Approvalguide.com is the best resource for FM approved items.  FM will want FM 
approved equipment if that class of equipment is available as FM approved, not 
all types of equipment have FM approval standards so it's best to look on the 
site and see if its there.  Keep in mind, FM approval is a best practice 
encouraged by FM, but at the end of the day FMs enforcement mechanism is really 
insurance rates or denial of coverage, if using something FM approved creates 
an undue burden or can't be done your customer generally can just ignore the 
recommendation, I would always encourage them to have the conversation to 
understand what failure to comply would mean, but frequently it means nothing 
other than FM noting they didn't like it on a plan review.  I don't think FM 
approval is bad or costs that much, but people get very hung up on it when 
frankly FM generally isn't that bad about it as long as you generally try to 
provide products they approve.

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager * Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 
260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Luis Perea via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Luis Perea 
Subject: Hose reel FM Approval

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

For the fire protection system based on FM, I can't find in FM if the hose 
reels, hose cabinets and accessories related to the hose system (apart from the 
valves) needs to have FM Approvals or just UL. 

 

Does anyone know if its mandatory?

 

 

 

 

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!IEqaG0N5OqMb5aWoAm9viQg4fONMpRsQPyXOnFfWDwEkASV82-1cpV68WqNjSKE_$
 

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this message in 
error, please  immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, 
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly or 
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message 
if you are not the intended recipient.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=EkFuuNy_VhREZ_rEQLe7J0dky02GsALV4QWlXaTIVJU&s=uTzOSuqsY99dPr2kaTHw1oXArwpiU3K8fchCux9lbUU&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

We use grooved all the time as well (like hundreds of times) and I'm not aware 
of any issue as a result of it. I'm pretty confident that there isn't a rule 
against it. I've never seen it suck one of the gaskets through the pump, if 
that's what you're concerned about.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise ; Steve Leyton 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

I am not aware of any prohibitions. We use grooved when we can. For whatever 
reason (tradition?) gate valves seem to always be flanged, so we frequently go 
flanged just due to availability.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2021 4:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Grooved joints in pump suction main

We've got this pump house...  Took over the design from a civil engineer and 
have been in repair mode for a couple weeks.   The original concept used a 
pre-engineered and all-inclusive pump house but the assembly won't be accepted 
by the state agency with jurisdiction because it hasn't passed the CA seismic 
testing gauntlet and is thus, not considered a pre-engineered/pre-approved 
structure.   In the course of revising this to slab-on-grade building, the 
pumps go from sitting on frames that are part of the floor assembly to 
skid-mounted and we have to furnish housekeeping pads that are currently really 
tall.   Since pump suction is 10" and we need a flex coupling near the floor 
and we have a 10" flanged ell on top of two flange x groove pieces, the CL of 
pump suction has risen to about 3'-8" above the floor requires a 19" concrete 
pad.   If I can attached the suction main directly to the flex coupling at 
about 12-14" above the FF, we can cut nearly a foot out of this housekeeping pad
  so the question is:

Is there any statutory prohibition or observation of good practices that 
precludes using grooved fittings and control valves on a pump suction main?  
For whatever it's worth, this is low pressure, 2,500 gpm at 54 psi pumps with 
high static of about 70 psi.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CNnQzlWnaYQG-5F1baqspRog4lZipjuu1qC-2DvaxML0zbRemLsolrdJFec-2DBaDtdud3LEqPl4vB4cPX1BnecsWRo2SV6VuCOY0YZdoos-5FgO38Aa3vxYvQiV-5FrUsl-2Dt5x-26typo-3D1&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=TAQfZmxpLkl8CBa3e20VY8cLmSgn5hFqHpYI_MvWSgA&s=cYRxJJv80S71XfnU8UEmldZnkm132CKnTGHqQAbneW0&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=TAQfZmxpLkl8CBa3e20VY8cLmSgn5hFqHpYI_MvWSgA&s=GS65IGQx-_dNIu1nxThV1C0g_zMjjs8OLZqNIThPhhQ&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

CPVC Drops in Seismic Areas

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

When installing a CPVC system in a seismic area (area where seismic bracing is 
required) are there any special considerations needed for the drops to 
sprinkler heads? In the past, with steel pipe systems we've often utilized 
flexible sprinkler connections to avoid any concern about differential movement 
between the ceiling and the overhead structure and bracing of the ceiling. I've 
also seen oversized escutcheons spec'd for the same reason. Do you need to do 
something similar with CPVC systems, or can you just drop to the head with CPVC 
pipe and a standard-sized escutcheon?

The particular project I'm looking at is in Ontario, California, if that helps.

I appreciate any input.

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Air Venting (2021)

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

It was my understanding that the committee's approach to requiring air vents 
was "one is better than none", without wanting to add a ton of extra complexity 
or expense to the systems. I would assume that the migration away from remote 
inspector's test valves to the on-riser test-n-drain style helped drive the 
need to at least add something at the far end.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kenneth Berman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 6:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kenneth Berman 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Air Venting (2021)

care in engineering and design is required to eliminate these air pockets.
Gang drains have been used for years to drain low points on dry system lines. 
The same is needed for air evacuation, just at the top of the system. A small 
line joining the peaks of lines may be needed. As for the antifreeze piping, 
you're spot on about the trapped air and pressure fluctuations diluting the 
mix. I like to pump the antifreeze in at the control valve and exhaust air out 
at the heads. Left loose, they'll allow air to escape. Tighten them once the 
mix gets there. Pump it up to ten pounds more than static pressure and you're 
set. Good field workers are necessary to get good installations.


On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:10 AM Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I think it all depends on placement and location, to remove as much as 
> possible.
>
> I've been meaning to write a similar post about anti-freeze systems 
> and air vents.  These are almost always dead-end systems and I'm 
> finding dilution at the source even after a single year.  Granted 13 
> requires a physical end of line which  could be used to vent but I 
> hardly ever see one with existing systems.  My only guess for dilution 
> would be air mitigation over time allowing water to pass the BFP or 
> CHV into the AF portion of the system.  I would think an AAV would 
> solve this but I wonder with all these secret new listed formulas of 
> AF out there, would they effect the inner parts of these devices?  
> Apologies for the digression from topic but saw this as an opportunity 
> to query the group.  Too bad GLC isn't here, he'd have $0.02 to add.
> TD
>
> Cc: Jerry Van Kolken 
> Subject: Air Venting (2021)
>
> I was reading the Air Venting discussion from early 2020 and this 
> really didn't come up.
>
> The code only requires a single vent, but I can think of several 
> situations where I there would every branchline would be trapped. Say 
> a tree system with BL on riser nipples, any system in an peaked roof 
> where the branchline travel up the pitch then back down. I don't under 
> stand how the single air vent relives the air from more than that 
> single branchline it would be installed on.
>
> I'm I think of this too much like trapped water for drainage?
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkle
> r.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZ
> QLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VbPf
> LWCTAMUexJwVqsi76Nbq4a_wnS8qyLn9iUVi9uY&s=JxsEzZ9PEgu88glIInd633f2XKCH
> Kz0-h8KAvFwml4k&e=
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VbPfLWCTAMUexJwVqsi76Nbq4a_wnS8qyLn9iUVi9uY&s=JxsEzZ9PEgu88glIInd633f2XKCHKz0-h8KAvFwml4k&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Noncontinuous obstructions More than 18" down

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

 obstructions More than 18" down
>
> It sounds like the architect is working hard to inspire kids with his 
> beautiful ceiling design...  From the little information you gave, it 
> may be more like a cloud ceiling than a traditional obstruction.  See 
> section
> 3.3.5.1 for the definition, and then 8.15.1.2.1.3 for criteria.  You 
> may also want to check out the research that "inspired" the cloud 
> ceiling criteria at the link below, it is really great information.
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nfpa.org_News
> -2Dand-2DResearch_Fire-2Dstatistics-2Dand-2Dreports_Research-2Dreports
> _Suppression_Sprinkler-2DProtection-2Dfor-2DCloud-2DCeilings&d=DwIGaQ&
> c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A
> &m=dE_ALmGW3CHaFJIa1qPVLZpyrhiKK9Q6pwnWic9Kb74&s=W8eQ1L2e0rGqQRs39FSMB
> VSvuUNAZSPTj_xaVpb7Ktg&e=
>
>
> Skyler Bilbo
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:41 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > Does "at least 1 inch of space between each panel" mean several feet 
> > of space between each panel, or does it mean just a couple of inches.
> >
> > To me, it sounds more like you would have to treat them as grouped 
> > obstructions and protect underneath.
> >
> > -Kyle M
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum 
> > 
> > On Behalf Of Dane Long via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 2:29 PM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: Dane Long 
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Noncontinuous obstructions More than 18" down
> >
> > Seeking others opinions
> >
> > I'm doing an Elementary school where in the commons area they have 
> > 4ft. by 8ft. tectum ceiling panels space throughout with at least 1"
> > of space between each panel. These panels are slopes with the roof 
> > in one direct and then away from the roof in another. A8.6.5.3.3 Per 
> > NFPA
> > 13 (2016)
> >
> > "A.8.6.5.3.3 When obstructions are located more than 18 in. (450 mm) 
> > below the sprinkler deflector, an adequate spray pattern develops 
> > and obstructions up to and including 4 ft (1.2 m) wide do not 
> > require additional protection underneath. Examples are ducts, decks, 
> > open grate flooring, catwalks, cutting tables, overhead doors, 
> > soffits, ceiling panels, and other similar obstructions. The width 
> > of an object is the lesser of the two horizontal dimensions (with 
> > the length being the longer horizontal dimension). Sprinkler 
> > protection is not required under objects where the length is greater 
> > than 4 ft (1.2 m) and the width is 4 ft (1.2 m) or less."
> >
> > Doesn’t seem to me like I need protection below these panels.
> >
> > *Send me a private email if you'd like to look at the pdf.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dane Long, AET
> > Engineering Technician | Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc.
> > P:785.825.7710
> > F:785.825.0667
> > A:   1383 W. North Street  Salina, KS  67401
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum 
> > 
> > On Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 2:35 PM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: Ron Greenman 
> > Subject: Re: Multiple System Calculation
> >
> > This sounds like a job for more sheetrock. Oh, and more cowbell is 
> > always good.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:57 AM Sean Conlin via Sprinklerforum < 
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > > See NFPA-13, 23.4.4.1.1.4 and 23.4.4.1.1.5.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This should help you with the engineer.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Sean W. Conlin, A.Sc.T.
> > > Director
> > > Demand Sprinkler Design Inc.
> > > 37 Summerfield Crescent
> > > Brampton, ON L6X 4K4
> > > T: 905-216-0922
> > > C: 416-317-0028
> > > E: scon...@demandsprinklerdesign.ca
> > >
> > > This message, including any attachments is considered confidential 
> > > and for use only by the intended recipient(s).
> > > Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
> > > Please delete this communication and notify Demand Sprinkler 
> > > Design Inc. if you are not the intended recipient or have received 
> > > this message in e

RE: [EXTERNAL] Noncontinuous obstructions More than 18" down

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Does "at least 1 inch of space between each panel" mean several feet of space 
between each panel, or does it mean just a couple of inches.

To me, it sounds more like you would have to treat them as grouped obstructions 
and protect underneath. 

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Dane Long via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 2:29 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dane Long 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Noncontinuous obstructions More than 18" down

Seeking others opinions

I'm doing an Elementary school where in the commons area they have 4ft. by 8ft. 
tectum ceiling panels space throughout with at least 1" of space between each 
panel. These panels are slopes with the roof in one direct and then away from 
the roof in another. A8.6.5.3.3 Per NFPA 13 (2016) 

"A.8.6.5.3.3 When obstructions are located more than 18 in. (450 mm) below the 
sprinkler deflector, an adequate spray pattern develops and obstructions up to 
and including 4 ft (1.2 m) wide do not require additional protection 
underneath. Examples are ducts, decks, open grate flooring, catwalks, cutting 
tables, overhead doors, soffits, ceiling panels, and other similar 
obstructions. The width of an object is the lesser of the two horizontal 
dimensions (with the length being the longer horizontal dimension). Sprinkler 
protection is not required under objects where the length is greater than 4 ft 
(1.2 m) and the width is 4 ft (1.2 m) or less."

Doesn’t seem to me like I need protection below these panels. 

*Send me a private email if you'd like to look at the pdf.

Thanks,

Dane Long, AET
Engineering Technician | Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc.
P:785.825.7710
F:785.825.0667
A:   1383 W. North Street  Salina, KS  67401



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 2:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: Multiple System Calculation

This sounds like a job for more sheetrock. Oh, and more cowbell is always good.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:57 AM Sean Conlin via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> See NFPA-13, 23.4.4.1.1.4 and 23.4.4.1.1.5.
>
>
>
> This should help you with the engineer.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean W. Conlin, A.Sc.T.
> Director
> Demand Sprinkler Design Inc.
> 37 Summerfield Crescent
> Brampton, ON L6X 4K4
> T: 905-216-0922
> C: 416-317-0028
> E: scon...@demandsprinklerdesign.ca
>
> This message, including any attachments is considered confidential and 
> for use only by the intended recipient(s).
> Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
> Please delete this communication and notify Demand Sprinkler Design 
> Inc. if you are not the intended recipient or have received this 
> message in error. Demand Sprinkler Design Inc. accepts no 
> responsibility or liability for any loss or damage from use, including 
> damage from viruses.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Burtell 
> Sent: February 11, 2021 1:47 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Multiple System Calculation
>
>
>
> I have a situation where an engineer is telling me I have to calculate 
> a wet and dry system together because neither space meets the 1500 s.f 
> minimum. I have a penthouse mechanical room OH 1 (WET) of 1014 s.f.
> and an adjacent room OH1 (DRY) of 469 s.f. I have calculated each room 
> separate of each other. There is a full-height wall with a door that 
> separates the rooms. The wall and door are not fire rated, so the 
> large room method is out. This does not make any sense to me. Any 
> sections that would require this to be done. He is saying 11.1.2 of 
> NFPA 13 2016 requires it. I argue exception #2 says it does not apply.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
>
>
>
> [image: Burtell Fire_Small]
>
>
>
> Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*
>
>
>
> 116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101
>
>
>
> Email: j...@burtellfire.com
>
>
>
> Web Site: 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.burtellfire.co
> m&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7n
> LN8OBJwQd9A&m=YiHEM_F8z0hFdXcjHH1CqWJ0eIkSBYspd-WeDgZrxAI&s=Ur5xExeUb-
> o3ipcDAOmkBHLKgAtIDEQsMndg_0EjUcg&e=
>
>
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of 
> low price is forgotten.**”*
>
>
>
> *NOTICE:*  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is 
> intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  This 
> e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail 
> transmissions or other information attached to it, may contain 
> confidential information that is legally privileged.  If you are not 
> the intended recipient of this e-mail transmission, or the employee or 
> agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are 

RE: Bathroom Chase

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

At first I thought this was Skyler and I couldn't figure out why he was 
disagreeing with me when I was agreeing with him. 

So then, Cecil, are you of the opinion that the entire area above the ceiling 
would need sprinklers? That doesn't make sense at all. We're essentially 
talking about a mechanical closet with no ceiling; that has to be less 
concerning than the back of house high-piled storage area at a grocery store.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Bathroom Chase

While I think the logic path you follow for covering half a remote area one 
direction and then another makes some sense, the Committee was not willing to 
consider a two-sided scenario.  The rule was written such that the area above 
the ceiling is only exposed on one side.  This way, going  two or three 
sprinklers deep would prevent the fire from jumping the wall.  The committee 
would not consider additional measures.   The committee discussed the back of a 
grocery store as the base example in their debates.  Often the back wall that 
separates the storage from the sales floor does not go all the way to the 
ceiling.  This was a remedy to not have to install sprinklers throughout the 
otherwise non-combustible, nearly-concealed space above the grocery store 
ceiling.



It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 13 
Committee, and 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 the NFPA, nor 
any of their technical committees.


Sincerely,


Cecil Bilbo
Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
Champaign, IL
217.607.0325
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sprinkleracademy.com&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=jC3qHHMvgwCRbErwQQ7RQnCkuh8NtYfpEDpz84KzNVs&s=iR8ULn5L6U6R6y-RgJQkjF7nClm59agtYo7p94AATWs&e=
 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sprinkleracademy.com&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=jC3qHHMvgwCRbErwQQ7RQnCkuh8NtYfpEDpz84KzNVs&s=iR8ULn5L6U6R6y-RgJQkjF7nClm59agtYo7p94AATWs&e=
 > ce...@sprinkleracademy.com<mailto:ce...@sprinkleracademy.com>
??
OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!


________
From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 10:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Brian Harris 

Subject: RE: Bathroom Chase

Brian,

I agree with Skyler here. The picture may not look like what you're doing, but 
the book would be hard to carry if there were a figure representing every 
scenario. The intent seems to apply though: You've got a space that is 
sprinklered only because it is open to an adjacent sprinklered space.

I would correct Skyler and say that you only need to extend 0.6 times the 
square root of the remote area, but since you'll have to do that in all 
directions, then it ends up being about 1.2 total.

I would also agree with JD, Nick, and others in questioning whether the area 
needs to have sprinklers at all. But I've seen that interpreted both ways by an 
AHJ.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 7:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Bathroom Chase

Skyler-
Thank you. It doesn't look like the example shown in A.8.15.23.3 is the same 
situation I'm running in to.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssytemsinc.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 9:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Bathroom Chase

There is a section that talks about only going back 1.2 times the square root 
of the remote area beyond the ceiling. NFPA 13, 2013 edition, Section 8.15.23.



Skyler Bilbo

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 7:25 AM Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> There's a chase between (2) bathrooms that has an access door which I 
> assume is for maintenance. The drywall stops 6" above ceiling, 
> basically making the entire structure above the ceiling "open". I 
> can't imagine we would need to provide protection at the deck throughout the 
> whole area.
> Seems like I remember something about only needing to protect the deck 
> within a given area?
>
> Brian Harris, CET
> 

RE: Bathroom Chase

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Brian,

I agree with Skyler here. The picture may not look like what you're doing, but 
the book would be hard to carry if there were a figure representing every 
scenario. The intent seems to apply though: You've got a space that is 
sprinklered only because it is open to an adjacent sprinklered space.

I would correct Skyler and say that you only need to extend 0.6 times the 
square root of the remote area, but since you'll have to do that in all 
directions, then it ends up being about 1.2 total.

I would also agree with JD, Nick, and others in questioning whether the area 
needs to have sprinklers at all. But I've seen that interpreted both ways by an 
AHJ.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 7:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Bathroom Chase

Skyler-
Thank you. It doesn't look like the example shown in A.8.15.23.3 is the same 
situation I'm running in to.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssytemsinc.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 9:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Bathroom Chase

There is a section that talks about only going back 1.2 times the square root 
of the remote area beyond the ceiling. NFPA 13, 2013 edition, Section 8.15.23.



Skyler Bilbo

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 7:25 AM Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> There's a chase between (2) bathrooms that has an access door which I 
> assume is for maintenance. The drywall stops 6" above ceiling, 
> basically making the entire structure above the ceiling "open". I 
> can't imagine we would need to provide protection at the deck throughout the 
> whole area.
> Seems like I remember something about only needing to protect the deck 
> within a given area?
>
> Brian Harris, CET
> BVS Systems Inc.
> bvssytemsinc.com
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkle
> r.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkl&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuIn
> h2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=G8nBoayLpp
> OEKnsHYV_cnN1XzYYpUKF_Yd4I-drhqSY&s=ZDjvdpiVD244i6ELZm22TPaWz75M8tgfJk
> USdh4OLvQ&e=
> er.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=G8nBoayLppOEKnsHYV_cnN1XzYYpUKF_Yd4I-drhqSY&s=tLVPgHHbvBd2rFhQL9w_SBYxNGVUuMkw5c1_pau5rIg&e=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=G8nBoayLppOEKnsHYV_cnN1XzYYpUKF_Yd4I-drhqSY&s=tLVPgHHbvBd2rFhQL9w_SBYxNGVUuMkw5c1_pau5rIg&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing Dry System

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I think the OP is the AHJ. 

I just want to say that I think it's cool that a plan reviewer/inspector would 
come here to get the industries opinion about something like that. We are all 
on the same team.

Looks like Dane beat me to it, but I do think there is a fire separation 
required. Also, why someone would remove an existing fire sprinkler system? Is 
the maintenance becoming a problem?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John O'Connor via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John O'Connor 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing Dry System

You may want to run this by the AHJ.  His requirements will trump the 
architect's.


John R. O'Connor,  SET,  RME

National Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
2601 Elm Hill Pike, Suite J
Nashville  TN  37214

Office 615-885-1301
Fax  615-885-7505
Cell 615-519-1118
jocon...@nfspk.com

In God We Trust

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Thomas Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:19 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Thomas Reinhardt 
Subject: Existing Dry System

Question for the group. I have an existing three story B occupancy with an open 
parking underneath. The only sprinklers is a dry system protecting the parking 
area only. The building is going to be converted to a R2 occupancy.
The whole residential area will be sprinklered with a 13R system. The architect 
informed me that he will remove the  dry system from the parking area. I have 
reviewed open parking facilities before, and am aware that sprinklers are not 
required.(S-2). I say that the system must remain. I'm using the International 
Fire Code Chapter 9 section 901.4, which relates that fire protection systems 
shall be maintained. Any thoughts.

Tom Reinhardt
Skokie Fire Prevention Bureau
Plan Review/Fire Inspector
7424 Niles Center Road
Skokie Fire Department
Skokie, IL 60077 847-982-5342
thomas.reinha...@skokie.org


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=KDx4qSNGFJHpv0Coku0i9pKpkxL0vEX70lpxsEIzWuo&s=BCBEUlDzVl4D8GGgUkXKLHw4uRKJkuse7LZSCTmTMe4&e=
 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=KDx4qSNGFJHpv0Coku0i9pKpkxL0vEX70lpxsEIzWuo&s=BCBEUlDzVl4D8GGgUkXKLHw4uRKJkuse7LZSCTmTMe4&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] NFPA 13R & NFPA 14

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

It is if there is no requirement for a standpipe.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jose Anibal Castillo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jose Anibal Castillo 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NFPA 13R & NFPA 14

In section 7.10.1.3.1.1 of the nfpa 14, 2019 states that in cases where 13R 
system demand is higher than the standpipe demand it is supposed to be chosen 
the higher demand.

Is it even possible to have a residential sprinkler system with a higher demand 
than the standpipe?


Regards



José A.  Castillo
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=rYQ1ksDj1zRZnWzsq-WD8_4Y8idQ1MgYekE5tZTca8w&s=Ax0UOb5CK1LXIqOhcVuDUV8oA4vTKBRhY-rYrvkCFgg&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Pan-Type Construction

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

If it's not a concrete tee, then I don't think you're going to be able to 
exceed 22" from the deck.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Dennis Wilson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 3:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dennis Wilson ; Dale Wingard 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pan-Type Construction

Around 20", so the deflector is over 22" the top of the pans.
But only 4" below the stems.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Dale Wingard via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 4:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dale Wingard 
Subject: RE: Pan-Type Construction

I am picturing a concrete waffle pattern.  What is the depth of the pan?

Regards,

Dale F. Wingard, SET
Designer Commercial/Marine Division
NICET IV #76284
Water-based Systems

Hiller Systems
A Division of The Hiller Companies, Inc.

3751 Joy Springs Drive
Mobile, AL 36693
c: 251.509.7108
o: 251.661.1275 ext. 10145
HillerFire.com



Protecting life and property since 1919


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 4:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Dennis Wilson 

Subject: RE: Pan-Type Construction

Do you mean Tee or Double-Tee construction?Pan slabs are PIP, with and 
without metal decks, smooth ceiling by definition.

Steve L.   

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Dennis Wilson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 1:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dennis Wilson 
Subject: Pan-Type Construction

Would anyone know what the maximum depth is allowed in concrete pan-type 
construction?
I have a job with exist. sprinklers installed along the bottom of the  stems 
with pendents.
The AHJ is questioning whether sprinklers are needed in each pocket.
Pockets are around 6' square w/ 8" wide stems both directions.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flists.firesprinkler.org-252Flistinfo.cgi-252Fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26amp-3Bdata-3D04-257C01-257Cdwilson-2540blackhawksprinklers.com-257C33b42d80fb1d42f8d2ea08d8c6fd1ba7-257C20b3eafa18334148b9c58e75b45c105a-257C1-257C0-257C637478137681329414-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-26amp-3Bsdata-3D8mzxfwL-252F8WwAb-252BhcaWXdGkQkEUJoyXR3ZOWrDakFX6A-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=1ypHaKFKrGDyg6VnUrVhq8FaSZzKWT5gvzE8Vn2RsGc&s=6BL03gwbOQVs6LjvVNy_FnVpWnwdd8BdKA7SG0Plnmo&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flists.firesprinkler.org-252Flistinfo.cgi-252Fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26amp-3Bdata-3D04-257C01-257Cdwilson-2540blackhawksprinklers.com-257C33b42d80fb1d42f8d2ea08d8c6fd1ba7-257C20b3eafa18334148b9c58e75b45c105a-257C1-257C0-257C637478137681329414-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-26amp-3Bsdata-3D8mzxfwL-252F8WwAb-252BhcaWXdGkQkEUJoyXR3ZOWrDakFX6A-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=1ypHaKFKrGDyg6VnUrVhq8FaSZzKWT5gvzE8Vn2RsGc&s=6BL03gwbOQVs6LjvVNy_FnVpWnwdd8BdKA7SG0Plnmo&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flists.firesprinkler.org-252Flistinfo.cgi-252Fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26amp-3Bdata-3D04-257C01-257Cdwilson-2540blackhawksprinklers.com-257C33b42d80fb1d42f8d2ea08d8c6fd1ba7-257C20b3eafa18334148b9c58e75b45c105a-257C1-257C0-257C637478137681339370-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C3000-26amp-3Bsdata-3Dp2LDsgFL-252BaFr8jcjO-252FCzJcDL6y52lXWJOOEo8uXum8c-253D-26amp-3Breserved-3D0&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=1ypHaKFKrGDyg6VnUrVhq8FaSZzKWT5gvzE8Vn2RsGc&s=BA7gw8I8V-6JF7eQwbxcJrzBZJt-hSh8Tqz6g0N0Vhc&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=1ypHaKFKrGDyg6VnUrVh

Fluorine-Free Foams (FFF)

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I'm looking at a small hangar (Group II Hangar) that the client is interested 
in protecting with SFFF (synthetic fluorine-free foam) as opposed to the 
standard AFFF closed-head system. Are there any standards that address the 
design criteria for these foams, or does each individual manufacturer have its 
own criteria?

Anyone have any experience with a design using fluorine-free foam for a hangar 
that wants to give me a simple overview of the differences in design criteria 
(rate of discharge, concentrate percentage, etc.)? I've seen some information 
that suggests these systems need aspirating nozzles as opposed to sprinkler 
heads, is that true?

I appreciate any input.

-Kyle M


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

RE: ESFR & Obstruction in Light Hazard

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I will counter your "is there a legally defendable argument" with "is there a 
feasible fire scenario on a tennis court that would not be adequately 
controlled by marginally obstructed ESFR sprinklers?"

I mean, you only need a legally defendable argument if something bad happens, 
right?

I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there are always going to be scenarios 
that arise that aren't specifically addressed by code that a reasonable person 
could look at and say "yeah, that should be fine". ESFRs protecting a tennis 
court seems like one of those scenarios.

I guess the good news is that it looks like the code is trying to address this 
one.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 10:26 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR & Obstruction in Light Hazard

IMHO, if ESFRs are installed, ESFR obstruction rules should apply regardless of 
how they are currently using it.  Is there a legally defendable argument for 
ignoring the ESFR rules?

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobs.com&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=kiqHtkHMJJqR6M2DDaFrsUFHUGN3QT1uGbC1B7ZESyU&s=sYHXwuJZh0vyf9vc7My6NVJoExDf-EAkkD3Pq1HfkRk&e=
 
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 12:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ESFR & Obstruction in Light Hazard

WE have a warehouse space that is protected with ESFR sprinkler heads, the 
space is being used by an indoor tennis club.

The want to add some additional HVAC and some of the new ducting would obstruct 
the ESFR sprinkler heads.

My question is do we still need to work to the same obstruction rules for this 
application, fire load is minimal we would be delivering 1200gpm rather then 
the 150gpm required, just seem like overkill.

Opinions please

Thank You

James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone 604-888-0318
Cel: 604-790-0938
Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
Web: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.phaserfire.ca__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!QbNsoDm2RAUXzxwZ9XPcX4uFcUVXgP6HwOYQYR6_-OYvIR67b0wccrqf_91zZ_tC-Q$
 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!QbNsoDm2RAUXzxwZ9XPcX4uFcUVXgP6HwOYQYR6_-OYvIR67b0wccrqf_90cOYwfkw$



NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=kiqHtkHMJJqR6M2DDaFrsUFHUGN3QT1uGbC1B7ZESyU&s=OEjthBaAgJg15eLKQiZIzk3ILJWyOPDySyWxpkLLzY4&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Townhome - Common Areas

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Are you saying to just extend the system from the adjacent home into that area 
to protect it? As opposed to providing another lead-in? Is that an option?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Townhome - Common Areas

That last part made it easy for me to firm a quick opinion. If you have living 
space over a utility space like a garage or trash enclosure, I would say that 
accessory structure becomes a part of the dwelling unit associated with that 
terrace or patio space.   Protect the trash enclosure as you would a garage. If 
you are in a state or jurisdiction that doesn't require protection of garages 
per the exception in13D, then protect as for a garage in 13R.


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: John Irwin via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 1/27/21 6:48 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin 
Subject: Townhome - Common Areas

We're protecting (4) rows of townhomes per NFPA 13D. Between buildings are 
small common areas such as trash storage (132sqft) and mail room (260sqft).  
Providing protection in these rooms would come at an additional expense because 
the units being protected are fee simple and each has it's own lead-in. Adding 
sprinklers to these small common rooms would require additional lead ins, 
meters, light hazard and combustible concealed protection. Do these rooms need 
to be protected?

As an added twist, the townhomes that immediately abut these rooms have 
exterior terraces on the ROOFs of these rooms. Is this a factor?



John Irwin
Quick Response Fire Protection


"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=faLC6Gr2aXcLulFYub3ZQSbhFvUDwniBMdSL2deInFQ&s=HfI4Lqejjh6B80Gz6TCV8T5UsQAvWcPuFsupz6bJO14&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=faLC6Gr2aXcLulFYub3ZQSbhFvUDwniBMdSL2deInFQ&s=HfI4Lqejjh6B80Gz6TCV8T5UsQAvWcPuFsupz6bJO14&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: RV Storage

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Certainly EH 2 seems like it will get the job done. But for those of you saying 
that, which commodity drives you to that? For example, if they were three 
separate buildings:

RV Storage Building
Boat Storage Building (just parked, not on racks)
Storage lockers with height less than 12 feet

Would you consider each of those EH 2 on their own? Or would one or more of 
those be a lesser hazard?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 9:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RV Storage

Concur.  We have done a couple previously that were takeovers with CMDA 
sprinklers and have one currently in progress that used to be a Lowe's store 
and is protected with ESFR.   EH2 by the book (IMHO), but we had one AHJ who 
insisted on .45/2000 (he had his reasons).   

Steve Leyton

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Byron Weisz via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2021 8:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Byron Weisz 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

Multiple Projects - Extra Hazard Group II 


Byron Weisz

Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1284
Lodi,  CA   95241
Phone (209)  334-9119
Fax  (209)  334-2923
by...@cen-calfire.com
 
This and any attached documents are for the use of the intended recipient(s) 
only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or work 
product that may be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not 
the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
this communication and any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you are 
hereby requested to delete this message and any attached documents, to destroy 
any printed copies, and to telephone or otherwise contact the sender 
immediately about the error.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bobby Welch via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2021 8:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bobby Welch 
Subject: RV Storage

We have a customer who has an existing warehouse with an existing wet system. 
He is wanting to store RV's and boats in the high bays, and have caged storage 
lockers in lower areas.
We are trying to figure out the extent of system upgrades we have to make for 
the system to work. Storage height will not exceed 12'. We thought this would 
be close in line with a parking garage facility, but the storage aspect throws 
it into a gray area considering NFPA has no specific literature referring to 
this type of storage (besides storage lockers).
My question is, does anyone have experience designing systems for this type of 
storage, and if so what were your conclusions? Any advice would help.
Thanks.

Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457
bobby.we...@koorsen.com | 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.koorsen.com&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Nn9EdX7szVASjuM_LZBJiRH_-PaIlhXIQ47pBKjBb24&s=XS6lHFHssW9xwuhS9ymqcP43hjmu-iIBQj6qIRJ6Stk&e=
 
   .
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Nn9EdX7szVASjuM_LZBJiRH_-PaIlhXIQ47pBKjBb24&s=F-dSsdT1EpjCvLtGyOuwPotPs7_yCeA3WtN8Lsp3Lec&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Nn9EdX7szVASjuM_LZBJiRH_-PaIlhXIQ47pBKjBb24&s=F-dSsdT1EpjCvLtGyOuwPotPs7_yCeA3WtN8Lsp3Lec&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Nn9EdX7szVASjuM_LZBJiRH_-PaIlhXIQ47pBKjBb24&s=F-dSsdT1EpjCvLtGyOuwPotPs7_yCeA3WtN8Lsp3Lec&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinkl

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: potential freezing in ESFR system

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Matt,

I think I agree with all of Bob's points. Likelihood of freeze damage in a 
drained system should be lower, but in the event of damage the manufacturer 
would probably use that as an excuse to not be held liable. So there is some 
probably some risk there.

What are they hoping to accomplish by performing the test early? If they are 
concerned about potential water damage at a later date, would they accept an 
unofficial test with low pressure air? That would mitigate the likelihood of 
any large leaks and water damage at the time of the actual hydro test.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 9:06 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Caputo 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: potential freezing in ESFR system

Matt,

Not sure many people are lurking around the forum this week, so I’ll offer my 2 
cents worth….  1st and foremost, I would get the GC to sign off on a letter 
stating that you are not responsible for any freeze damage resulting from their 
request to perform the hydro prior to having heat in the building.

This is not as much chance for damage with the systems drained in my opinion, 
because if there is any ice formed at low points  or above the sprinklers, 
there is room for expansion without damage to surrounding parts.  That said, 
the sprinkler manufacturer would probably not recommend or stand behind their 
product in the event of any such damage.  

You didn’t note if the ESFR pendant sprinklers are attached directly to the 
branch lines or on drop nipples but assuming attached directly, I would 
recommend putting a good shop vac on the main drain and pulling a few remote 
sprinklers to draw off as much water as possible.  Regardless, protect you 
liability with a well written letter explaining your concerns and putting the 
responsibility for potential damage on the GC or the owner.  This will likely 
change their mind about doing the hydro before heat is available.

Just my opinion - and is not intended to represent the opinion of AFSA, NFPA or 
any NFPA Committee

Bob  




Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org 
  
 
   
   
   

Love free stuff? 

Tell an industry friend why you are an AFSA member and when they join or 
re-join the AFSA family, you will receive a $100 Amazon gift card and they’ll 
receive one free AFSA on-demand webinar of their choice—including CEUs (a $250 
value)! It’s our way to say thank you and welcome. Offer valid through December 
31, 2020. Visit firesprinkler.org/join 
.




> On Dec 22, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> we have a GC who wants to hydro test a pendant ESFR system before they have 
> heat in the building. They want to fill and test during the day while 
> temperatures are over 40F, and then drain the system before it gets cold 
> again.
> 
> I thought it did not sound like a great idea, but I can't necessarily find 
> any code or rule that specifically prohibits the plan.
> 
> on the same note - if a pendant ESFR warehouse were going to be left cold and 
> drained, would 

Diesel Fuel Tank - Leak Protection

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Our standard for diesel fire pumps is to provide a double-wall fuel tank with 
leak detection, steel supply and return fuel lines, and of course the 
connection at the diesel engine is generally a flexible connection provided 
with the diesel engine from the manufacturer. 

Anybody doing anything different?

Any particular problems with leaks? 

I've got a client who is particularly concerned about mitigating fuel leaks, 
but in my experience there is little reason to be concerned about leaks with 
this arrangement. The client is asking me to look at using the special Kynar 
double wall pipe made by Flexworks. I guess the advantage is that you would 
have less connections because it would bend rather than use fittings (90s), but 
it looks like it would be more easily-damaged than steel pipe. Anyone have 
experience with this or something similar?

We've also discussed possibly adding a curb below the fuel tank to catch leaks, 
but what if the leak occurs in the line closer to the diesel engine (outside of 
the curb)? The curb is useless at that point.

I feel like the standard method is pretty effective and that any of this other 
stuff has seriously diminished return value, but I'd be interested to hear from 
the audience.

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

RE: Obstruction Clarification

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

There are specific rules and tables and figures for sprinklers and soffits. I 
think you should apply those. My understanding is that the normal obstruction 
rules assume that you could spray onto either side of the obstruction, but that 
isn't the case with a soffit.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: JD Gamble 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Obstruction Clarification

Clarification . Combustible UnObstructed .

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: JD Gamble 
Subject: RE: Obstruction Clarification

Does the application of the standard change if the obstruction is a soffit 
along a wall?

My scenario is a Combustible / Obstructed Construction (TnG Wood Ceiling with 
Exposed Wood Beams) in a LH occ.  Soffit along wall less than 48" in width and 
more than 36" beneath EC PNT above.

Just making sure I can agree with what seems cut and dry?

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 6:09 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Obstruction Clarification

Yes, this has been true for a long time.  It can be very important to mention 
that this is only for standard spray sprinklers that we are talking about.  I 
have seen this misapplied to ESFR's often.


- Skyler


On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 7:00 PM Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> JD, I'm not working out of the 19 version yet, but this criteria has 
> been the same or similar for some time.
> So, the answer is the sprinklers are not required when meeting the 
> conditions you mentioned.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
> Fire by Knight, LLC
> 208-318-3057
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 5:13 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: JD Gamble
> Subject: Obstruction Clarification
>
> Working with NFPA 13 :2019 ed
>
> Relating to Section 11.2.5.3.2 and Annex Material A.11.2.5.3.2
>
> When obstructions are located more than 18 in. (450 mm) below the 
> sprinkler deflector, an adequate spray pattern develops and 
> obstructions up to and including 4 ft (1200 mm) wide do not require 
> additional protection underneath.
>
> Have I read this correctly that regardless of the obstruction and or 
> its arrangement, if its more than 18" below and less than or equal to 
> 48" wide . no additional coverage needed?
>
> I ask because we have drawn sprinklers in aspects of construction that 
> now are realized to be non-desirable for the owner and the Architect 
> has directed us to remove them if allowable by code.  Did we just miss 
> it and this code relieves the need for such?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> JD Gamble
> LSS of Sheridan, Inc.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkle
> r.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkl&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuIn
> h2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=tGesPIXUQ_
> g-cf_aAU-KYzXlKUJv7MVH0U_729g01_w&s=PpwOcykjQ7UWe6LTrLsYEzA-yU_dIWeqv_
> JZdKjT6Hk&e=
> er.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkle
> r.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkl&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuIn
> h2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=tGesPIXUQ_
> g-cf_aAU-KYzXlKUJv7MVH0U_729g01_w&s=PpwOcykjQ7UWe6LTrLsYEzA-yU_dIWeqv_
> JZdKjT6Hk&e=
> er.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=tGesPIXUQ_g-cf_aAU-KYzXlKUJv7MVH0U_729g01_w&s=JCTJq-5ql57lzZKlJxOZaZPJqCBRXG2c1fVZYOtIrAg&e=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=tGesPIXUQ_g-cf_aAU-KYzXlKUJv7MVH0U_729g01_w&s=JCTJq-5ql57lzZKlJxOZaZPJqCBRXG2c1fV

Class IA Flammable Liquids

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I'm confused about how to treat Class IA flammable liquids. We've got a 
cosmetics manufacturer that is moving into a shell building. They are planning 
a Hazardous Storage room to store the flammable liquids when not in use. The 
liquids being stored are primarily Class IB solvents, but I'm being told there 
is "some amount" of Class IA liquids (I think a relatively small amount, but 
they haven't given me the quantities yet). 

I'm confused because the protection criteria in NFPA 30 chapter 16 specifically 
notes that it doesn't apply to Class IA liquids. If we design the fire 
protection for that room for Class IB liquids, is there a certain maximum 
allowable quantity of Class IA that they can store in there and still be 
considered protected? I feel like there is an obvious answer here, but I must 
be looking right past it.

Thanks for the help.

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

Self-storage Lockers

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I'm looking at a project that is your typical self-storage building but with a 
feature I haven't dealt with before. There are some lockers that are 4' x 4' x 
4' cubes stacked on top of each other. Just two high, so there is 128 cubic 
feet of storage space in a 16 square foot area. It's not really accessible for 
people, since you'd have to crawl into the lower one or climb into the higher 
one, but it is obviously accessible for storage. Construction is noncombustible.

Are sprinklers required in every one of these lockers, upper and lower? That 
seems logical, but I just haven't dealt with this scenario before.

-Kyle M


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

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submittal Packages

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

“... if you don’t want liability, then don’t do construction.” 

Well said, my friend.

-Kyle M

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Ben Young via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> As a former contractor who now works for an engineering firm, I think it
> sounds like everyone is being a little bit hard headed on this.
> 
> I think the requirement for complete submittals can get a little asinine
> especially when, as John said, its due in two weeks. And John, I wish they
> said only material submittals in two weeks lol. I get not wanting drips and
> drabs of material submittals, but its perfectly fine and reasonable to
> expect and accept a standalone complete material submittal. Technically, if
> you don't have approved material submittals back, how is the
> designer/contractor supposed to know which products to use and to put in
> their details? I try to only use that excuse when someone is being
> particularly picayune.  I don't know if engineers and GCs use the material
> submittals as a kind of bowl of green M&Ms thing or if they genuinely
> believe that my non UL listed rod (yes, I've had material rejected for that
> before) is going to make the building fall down.  But when you don't pick
> your fights on this kind of stuff, you're just creating an unnecessarily
> hostile environment.
> 
> On the engineering side, I've learned about having to leave cushion in my
> design exactly so no one owns a 300k boat anchor. I do permit level
> submittals, but our company does not favor any manufacturer over another if
> a client doesn't and it always amuses me when the fire marshal will ask me
> for a pump submittal. Like dude, this is a deferred submittal, I don't even
> talk to pump reps, c'mon! But I still make sure I size that pump for best
> and worst case water scenarios. Its like a foam system kind of in that
> regard. At least that's the way I think of it.
> 
> And if you don't want liability, then don't do construction. Subrogation
> means we're all getting sued, so that's a BS excuse to not at least try and
> help the project forward.
> 
> But examining the water supply and detailing what can be used for calcs or
> pumps is 100% the engineer's job. If they aren't doing flow tests and
> talking to water purveyors before they give something for bid, then you
> honestly need a better fire protection engineer.
> 
> 
> Benjamin Young
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:08 PM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, see that's the thing this project is not your normal simple COSCO or
>> Motel 6 job.  More like a quasi-government project with specialty systems
>> with unique requirements drives doing a design and calc before you select
>> this pump.
>> 
>> Regardless of this situation, I am not signing off on any pump selection
>> until it's been proven to meet the system design criteria.  Once I've
>> signed off, it's considered approved and if it turns out to be wrong, the
>> fingers will point back to my approval.
>> 
>> Thanks for the insight.
>> 
>> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |
>> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobs.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=2ySD1F-Ni4zqee505ETEifp1dq4OTbdpJXcAmb_8t4w&s=OmTm-YSkB7LhnkK5iWpNypCcKJP2cI2IQD2cmCKpZJk&e=
>>  
>> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On
>> Behalf Of Sean.VanGaal via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 1:18 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Sean.VanGaal 
>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submittal Packages
>> 
>> Craig, I don't think it is as black/white as you make it sound.
>> 
>> Sizing a fire pump for a project that is non-high rise and sprinklers only
>> (no standpipes) is not complicated once you have the water supply info.
>> Almost all designers who are experienced enough to design a fire pump are
>> probably experienced enough to estimate a system water demand for their
>> system.  Worst case scenario of Density x Base remote area size + some
>> overages. ESFR sprinkler flow x 12 plus some overages. If you have hose
>> station figure inside hose, otherwise hoses don't affect the pump. Those
>> ballpark calculations give you the demand flow of the pump. Then if you
>> have your water supply results, you know your finished floor elevation
>> relative to you flow test, and you know the maximum pressure of your system
>> (175?), then you can easily size a pump to not churn over your maximum
>> pressure.  You can get material cuts from your vendor, send them in for
>> approval and electrical verification, and order the pump. Then on the back
>> end you design the pipe sizes for your sprinkler system to match the pump
>> you are installing.
>> 
>> Some warehouse projects have extremely fast schedules. Sprinkler
>> contractors are not brought

RE: 8.17.5 Hose Connections

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

OK, so it's the IBC that specifies when/where a hose connection of that type 
can be supplied by the sprinklers system. I'm seeing it now.

Thanks, Steve and others.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 12:40 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Michael Hill 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 8.17.5 Hose Connections

Hoses for fire department use are described as 2½" in 8.17.5.2, so never mind 
1½" for purposes of this discussion.Three conditions come to mind where 
Fire Department hose valves (you notice I didn't say Class I standpipe 
connections, because these are not exclusively considered standpipes) might be 
required and are specifically allowed to be supplied by the sprinkler system:

1.   Stages over 1,000 sq. ft. in area
2.   Exit passageways
3.   Covered mall buildings, at locations specified in the Building Code

In these cases, an inside hose stream allowance must be taken at the point 
where combined main piping supplies the most demanding hose connection.   Many 
AHJ agencies (at least the ones that are on the ball) require a calculation 
from the FDC to prove the required flow rate and may have ordinances or 
policies that specify the flow rate.   

The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA 





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 12:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Michael Hill 
Subject: RE: 8.17.5 Hose Connections

Would small hoses at a stage qualify?

Mike Hill

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 3:16 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' 

Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
Subject: 8.17.5 Hose Connections

So, I understand the "Small [1 ½ in. ] Hose Connections" that are discussed in 
8.17.5.1. You typically find these in rack storage warehouses.

But I'm confused by 8.17.5.2 Hose Connections for Fire Department Use. What 
hose connections would these be? Or, perhaps I should ask when these hose 
connections would be required. The description and the associated figures looks 
like it is referring to the hose valves you would find as part of a combined 
sprinkler/standpipe system. But the commentary in the handbook says 
specifically "These connections are not to be treated as standpipe hose 
connections".

-Kyle M
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=FCOUHvoXPhMGrVpPveiBJz02lmkxa-2XqVTPsUdJvbc&s=iQjlnqCG5EoxMn61VyCBP-Kt6WvU6DzRGXVaxHyf0vY&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=FCOUHvoXPhMGrVpPveiBJz02lmkxa-2XqVTPsUdJvbc&s=iQjlnqCG5EoxMn61VyCBP-Kt6WvU6DzRGXVaxHyf0vY&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=FCOUHvoXPhMGrVpPveiBJz02lmkxa-2XqVTPsUdJvbc&s=iQjlnqCG5EoxMn61VyCBP-Kt6WvU6DzRGXVaxHyf0vY&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

8.17.5 Hose Connections

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

So, I understand the "Small [1 ½ in. ] Hose Connections" that are discussed in 
8.17.5.1. You typically find these in rack storage warehouses.

But I'm confused by 8.17.5.2 Hose Connections for Fire Department Use. What 
hose connections would these be? Or, perhaps I should ask when these hose 
connections would be required. The description and the associated figures looks 
like it is referring to the hose valves you would find as part of a combined 
sprinkler/standpipe system. But the commentary in the handbook says 
specifically "These connections are not to be treated as standpipe hose 
connections".

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

RE: FM 8-9

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I think Travis is right, except for ceiling-only protection for ceiling heights 
over 40 feet. Then you go to 8-9, 2.3.6.9.6, which tells you to use 3-3-3-1 for 
slopes up to 5 degrees and 4-4-2 for ceiling slopes over 5 degrees.

I think this is new for the update in July 2020.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 6:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; bherman...@tristarfire.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FM 8-9

You have to look at 3-0 ( I think) for the shape factor and calcs. It depends 
on slope. It will be either 1.2 or 1.4. Depending on your spacing will 
determine how many sprinklers on the line.


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=-mFYbMP5JMIJy-ESdItgZ9k4v3x6gPvbYRF0RiKDoA8&s=8141JAV_0NdAMlncSs8Xl88fQYUhjxrWpe1FAxG0xlM&e=
Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=-mFYbMP5JMIJy-ESdItgZ9k4v3x6gPvbYRF0RiKDoA8&s=KZsjCqDgDgYT0Yq0NP6Gwv5et0vRkeu3wCVQ5gFW7_Q&e=
LinkedIn: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_travismack&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=-mFYbMP5JMIJy-ESdItgZ9k4v3x6gPvbYRF0RiKDoA8&s=iGixIxhCYMLnsER_96n0e0WUJWK4jQXsUeN25OEgjAc&e=
“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”
Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing? Build a material quote? Check 
availability ? Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click here to 
register.* **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go 
access to your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android 
devices**


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Bruce Hermanson via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 5:48:26 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Bruce Hermanson 
Subject: FM 8-9

Does anyone know what FM Data sheet points you to what sprinkler heads to 
calculate when the tables in 8-9 have you calculating (10) quick response
K25.2 sprinklers?

I know when you calculate (12) its (4) per line on remote (3) lines. I cannot 
find what to do with (10).

Maybe 4,4,2??



Bruce Hermanson

President



TSFP

47810 Galleon Drive

Plymouth, MI 48170

(734) 454-1350



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=-mFYbMP5JMIJy-ESdItgZ9k4v3x6gPvbYRF0RiKDoA8&s=VHYtLJPczamCeEfF0QUV4zkSihuLkRbbHe_5BTeHrY8&e=
 
 ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=-mFYbMP5JMIJy-ESdItgZ9k4v3x6gPvbYRF0RiKDoA8&s=VHYtLJPczamCeEfF0QUV4zkSihuLkRbbHe_5BTeHrY8&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hangers for CPVC Pipe going through TGI Joists

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Some of you guys mentioned bushings or "other method to prevent chafing". Can 
we elaborate on that? I've seen bushings used where CPVC is run in a wall and 
passes through metal studs, but I don't think I've seem them installed in this 
scenario. Is that really a requirement?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 7:34 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hangers for CPVC Pipe going through TGI Joists 

Blazemaster has very specific criteria for this:
"When the piping is supported by wood joists or trusses by laying the pipe 
directly on top of the structural members, the structure provides the support, 
assuming that the center spacing of the structural member does not exceed the 
requirements of Table Q."

This would include when passing through holes in TJI type joist.

Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 6:39 AM
To: Sprinkler Forum
Cc: Mike Hairfield
Subject: Hangers for CPVC Pipe going through TGI Joists 

The TGI Joists are spaced 16" apart, does NFPA-13 require hangers on the CPVC 
pipe since the TGI joists are supporting the pipe?

Mike
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=SdpFbtMK1-jneilmi9UX9Wb03ucgatk8Er3sXcgCh6E&s=XYdJw3dIVQhLU9W8Ze4bpJwVi6BXWr9cAP4hS626p50&e=
 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=SdpFbtMK1-jneilmi9UX9Wb03ucgatk8Er3sXcgCh6E&s=XYdJw3dIVQhLU9W8Ze4bpJwVi6BXWr9cAP4hS626p50&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe System Air Compressor

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Bruce,

That's kind of what I'm concerned about. If the code changes to say that 
compressors must be listed for fire protection use, then at first there is 
going to be a lag because such a listing doesn’t even exist. Then, if a listing 
standard gets developed and the manufacturers get some compressors "listed for 
fire protection", they're going to do what they do for the valves and fire 
pumps: charge a whole lot of money for that red paint.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BRUCE VERHEI 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe 
System Air Compressor

Ah, you folks are all used to UL listing for fire protection. Remember UL 
listing goes down two paths. One is both safety and efficacy. You want that 
fire alarm panel to operate to standards, as well as not shock you or start a 
fire. The other is a table lamp. UL is evaluating it for shock & fire hazard. 
They aren’t evaluating whether it casts a romantic glow.

Maybe for the compressor they add some safety standards around air pressure. 
That doesn’t mean they are evaluating whether you’ll be happy at its ability to 
drive your impact wrench or charge up your dry system. That’s between the 
manufacturer and you.

Mr. H. Hopper was first to point this out to me.

Best.

Bruce Verhei


> On 09/25/2020 11:06 AM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> Is there currently a listing criteria for "fire protection air compressors"? 
> I see UL 1450 Standard for Motor-Operated Air Compressors, Vacuum Pumps, and 
> Painting Equipment, but does that include any specifics for fire protection 
> use?
> 
> -Kyle M
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 5:02 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Scott Futrell ; John Denhardt 
> 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry 
> Pipe System Air Compressor
> 
> IMHO, yes, it should be. Off the shelf, big box store compressors, don't last 
> very long costing the owner more.
> 
> Scott
>  
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:18 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Denhardt 
> Subject: Re: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe System 
> Air Compressor
> 
> Scott beat me to it.
> 
> Commentary - Considering an air compressor is not required to be Listed, the 
> technical committee is putting requirements into the standard.  Maybe the air 
> compressor should be Listed for Fire Protection use.
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> John August Denhardt, PE
> *Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*
> 
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> m: p: 301-343-1457
> 214-349-5965 ext 121
> w: firesprinkler.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_firesprinkler.org_&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=WP_Ee0FuuH1e5mq10X4gcOZMHx2GdZU9EftHhQUJs_M&s=8waGKKWG7-Mv6MqDo9j_tkD7cBE5hk_fivLXl0SYS9w&e=
>  > 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_afsa_status_1039528345367732224&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=WP_Ee0FuuH1e5mq10X4gcOZMHx2GdZU9EftHhQUJs_M&s=4DPjVZGv7KmOO2NjKRJoNEHjsuLX8_0HW1_N7bolOAg&e=
>  > 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_american-2Dfire-2Dsprinkler-2Dassociation-2Dafsa-2D_&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=WP_Ee0FuuH1e5mq10X4gcOZMHx2GdZU9EftHhQUJs_M&s=sWbaw6rcxJgUN92-s71uz7xJs1KWW77opq9PcVSTSD4&e=
>  >
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.co
> m_firesprinklerorg_&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoq
> udh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=WP_Ee0FuuH1e5mq10X4gcOZMHx2GdZU9EftHhQ
> UJs_M&s=mp2o-WyyDw5kgYii9M9iPUZeme6WJ0mwT76cVXyyHhg&e= >
> 
> *Our members are at the heart of everything we do.*
> 
> *AFSA Summer Sale!*
> 
> For a limited time only, AFSA is offering members up to 50% off its on-demand 
> recorded webinars! Featuring the most sought-after thought leaders, AFSA 
> On-Demand offers a superior learning experience with ability to earn CEU and 
> CPD credits anytime, anywhere. Visit 
> https://urld

RE: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe System Air Compressor

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Is there currently a listing criteria for "fire protection air compressors"? I 
see UL 1450 Standard for Motor-Operated Air Compressors, Vacuum Pumps, and 
Painting Equipment, but does that include any specifics for fire protection use?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 5:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Scott Futrell ; John Denhardt 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe 
System Air Compressor

IMHO, yes, it should be. Off the shelf, big box store compressors, don't last 
very long costing the owner more.

Scott
 
Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe System Air 
Compressor

Scott beat me to it.

Commentary - Considering an air compressor is not required to be Listed, the 
technical committee is putting requirements into the standard.  Maybe the air 
compressor should be Listed for Fire Protection use.

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org
 
 

   


*Our members are at the heart of everything we do.*

*AFSA Summer Sale!*

For a limited time only, AFSA is offering members up to 50% off its on-demand 
recorded webinars! Featuring the most sought-after thought leaders, AFSA 
On-Demand offers a superior learning experience with ability to earn CEU and 
CPD credits anytime, anywhere. Visit 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.firesprinkler.org_ondemand&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=WP_Ee0FuuH1e5mq10X4gcOZMHx2GdZU9EftHhQUJs_M&s=hBtrQOd91IklvOpdcriG8jllMNQEzanwddCfuaBHrsI&e=
  to learn more.


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:07 PM Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> 2019:
> 8.2.6.6.5.1
> The disconnecting means for an automatic air compressor shall not be a 
> general-use light switch or a cord-and-plug connected motor.
>
> Scott
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 2:26 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Ron Greenman 
> Subject: Re: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe System 
> Air Compressor
>
> A switch that looks like a light switch would be legit for a small motor.
> If the compressor is on a dedicated 20A circuit it would need to be a 
> 20A rated switch. You wouldn't be able to tell a 20A from a 15A 
> (common light circuit rating) without looking at the rating. If it's a 
> 20A/230V compressor the switch would need to be a Double Pole/Single Throw. 
> Again.
> you can't tell from just the lever.
>
>
> Ron Greenman
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. 
> -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera 
> director
> (1942-)
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:02 PM Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > Like the one for a light switch, there is breaker in the electrical 
> > panel with a lock-out
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > 
> > From: Sprinklerforum
> > 
> > on behalf of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum < 
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 3:00 PM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org < 
> > sprinklerfo

RE: Can a Clerestory be considered Skylight?

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

It may not be a skylight, but I don't see why you couldn't consider it a 
"similar pocket" to a skylight. 

>From a practical standpoint, what would be the justification behind requiring 
>a sprinkler in the pocket in this scenario?

-Kyle M


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Can a Clerestory be considered Skylight?

IMHO, a clerestory light well is not a skylight.   It's a ceiling pocket, but 
not a skylight.

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: Can a Clerestory be considered Skylight?

I have a 12 x 36 x 58 tall pocket in they ceiling at a clerestory.

 

If this is consider a skylight per 13-8.5.7 (16ed) I would not have to provide 
protection at the top of the pocket.

 

But if is a pocket per 13-8.6.7 and since its over 36" tall I'm going have to 
provide protection at the top.

 

What is meant by a "similar pocket" in 13-8.6.7.3?.   

 

Jerry Van Kolken

Millennium Fire Protection Corp.

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=e6UxB2rkCsOp8Mjye7Odz7tQzM0uoUpH36HFE3If2m4&s=seF7E7cww2ZKU-sT7cetz7wxfE_hVXSgRfrzBIZYCrI&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=e6UxB2rkCsOp8Mjye7Odz7tQzM0uoUpH36HFE3If2m4&s=seF7E7cww2ZKU-sT7cetz7wxfE_hVXSgRfrzBIZYCrI&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: 13 R in a single family home

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Out of curiosity, where are people building single family homes that 4+ 
stories? I don't think I've ever seen one.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 13 R in a single family home

Ahh. Excellent catch for us.


Other requirements had me as well on mine.

Thanks for the assist!

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steven Jenkins via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:49 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steven Jenkins 
Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home

Take a look at the scope of 2015 IRC.  
2015 IRC 101.2, "...not more than three stories above grade plane in height."

Then take a look at 2015 IBC Table 504.4

And of course local adoptions will differ, so definitely talk to the permitting 
AHJ.


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 8:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home

*** SCDLLR NOTICE ***
  *   This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
  *   Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in 
e-mail text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.


I am going with no.

IRC kicks to Plumbing code OR 13D.

13 D being a life safety system, does not care about height.

Local adoptions may differ.

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:35 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home

I am actually int the IRC right this minute looking for the same thing

I have seen nothing either.

Will keep you posted.


Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108





R/
Matt



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Zachary Siegrist via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:32 AM
To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Zachary Siegrist 
Subject: 13 R in a single family home

I am being informed the International Residential Code has a provision 
requiring a NFPA 13R system in a single family residence four stories or more 
in height.  Admittedly, this is the first time I've heard of this in my career. 
 I am scanning through the IRC and am not able to locate this provision.  Can 
anyone verify this is true, and if so, can you provide me a code section from 
the IRC?

Zach
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CAEF2wQIzyBW2qGTWKiYbMiACnMkAK2Oqqb3z4rfklBGwSPzvYInh0bEuu4fkRHPkoiy0CU-2D48D1RLzH0fYlNfSr8MgFbnNlgIK5c2UmbFgqNZA-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=KeP3-1OXc0JJYmv3QYq5PGbqh6vXE8iU26i7WRQR3Xo&s=arccq-luCcqNsc-ydyCFmiEkEimlT3o10E2d7BG0vOk&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CzzhKKk0GJW6EiBfd5xit3aIjHmPtw6qXga9X4DwOhIB6ELcWai3NWWH0Rfiy0Oomy6FG7CqAfntMB4gr0x7JOjvNHbwbjBCQItZ8QxjDDJoPkHkTL10o1qs-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=KeP3-1OXc0JJYmv3QYq5PGbqh6vXE8iU26i7WRQR3Xo&s=2wgOG-67nxZDmgS7MhiES3NW-t5spuxLDbxhkozp2XA&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2C8Ec-5FSNcsX2UbCThuxHSx9lpC7FTAmSubeP6lLyIpUzAjF3eWvK9Yw2H67qPSF4XEldYYUe7B87JjaeaRC-2DeqpJBIKriJzNnNddjtL4CLmLT0pQ-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=KeP3-1OXc0JJYmv3QYq5PGbqh6vXE8iU26i7WRQR3Xo&s=5x8n9Af3n8Czj-cCFxS_4gp1T6MkWCR8d4Qma2-KeSs&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_l

RE: Heads Under Conveyors

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I think you're on the right track. For the most part you just treat them like 
an obstruction. We've been allowed to omit sprinklers from underneath conveyors 
when they are very low to the ground, since there really isn't anything to 
protect underneath.

What are you concerned about?

Kyle Montgomery
 
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com

 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 1:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Heads Under Conveyors

We're working on a recycling plant and in the center of the building is a 
series of conveyor belts. Originally I was thinking about using upright heads 
with guards but after searching NFPA-13 the only place I see conveyors 
mentioned is in the ESFR section and when they're used in coal mines. Anybody 
have experience with this scenario?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=9-Iqz7GLwfHpGoaKDx5dywGUE1O0zciqqt40-l4Rp6o&s=AFhLnasWs2ukNGWNsWMguLnNGAhig0cA_h9CBwYP0Rg&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

That's a good rule of thumb, but you can often have 20+ psi at the connection 
to the public main but less than that at the pump suction flange. Particularly 
with large (high flow) fire pumps and a long feed connections from the public 
main to the pump room.

There's also an exception in NFPA 20 (14.2.6.2.6) that allows for testing at 
less than 150% of pump capacity if the water supply can't support that flow, so 
you could limit your flow during testing to keep the suction pressure above a 
certain number. But you always have to flow at least the greater of 100% of the 
rated capacity or the maximum system demand.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 2:17 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BRUCE VERHEI 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

I’d always used 20 psi as minimum pump in;et pressure, unless taking supply 
from a tank. Everywhere you go in AWWA you run into 20 psi as minimum pressure 
in the water system.

Best.

Bruce Verhei 

> On 08/06/2020 2:54 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> These two options or the last pump test all should satisfactorily answer the 
> question. The "suction pressure" has nothing to do with the pump itself, just 
> the pressure that is available from the city source (or tank or whatever). As 
> mentioned, they generally need to know that so they can calculate the churn 
> pressure (city static plus pump shut-off pressure) to see if they need a 
> heavy-duty discharge flange or whatever.
> 
> There's also the NPSH (net positive suction head). This is the pressure 
> available at max flow (generally 150% of the pump rating). The pump 
> manufacturer (and/or NFPA 20) will specify a minimum pressure for NPSH, 
> generally it just has to be greater than 0 psi. For systems that are 
> tank-fed, I think it can actually go slightly negative. Unless your water 
> supply is pretty weak, this generally isn't a concern.
> 
> -Kyle M
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:31 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)
> 
> Or the reading on the pump inlet gauge.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of cliff--- via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 11:29 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: cl...@fire-design.com
> Subject: RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I may be looking at this too 'simply', but wouldn't your suction pressure be 
> the static pressure at the flow test location plus or minus any pressure gain 
> or loss for any difference between the elevation of the flow test and the 
> fire pump suction?
> 
> Cliff Whitfield, SET
> President
> 
> Fire Design, Inc.
> 600 W. Bypass Hwy. 19E
> Suite 202
> Burnsville, NC 28714
> Ph: 828-284-4772
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:24 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Brian Harris 
> Subject: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)
> 
> We're replacing a pump in an existing system and the pump vendor wants to 
> know the pump suction pressure. Since we didn't do the original system and I 
> know nothing about it what is a practical way of determining the pump suction 
> to tell the vendor?
> 
> Brian Harris, CET
> BVS Systems Inc.
> Design Manager
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudas
> vc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252fbvssystemsinc.com-26c-3DE-2C1-2Cf
> PKVA9LmYVAFj6wU2zue-2Dsxj1lKPEyBR0IzSMOfmWQhkdfzW0pVPQNqdtRfwfotu1CJ1r
> 199FT-5FxVT4xdVMuvik2UUqvDIqIumxKh1EZuYxd1ikkKAbfTUIf9RSb-26typo-3D1&d
> =DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8
> OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=qrvz34VqEnlqv
> CdkmUpKsl2fSFM_OJkuZgaRc2cBzOw&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cuda
> svc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fbvssystemsinc.com-252f-26c-3DE-2C
> 1-2CbuGdxXghfmUtVg6sHK2xTuUeKegVK0ZTWUvIptb0cI1LRrHver5QaPWaFb9uOQnA-5
> FGerOgJLvt8a2uOixgbFnkz0LjRyO5XGG8r3gs94H7zXGOWoVwhXz8dHpg-2C-2C-26typ
> o-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8et
> xB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=f4e8Bw
> lWb9f_RN4OzrXz-_MNT3xQi7kRZ_aDv40HWso&e= >
> Phone: 704

RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Brian,

I should have read the chain more carefully before answering. Yes, there is a 
simple and practical way of doing this, even without a pump test (although that 
would be the easiest if available). That is, assuming that you know the water 
supply (flow test or tank information).

Setup a calc from the known water supply point to the pump suction. Then run a 
calc with a flow of 150% of the pump's rated capacity at the node at the pump 
suction. The pressure you have available at that flow is your answer.

If you don't have a pump test or water supply information, then you'll probably 
need to perform a pump test or get water supply information.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

Let me clarify, the gauge will tell you the static pump suction pressure. You 
have to use the pump test or a flow test and some math do figure the NPSH.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:55 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

These two options or the last pump test all should satisfactorily answer the 
question. The "suction pressure" has nothing to do with the pump itself, just 
the pressure that is available from the city source (or tank or whatever). As 
mentioned, they generally need to know that so they can calculate the churn 
pressure (city static plus pump shut-off pressure) to see if they need a 
heavy-duty discharge flange or whatever.

There's also the NPSH (net positive suction head). This is the pressure 
available at max flow (generally 150% of the pump rating). The pump 
manufacturer (and/or NFPA 20) will specify a minimum pressure for NPSH, 
generally it just has to be greater than 0 psi. For systems that are tank-fed, 
I think it can actually go slightly negative. Unless your water supply is 
pretty weak, this generally isn't a concern.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

Or the reading on the pump inlet gauge.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of cliff--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 11:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: cl...@fire-design.com
Subject: RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

Brian,

I may be looking at this too 'simply', but wouldn't your suction pressure be 
the static pressure at the flow test location plus or minus any pressure gain 
or loss for any difference between the elevation of the flow test and the fire 
pump suction?

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President

Fire Design, Inc.
600 W. Bypass Hwy. 19E
Suite 202
Burnsville, NC 28714
Ph: 828-284-4772
 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:24 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

We're replacing a pump in an existing system and the pump vendor wants to know 
the pump suction pressure. Since we didn't do the original system and I know 
nothing about it what is a practical way of determining the pump suction to 
tell the vendor?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252fbvssystemsinc.com-26c-3DE-2C1-2CfPKVA9LmYVAFj6wU2zue-2Dsxj1lKPEyBR0IzSMOfmWQhkdfzW0pVPQNqdtRfwfotu1CJ1r199FT-5FxVT4xdVMuvik2UUqvDIqIumxKh1EZuYxd1ikkKAbfTUIf9RSb-26typo-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=qrvz34VqEnlqvCdkmUpKsl2fSFM_OJkuZgaRc2cBzOw&e=
 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fbvssystemsinc.com-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CbuGdxXghfmUtVg6sHK2xTuUeKegVK0ZTWUvIptb0cI1LRrHver5QaPWaFb9uOQnA-5FGerOgJLvt8a2uOixgbFnkz0LjRyO5XGG8r3gs94H7zXGOWoVwhXz8dHpg-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=f4e8BwlWb9f_RN4OzrXz-_MNT3xQi7kRZ_aDv40HWso&e=
 >
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252

RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Let me clarify, the gauge will tell you the static pump suction pressure. You 
have to use the pump test or a flow test and some math do figure the NPSH.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:55 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

These two options or the last pump test all should satisfactorily answer the 
question. The "suction pressure" has nothing to do with the pump itself, just 
the pressure that is available from the city source (or tank or whatever). As 
mentioned, they generally need to know that so they can calculate the churn 
pressure (city static plus pump shut-off pressure) to see if they need a 
heavy-duty discharge flange or whatever.

There's also the NPSH (net positive suction head). This is the pressure 
available at max flow (generally 150% of the pump rating). The pump 
manufacturer (and/or NFPA 20) will specify a minimum pressure for NPSH, 
generally it just has to be greater than 0 psi. For systems that are tank-fed, 
I think it can actually go slightly negative. Unless your water supply is 
pretty weak, this generally isn't a concern.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

Or the reading on the pump inlet gauge.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of cliff--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 11:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: cl...@fire-design.com
Subject: RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

Brian,

I may be looking at this too 'simply', but wouldn't your suction pressure be 
the static pressure at the flow test location plus or minus any pressure gain 
or loss for any difference between the elevation of the flow test and the fire 
pump suction?

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President

Fire Design, Inc.
600 W. Bypass Hwy. 19E
Suite 202
Burnsville, NC 28714
Ph: 828-284-4772
 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:24 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

We're replacing a pump in an existing system and the pump vendor wants to know 
the pump suction pressure. Since we didn't do the original system and I know 
nothing about it what is a practical way of determining the pump suction to 
tell the vendor?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252fbvssystemsinc.com-26c-3DE-2C1-2CfPKVA9LmYVAFj6wU2zue-2Dsxj1lKPEyBR0IzSMOfmWQhkdfzW0pVPQNqdtRfwfotu1CJ1r199FT-5FxVT4xdVMuvik2UUqvDIqIumxKh1EZuYxd1ikkKAbfTUIf9RSb-26typo-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=qrvz34VqEnlqvCdkmUpKsl2fSFM_OJkuZgaRc2cBzOw&e=
 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fbvssystemsinc.com-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CbuGdxXghfmUtVg6sHK2xTuUeKegVK0ZTWUvIptb0cI1LRrHver5QaPWaFb9uOQnA-5FGerOgJLvt8a2uOixgbFnkz0LjRyO5XGG8r3gs94H7zXGOWoVwhXz8dHpg-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=f4e8BwlWb9f_RN4OzrXz-_MNT3xQi7kRZ_aDv40HWso&e=
 >
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2C2XVMi2XSjpSC7MmxwbU-2Dge6SgOeyVoED5yFk21X5XiqzrUzFct2caDe-5FkBj1TqAbrNNIk2M5SL45K0rQhTUXHHqepHh5ofHFNfzY7x7CGz1mmtI5dRvA6adSKXqI-26typo-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=MB2xa5aCJYXTRgbB-bUTIYfbCy5Aww9K6WGtd5VhcWw&e=
 


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=F7SBf5LjABLPB5Ki8fG9Y389eRwhoILV_en5NBZh2-I&e=
 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3

RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

These two options or the last pump test all should satisfactorily answer the 
question. The "suction pressure" has nothing to do with the pump itself, just 
the pressure that is available from the city source (or tank or whatever). As 
mentioned, they generally need to know that so they can calculate the churn 
pressure (city static plus pump shut-off pressure) to see if they need a 
heavy-duty discharge flange or whatever.

There's also the NPSH (net positive suction head). This is the pressure 
available at max flow (generally 150% of the pump rating). The pump 
manufacturer (and/or NFPA 20) will specify a minimum pressure for NPSH, 
generally it just has to be greater than 0 psi. For systems that are tank-fed, 
I think it can actually go slightly negative. Unless your water supply is 
pretty weak, this generally isn't a concern.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

Or the reading on the pump inlet gauge.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of cliff--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 11:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: cl...@fire-design.com
Subject: RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

Brian,

I may be looking at this too 'simply', but wouldn't your suction pressure be 
the static pressure at the flow test location plus or minus any pressure gain 
or loss for any difference between the elevation of the flow test and the fire 
pump suction?

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President

Fire Design, Inc.
600 W. Bypass Hwy. 19E
Suite 202
Burnsville, NC 28714
Ph: 828-284-4772
 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:24 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

We're replacing a pump in an existing system and the pump vendor wants to know 
the pump suction pressure. Since we didn't do the original system and I know 
nothing about it what is a practical way of determining the pump suction to 
tell the vendor?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252fbvssystemsinc.com-26c-3DE-2C1-2CfPKVA9LmYVAFj6wU2zue-2Dsxj1lKPEyBR0IzSMOfmWQhkdfzW0pVPQNqdtRfwfotu1CJ1r199FT-5FxVT4xdVMuvik2UUqvDIqIumxKh1EZuYxd1ikkKAbfTUIf9RSb-26typo-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=qrvz34VqEnlqvCdkmUpKsl2fSFM_OJkuZgaRc2cBzOw&e=
 

Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2C2XVMi2XSjpSC7MmxwbU-2Dge6SgOeyVoED5yFk21X5XiqzrUzFct2caDe-5FkBj1TqAbrNNIk2M5SL45K0rQhTUXHHqepHh5ofHFNfzY7x7CGz1mmtI5dRvA6adSKXqI-26typo-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=MB2xa5aCJYXTRgbB-bUTIYfbCy5Aww9K6WGtd5VhcWw&e=
 


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=F7SBf5LjABLPB5Ki8fG9Y389eRwhoILV_en5NBZh2-I&e=
 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CuMbFsjP2z9AB49BH0INlualK0jXC3SU0BL-5F2Amex0iJQsHKld3qPCkPpeMLYyobzZ-5FIexI7TdTwTCYKY-2DZscqOautAyn9z9OWCFyp8GUB8C0P8tsTL4Mi6A-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ea3hr6KtNl4vVEflZH44Z2ve1CdhBchfjHnNmruZtOA&s=clCouJ9o3Z1F47ZnL5yiJNDDJjMwGgSt59QK_jt_dLk&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefens

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Uprights in non combustible concealed space

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

So, what would make them non-compliant? Obstructions, like ductwork and stuff?

When we’ve gotten similar pushback, it’s been because we’ve had 155-degree 
heads and the inspector has claimed that they aren’t appropriate for an 
unconditioned space (we’re working in Phoenix, so it can get unbelievably hot 
in “attic” spaces). I don’t know if that’s actually a concern though; I’m not 
aware of any sprinklers activating in this scenario.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 2:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tony Silva ; Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
; Ed Vining 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Uprights in non combustible concealed space

Yes, it is specified in NFPA 13. NFPA 13, does not tell you which buildings are 
required to be sprinklered, which task is up to the building code or local 
ordinances. However, if the building is sprinklered (whether by mandate or 
voluntarily), it has to comply with NFPA 13. Note that the scope of NFPA 13 is 
to provide minimum requirements for the design and installation of automatic 
sprinkler systems. Not just the requirements for systems that are mandated.

Just take the garage in your home. Depending on local requirements, you may not 
require one for your house. However, if you build one, it has to comply with 
code requirements.

So if you leave the sprinklers in the concealed space, make sure they comply 
with code requirements.

My two cents, Tony

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:48 PM Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via 
Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
I could be wrong, but isn’t there something in IFC that states a fire 
protection system left in place needs to be compliant for the area?  I’ve had 
inspectors interpret as you indicate.  It’s the rationale that you can’t leave 
dead sprinkler pipe in the air.

Now, I have had this same situation and argued in the case the sprinkler was 
just a “glorified plug.”  Contractor was in a bind, no access to remove the 
sprinklers.

But, if you dig into the fire code, you may find where he is at least starting 
from.  You won’t find your answer in NFPA 13.


[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material quote?  
Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with 
ferguson.com,
 click 
here

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

That sounds correct.

It seems strange that your calculation is over-discharging by more than 100% 
though. Minimum discharge is 90 GPM and you’re discharging over 200 GPM? Do you 
have like 13 sprinklers jammed into this area?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required

So, in this case I’m discharging over 200 gpm due to the number of sprinklers 
in the area.  Based on this I shouldn’t need to add any additional flow, 
correct?


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Shawn Foor via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 4:23 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum
Cc: Shawn Foor
Subject: Re: Floor area less than required

That is the way I read it as well. You would have to add the additional 6 GPM.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
NFPA 13, 2016 ed. States:
23.4.4.2.5   Where the total design discharge from these oper-
ating sprinklers is less than the minimum required discharge
determined by multiplying the required design density times
the required minimum design area, an additional flow shall be
added at the point of connection of the branch line to the
cross main furthest from the source to increase the overall
demand, not including hose stream allowance, to the mini-
mum required discharge.

This is kinda gray to me.  Does it mean that if I have a light hazard area that 
is only 884 sf (offices in a shop)
and the area modifier being applied will allow for a 900 sf area, then I would 
need a minimum discharge of 90 gpm over the entire area?
Then, if my calculations bare out 92 gpm nothing else needs done, but if they 
came out to 84 gpm an additional flow of 6 gpm would need to be added?

Sorry about the run on sentences, just confused.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057
[FBK-LOGO-EMAIL]

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


--
Shawn Foor, SET

FOOR DESIGN, LLC
10208 E 98TH ST
TULSA, OK 74133
P:918-237-1400
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Edge of a platform

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Since the area inside of the beams is covered by the sprinklers below the 
mezzanine, could you just call the extension from the beams an obstruction to 
the overhead system of 12" width or less? Would you need protection under this 
size of an obstruction?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 2:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Edge of a platform

I have a mezzanine platform in the middle of a warehouse with 24x to 40x Wide 
Flanges around the perimeter. The edge of this platform extents in some spot up 
to 12" from the center of these wide flange. Due to this deep framing it's not 
possible space the sprinklers to protect to the edge of the platform without 
running another line of sprinkler in this 12" space on the outer edge.

Are there any exceptions for this type of situation?

Jerry Van Kolken
Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
Oceanside, CA 92058
(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

If that’s the case, why not let him decide if he wants them or not, regardless 
of whether they would be required in a new build? A requirement has little to 
do with whether or not they provide additional value or safety/protection.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ken Haney via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:37 AM
To: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ken Haney ; tston...@comcast.net
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage

All,
We have an Owner with deep pockets. All we need to know is whether sprinklers 
and/or standpipe would be required if this was building being constructed now. 
He can then decide if an upgrade is something he wants to do.

Ken Haney
Certified Engineering Tech
Haney Fire Protection, Inc.
610.217.0347
hane...@rcn.com

From: Prahl, Craig/GVL
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:26 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ken Haney; 
tston...@comcast.net
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage

Was the system code compliant when installed and the certificate of occupancy 
issued?  If it was, it doesn’t matter if it meets current code unless there 
were building changes that according to code required areas or systems to be 
updated.

Most owners are not going to update fire protection systems unless the law 
requires them to do so.  It’s a huge expenditure with little to no return on 
investment for property owners.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Ken Haney via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:07 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ken Haney mailto:hane...@rcn.com>>; 
tston...@comcast.net
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage

Thanks Guys.
I do understand we are responsible to inspect the installed system as is. 
However, if it is not in conformance with current Code requirements, I would 
like to give the Owner the option to update it.

Ken Haney
Certified Engineering Tech
Haney Fire Protection, Inc.
610.217.0347
hane...@rcn.com

From: tstone52--- via 
Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:44 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: tston...@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Unsprinklered Parking Garage

To my knowledge that is not an inspection item per NFPA 25. You can ask the 
owner after you have performed an NFPA 25 Inspection.

Regards,
G. Tim Stone

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC
NICET Level III Engineering Technician
Fire Protection Sprinkler Design
and Consulting Services

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452
CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968
 tston...@comcast.net

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Ken Haney via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:24 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ken Haney mailto:hane...@rcn.com>>
Subject: Unsprinklered Parking Garage

Hello All,
I am a first time participant, so please bear with me. We have a new inspection 
customer in the State of NJ that has a fully sprinklered (6) story office 
building with a standpipe in the stair tower.  It sits on an underground 
parking garage that has no standpipe or sprinkler protection. Does anyone know 
if sprinklers and/or a standpipe are a Code requirement for this situation?
Thanks,

Ken Haney
Certified Engineering Tech
Haney Fire Protection, Inc.
610.217.0347
hane...@rcn.com





NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: mattress storage

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Todd: I wonder how the compressed foam mattresses behave when the box burns 
away?

FM Global Engineer: … (comes to startling realization) … Mother of God…


This had me chuckling. You’ve piqued my curiosity. Maybe we should start a ‘Go 
Fund Me’ for full scale fire testing of compressed foam mattresses.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 6:44 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign ; Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: mattress storage

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

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)




On Jun 4, 2020 at 9:33 AM, mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> wrote:
Group A (not 1)

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:32 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: RE: mattress storage

Usually exposed, expanded group 1 plastic. NFPA 13 and FM have some protection 
criteria.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:00 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
mailto:trilliumf...@cwisp.ca>>
Subject: mattress storage






I need opinions on mattress storage warehouse in furniture store. I have a 
furniture store with a 8000sqft storage area with mattresses stacked on the 
floor to a maximum height of 12 feet.

Mostly foam mattresses.

Any idea where I would start to look for the design criteria?

Any guidance would be appreciated.


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

RE: ESFR spacing

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Matt,

For what it’s worth (probably less than $0.02), I agree with you that it should 
provide an equivalent level of protection to be, say 5’-6” off of the wall as 
it would be if you were 11’-0” between sprinkler heads due to some obstruction. 
I suppose someone could make a strong argument that this isn’t true unless the 
next row of sprinkler heads is only 9’-0” away to create the average spacing of 
100 square feet.

But I agree with your premise, “how can it possibly be worse than if there was 
an obstruction present?” You’ve got to take some risks (i.e. “liability” 
oo) sometimes because there are grey areas of the code open to 
interpretation. I say the goal of a successful organization is not to eliminate 
risk, it’s to decide what is the maximum they are willing to accept, and then 
get right up to it that limit. Unless you’re a consultant playing with someone 
else’s money. 😉

So, is this a grey area of the code that your willing to step into? Because I 
would be willing to bet that no one here can make a convincing argument that 
you are creating at deficient system by doing what you are describing. Although 
I’d like to hear more opinions.

-Kyle M


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 4:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR spacing

I may have mis-stated the scenario.

The sprinklers along the wall would be 5-0 from the wall as allowed by code. 
The next line of sprinklers would be 10-9 away, with 9' spacing along the line 
as allowed by code...if the line was moved to accommodate an obstruction. What 
the code is saying is literally that this setup would be allowed (safer?) if I 
went back and added an obstruction to force the line shift.

That does not seem logical. It sounds more like a quirk of the wording that was 
adopted when the code was written or perhaps an old "that's the way it was 
always done" similar to the system size limitations.

Clearly someone thought - and is willing to stand behind - the spacing if an 
obstruction is present. Would the system become less safe or non-code compliant 
if we went back and removed the obstruction after installation?

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 6:18 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Skyler Bilbo mailto:sbi...@wenteplumbing.com>>
Subject: Re: ESFR spacing

Any argument to what should be equivalent to the standard doesn't matter if the 
standard blatantly doesn't allow it (unless you are a PE and want to sign off 
on it, and get the AHJ to do so, as well).  Feel free to try and change the 
standard.

By your logic, you could take the small room rule, which would apply in a 16 ft 
x 50 ft room and say that it will also apply in a 31 ft by 50 ft room.  But it 
doesn't apply (the room is too big), even though the situation is similar.

I think the center of what you are trying to argue is that a fire that starts 
against a wall, as opposed to the middle of the room, between two lines of 
sprinklers, will set off fewer sprinklers, closer to the fire.  If you would 
like to pay for the testing, prove it out, and forever change how we space 
sprinklers off a wall, go ahead.  In the meantime, you cannot blatantly go 
against one very specific section of the standard (sprinkler spacing off a 
wall) by loosely applying a shift allowed for an obstruction between two rows 
of sprinklers.  If you do decide to try and change the standard, please make it 
so that we can apply the small room rule everywhere as well (9 feet off every 
wall!)...



Skyler Bilbo
[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1Ot_QzTy6mc49_wnkJ-aKoPIBtkivO1gI&revid=0B1MzybbUMAWgNWRUNW03MkcyNkh4c0d4VXZMS0ZuQ2cvVzlFPQ]
1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct
217-347-7315 Fax

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com
www.wenteplumbing.com

**new** 
www.beplumb.com

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

This has been addressed in the 2016 Edition:

9.2.3.4.4.4 and 9.2.3.5.2.2 both state “unless flexible sprinkler hose fittings 
are used”.

So it doesn’t say it in 2013 Edition, but it’s clear what the intent was an the 
direction the code is going.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jeff Garrison via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 10:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jeff Garrison 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

The Bracket IS the LAST hanger, per Flex manufacturers I have talked to,
but,
NFSA gave us an opinion that a 13" arm-over to a Flex still needs a hanger
if you are over 100 psi, 'cause that's what the book says.

Jeff Garrison
248-331-6164 - cell


On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:36 PM Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Thanks everyone for the input.  My fitter brought this up to me and after I 
read the sections I was still not sure.  John’s comment makes perfect sense.

Thank you,

Dewayne Martinez
Fire Protection Design Manager

TOTAL Mechanical
Building Integrity

W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
Pewaukee, WI  53072
dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
Ph:  262-522-7110
Cell: 414-406-5208
http://www.total-mechanical.com/

[cid:image001.png@01D635AA.954E08C0]

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 10:41 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
mailto:jdenha...@firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

In my opinion, no.  The flexible drop assembly is anchored to the ceiling.  The 
point of this requirement is to keep the pendent sprinkler from moving upwards 
during activation.  The flexible drop assembly accomplishes this requirement.

Thanks,
John

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4h8r7hdtsr6154/AFSA_L.png?raw=1]
John August Denhardt, PE
Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services
American Fire Sprinkler Association
m: p:
301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w:
firesprinkler.org
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/facebook_sig.png]
  
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/twitter_sig.png] 

   
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/linkedin_sig.png]
 

   
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/instagram_sig.png]
 

Help AFSA “Sound the Alarm” about sprinklers!
AFSA’s charitable partner the American Red Cross is educating millions through 
its Home Fire Preparedness Campaign. Help us support the inclusion of fire 
sprinklers in their messaging.  Donate 
today!


On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:28 AM Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Is the hanger on the pipe supplying a flexible drop to a pendant sprinkler in a 
ceiling still required to one that prevents upward movement?
Sections 9.2.3.4.4.1,9.2.3.5.2.2

Tha

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Help Finding Code Section

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I agree with Skyler, this should be an acceptable way to protect the area. I 
also agree that the wording is poorly written for what the intent is. Also, the 
picture in the book (it’s even in the appendix of the regular version) is 
showing a condition where the larger area has no ceiling and the smaller area 
does have a ceiling; kind of the opposite of Brian’s condition, but no good 
reason to think it couldn’t still apply.

I’d like to see the “only on one side” removed from the wording, and a few more 
figures added (like a plan view of the condition shown, plus a section and plan 
view of the condition Brian is describing). I think that would clear things up, 
and I THINK that would still be in line with the original intent of the 
allowance.


Kyle Montgomery

 [cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]

Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.

21605 N. Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85024

Direct: 623.580.7820

Cell: 602.763.4736

kmontgom...@aerofire.com

From: Skyler Bilbo via 
Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 5:30 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
 bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com
Cc: Skyler Bilbo
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Help Finding Code Section

Brian,

I believe you are looking for section 8.15.23.3 (2013 edition).  The handbook 
has a nice picture, and does a much better job of explaining this.  Extend 
coverage into the space above the ceiling a distance of at least 0.6 times the 
square root of the remote area.  Note that it also says: where this happens on 
one side...


Good Luck,
Skyler Bilbo
[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1Ot_QzTy6mc49_wnkJ-aKoPIBtkivO1gI&revid=0B1MzybbUMAWgNWRUNW03MkcyNkh4c0d4VXZMS0ZuQ2cvVzlFPQ]
1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct
217-347-7315 Fax

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com
www.wenteplumbing.com

**new** 
www.beplumb.com
Like us on facebook 

 for updates


On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:22 AM Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Picture a non-combustible single story office building, drop ceilings 
throughout except for a small electrical room in one corner. I swear I saw in 
one of the newer versions of NFPA that providing protection above the ceiling 
was only required within a certain area above this “open” room and not the 
entire building. Any help finding the reference would be greatly appreciated.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

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

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13D

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I agree that it looks like the head is going to be too close to a diffuser.

As far as the CPVC pipe “supporting” the flex duct… is it really? I think there 
is a difference between “supporting” and “touching”. If I lean against the 
wall, I am not now supporting the house. It looks like the duct might stay in 
place even if you removed the sprinkler pipe. And with the pipe being supported 
by joists that close together, I could probably hang on it without damage. So, 
as long as the material is compatible as stated previously, I see no real issue 
outside of possibly a head temperature/location issue.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 9:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Parsley Consulting ; Gary Stites 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13D

Gary,

I have to disagree with your position.  Reading from the '16 edition of NFPA 
13D, §7.4.1 states that, "Listed pipe shall be supported in accordance with any 
listing limitations."  What I've read from most of the manufacturer's of CPVC 
is that the support criteria they've developed are a part of the listing.

The next section, §7.4.2, covers piping that is not listed, and listed piping 
with listing limitations that do not include support requirements are to be 
supported with methods which are per the local plumbing code.

It is only non-listed, or when the listing contains no criteria for support 
that the plumbing code comes into effect for support.

sincerely,
Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit the 
website

On 03/30/2020 6:50 AM, Gary Stites via Sprinklerforum wrote:
13D is silent on this as it says to install piping per the plumbing code. The 
plumbing code would determine if you can hang from the piping or not.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:29 AM Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Do hang the HVAC from the CPVC. Not just taking it off. Ever wonder how codes 
get thicker and thicker. One way is more pre-approved design options. The 
other. Needing to write this kind of  into code.

Simple question. Will HVAC firm post photo on their homepage as example work 
their proud of?

Best.

On Mar 28, 2020, at 20:03, Tom Wellen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
From the Lubrizol website:

Fiberglass Duct insulation with aluminum, paper, metalized polyester, 
polypropylene and polyethylene facing may come into contact with CPVC.



On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 9:09 PM Tom Noble via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
What about the potential compatibility issues with the duct touching the CPVC 
pipe? Could you hang your hat on there? Could one defer to the installation 
instructions as they take precedence?

On Mar 27, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Tom Wellen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

HVAC duct was found being supported by a CPVC pipe. The pipe is supported by 
holes through the wood joists. I thought NFPA 13D would prohibit sprinkler pipe 
from supporting other trades, but I don't seem to find it.

It's spelled out in NFPA 13, 9.1.1.8 and 13R, 6.13. Did I miss it in NFPA 13D?


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


[https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4h8r7hdtsr6154/AFSA_L.png?raw=1]
Tom Noble CET, CFPS,CWBSP
Technical Programs Specialist
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:
214-349-5965 ext125
w:
firesprinkler.org
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/facebook_sig.png]
  
[http://cdn2.hubspot.ne

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

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

We've done some of those in the Phoenix area. Everyone agreed to OH2, but there 
was certainly some debate about whether they should be something higher. We 
went back and forth all the way from OH1 (vehicle parking) to EH2 (mobile home 
manufacturing).

We settled on OH2 because we figured a parked RV probably wasn't worse than 12 
feet of miscellaneous storage (although, with a large tank full of gasoline and 
a bunch of plastic parts, you could surely debate that) and we felt that the 
full-height walls between the units (although not necessarily 2-hr rated walls) 
were probably helpful in limiting the rapid spread of fire from one unit to the 
next. But I could definitely see an argument being made for a higher hazard 
category.

And, like always with self-storage, it's hard to regulate what and how people 
store their stuff. Guys could always have racks of hair spray, pool acid, 
gasoline containers, and lithium batteries. But there's only so much you can 
account for as the sprinkler guy.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:12 PM
To: 'Steve Leyton' ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Boat and RV storage units

It's not boat racks.  Just the self storage units that can house a single boat. 
 But, I always feel better with EH2 for this type of project.  I have an FPE 
set of plans that did OH2 and used the QR reduction.  I think that is a fair 
bit light.  But, I wanted to get a gauge of what others were seeing / doing.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten."


From: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:11 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Subject: RE: Boat and RV storage units

QR reduction for boat storage?  That should be Extra Hazard, Group 7...

SL

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:08 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Subject: Boat and RV storage units

What densities is everyone doing these type of projects?  If doing as low piled 
storage, are you taking the QR reduction for these type of facilities?  Just 
curious what everyone is doing these days for these units.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Air Venting

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I watched the video, but I still don’t get it. Maybe I’m just not too bright, 
but if the branch lines and other parts of the system are higher than the 
location of that device, wouldn’t there still be a lot of trapped air in the 
system?

I almost seems like the premise is that the air is entering the system as it 
gets filled, but that’s not the case. The air is in the system before it’s 
filled and we’re just trying to get as much of it displaced with water as we 
can. It seems like this device would be much less efficient than a standard 
high-point vent or remote inspector’s test.

What am I missing?


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of James McHugh via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 9:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James McHugh 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Air Venting

The AGF Model 
7950ILV<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.purgenvent.com_products_m7950-2Dair-2Dvent.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=DEjAc8hnK3HyBteLzxax6q_lxKvmsxEsvHoJmpn_ZgI&s=Onx-LhXgFPVel6_FOw2wnciuyBtucafndk4Bj5-2PRE&e=>
 works like a typical expansion chamber with the inlet and the outlet line size 
and the center is a larger diameter forming a trap chamber. After initial 
purging of the air subsequent air that migrates up through the system gets 
caught and vented out through the larger diameter center chamber

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 12:02 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>;
 b...@firebyknight.com<mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; Ben Young 
mailto:derblitzkrie...@gmail.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Air Venting

How in the world would that work? I mean, the air is in the pipe when it’s 
installed, it doesn’t enter at a later date.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ben Young via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 2:04 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com<mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Ben Young mailto:derblitzkrie...@gmail.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Air Venting

The idea is to get out a majority of the trapped air but not every bit. So in 
your case you don't need to tie in every sprig and have multiple air vents, you 
could put it off one of the back sprigs but a remote branch line works too.

The other option is to use AGFs in line vent that you can put near the 
beginning of a system and it supposedly gets the air out before it has a chance 
to form pockets downstream. Haven't used one yet but they seem cool

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 1:33 PM Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
In this case, the branch lines are all located beneath the trusses.  The 
trusses are shallow open web wood two feet on-center.  The elevation is 11’8” 
everywhere, so the sprigs are actually the highest points.  That said, it 
sounds like the air vent just needs to be at the furthest point that it can be.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
 On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 10:52 AM
To: b...@firebyknight.com<mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Steve Leyton
Subject: RE: Air Venting

I’d put it on a branch along the highest part of the building to which piping 
is attached, assuming that the piping more or less follows the roof contour.

SL

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
 On Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 9:21 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Bob Knight
Subject: RE: Air Venting

Thanks Steve.  I get the high point part.   This system is all one elevation, 
but sprigs are being used.  Do I put the air vent on one of the sprigs, and is 
the most remote branch line the appropriate location?


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
 On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 10:17 AM
To: b...@firebyknight.com<mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>; 

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Air Venting

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

How in the world would that work? I mean, the air is in the pipe when it’s 
installed, it doesn’t enter at a later date.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ben Young via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 2:04 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ben Young 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Air Venting

The idea is to get out a majority of the trapped air but not every bit. So in 
your case you don't need to tie in every sprig and have multiple air vents, you 
could put it off one of the back sprigs but a remote branch line works too.

The other option is to use AGFs in line vent that you can put near the 
beginning of a system and it supposedly gets the air out before it has a chance 
to form pockets downstream. Haven't used one yet but they seem cool

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 1:33 PM Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
In this case, the branch lines are all located beneath the trusses.  The 
trusses are shallow open web wood two feet on-center.  The elevation is 11’8” 
everywhere, so the sprigs are actually the highest points.  That said, it 
sounds like the air vent just needs to be at the furthest point that it can be.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
 On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 10:52 AM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton
Subject: RE: Air Venting

I’d put it on a branch along the highest part of the building to which piping 
is attached, assuming that the piping more or less follows the roof contour.

SL

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
 On Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 9:21 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight
Subject: RE: Air Venting

Thanks Steve.  I get the high point part.   This system is all one elevation, 
but sprigs are being used.  Do I put the air vent on one of the sprigs, and is 
the most remote branch line the appropriate location?


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
 On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 10:17 AM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton
Subject: RE: Air Venting

Usually - and I mean to say, almost always – that’s going to be the high point 
of the system.  Trapped are generally migrates to the high point eventually.  
There are exceptions and some piping configuration can trap air in pockets that 
aren’t at the highest point of the system, but that’s usually where it is.


[cid:image001.jpg@01D5F5F1.5DB25770]




From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
 On Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 9:11 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight
Subject: Air Venting

Not being an air venting expert, when NFPA 13 (2016 ed.) says “The air venting 
valve should be located where it will be
most effective. System piping layout will guide the designer in choosing an 
effective location for venting. In order to
effectively accomplish venting, it is necessary to choose a location where the 
greatest volume of trapped air is vented
during the first fill and each subsequent drain and fill event (A.8.16.6).”

No other guidance is provided, so would this be at the most remote branch line, 
or at the end of a dead end main, or somewhere else?
Is there a “best practice” that is being used?

Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057
[FBK-LOGO-EMAIL]

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

Benjamin Young
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 83, Issue 6

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

You can't use that head on a pre-action system, can you?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Anthony C via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 7:34 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Anthony C ; 'Nicky Marshall' 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 83, Issue 6

Nicky
Why not use the Viking K28 ESFR?

It is approved for 50' storage in a 55' building per FM..

Anthony Carrizosa
Project Manager | Fire Protection
7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032
Cell: 206-679-5283 | Office: 253-872-7222 


https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archerconstruction.com&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=5sSELkAzI2wUL55kAXK5-wlsckKui82fjmlyuQB2824&s=kI1gEVjczG6OMJlQ6fVg9QC3y6DhZsqnTBYfip3iD8c&e=
 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of sprinklerforum-requ...@lists.firesprinkler.org
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 6:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 83, Issue 6

Send Sprinklerforum mailing list submissions to
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=5sSELkAzI2wUL55kAXK5-wlsckKui82fjmlyuQB2824&s=bKOW452huI3fdk38dxaRink481SNOlg5Xg2rjt6z6vQ&e=
 

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sprinklerforum-requ...@lists.firesprinkler.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
sprinklerforum-ow...@lists.firesprinkler.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Sprinklerforum digest..."
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Yeah, for the first part of my question about 8.15.20, I agree.

But I realize that the easy answer there is that the tee probably makes little 
difference, so why not just include it in the calc. So I figured I would spice 
it up since we actually do run into this type of scenario from time to time.

So it’s really two questions that can be considered independently:


1.   Does NFPA 13 require minimum 1” outlets in shell spaces?

2.   If I have a sprinkler installed in a bushed outlet, do I need to 
include the equivalent length for that tee in my calculations.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

K-17. That’s a little different than I expect. I always thought more like parts 
of a strip mall building that might end up OH-2.

Best.

On Feb 5, 2020, at 07:58, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
That’s the crux of my question. A literal interpretation could say that the 
sprinkler is no longer connected directly to the tee, so you have to include 
the equivalent length for the tee in the calculations. But is that really the 
intent in this scenario? Is the bushing really creating an impact to the 
hydraulics? It seems strange to me that the type of fitting the sprinkler is 
connected to (welded outlet, threaded tee, threaded elbow) is of no concern to 
the hydraulics, unless the fitting has a bushed outlet. Does a threaded tee 
with a bushing really create more friction loss than, say a saddle tee 
(mechanical tee)?

In a lot of cases it doesn’t make much of a difference, but every once in a 
while you run into a scenario where you’re upgrading an area that had 1” 
outlets to something that needs a large orifice sprinkler (like a K17) and if 
you have to add the friction loss for a 1” tee into your calc it really does 
have an impact.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:41 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: J H mailto:design.azfire...@gmail.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

That doesn't sound legit - I would keep the tee in the calculations. A bushing 
isn't really recognized as a fitting per table 23.4.3.1.1 - more like a 
transient fitting.

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:22 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Esteemed members of the fire sprinkler community,

NFPA 13 (2016 Edition) section 8.15.20 is basically telling us to provide 
bushed 1” outlets for sprinklers in shell spaces, right?

Section 23.4.4.8.1(9) tells us that friction loss can be excluded for the 
fitting directly connected to a sprinkler.

In your opinion(s), is it the intent of the standard that you have to add the 
friction loss for a tee into your hydraulic calculation if using bushings, 
since the sprinkler is no longer directly connected to the tee? Or is it 
acceptable to consider a tee with a bushing as one fitting for the purpose of 
hydraulic calculations.

Kyle Montgomery
 
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com<mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=22e6bKepvo8qto61arVvXlovak9BImEt5_bPcRG4570&s=BAPqmF3QDplLIxU5oBLuKNOXMAQVNSmlBkkIViUNLE4&e=>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Rfe4asVC_Jl9ceoCmbDt72YCAXs0aciKxwSTt4mAnpI&s=xmP0Kxd3GYb4fv_f6VlyMvmfO1D5k2Uls5AtS47K144&e=>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

That’s the crux of my question. A literal interpretation could say that the 
sprinkler is no longer connected directly to the tee, so you have to include 
the equivalent length for the tee in the calculations. But is that really the 
intent in this scenario? Is the bushing really creating an impact to the 
hydraulics? It seems strange to me that the type of fitting the sprinkler is 
connected to (welded outlet, threaded tee, threaded elbow) is of no concern to 
the hydraulics, unless the fitting has a bushed outlet. Does a threaded tee 
with a bushing really create more friction loss than, say a saddle tee 
(mechanical tee)?

In a lot of cases it doesn’t make much of a difference, but every once in a 
while you run into a scenario where you’re upgrading an area that had 1” 
outlets to something that needs a large orifice sprinkler (like a K17) and if 
you have to add the friction loss for a 1” tee into your calc it really does 
have an impact.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

That doesn't sound legit - I would keep the tee in the calculations. A bushing 
isn't really recognized as a fitting per table 23.4.3.1.1 - more like a 
transient fitting.

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:22 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Esteemed members of the fire sprinkler community,

NFPA 13 (2016 Edition) section 8.15.20 is basically telling us to provide 
bushed 1” outlets for sprinklers in shell spaces, right?

Section 23.4.4.8.1(9) tells us that friction loss can be excluded for the 
fitting directly connected to a sprinkler.

In your opinion(s), is it the intent of the standard that you have to add the 
friction loss for a tee into your hydraulic calculation if using bushings, 
since the sprinkler is no longer directly connected to the tee? Or is it 
acceptable to consider a tee with a bushing as one fitting for the purpose of 
hydraulic calculations.

Kyle Montgomery
 [cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com<mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=22e6bKepvo8qto61arVvXlovak9BImEt5_bPcRG4570&s=BAPqmF3QDplLIxU5oBLuKNOXMAQVNSmlBkkIViUNLE4&e=>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I’m well aware of the dichotomy between building owner shell requirements and 
tenant requirements, and that in most cases the owner just wants the least 
expensive shell and for the tenant to pick up the T.I. costs. That’s partially 
why I’m asking the question if the intent of that code section is to require a 
minimum 1” outlet size in shell spaces. I guess it all hinges on how you 
interpret “expected to supply sprinklers below a ceiling”, but I think that a 
shell space could reasonably be considered to fall into that description.

My question about the bushing/tee in the calculation can be considered on its 
own, but it kind of goes along with this requirement so I figured I would ask 
them together.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 4:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

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

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

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

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO


On Feb 4, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

Esteemed members of the fire sprinkler community,

NFPA 13 (2016 Edition) section 8.15.20 is basically telling us to provide 
bushed 1” outlets for sprinklers in shell spaces, right?

Section 23.4.4.8.1(9) tells us that friction loss can be excluded for the 
fitting directly connected to a sprinkler.

In your opinion(s), is it the intent of the standard that you have to add the 
friction loss for a tee into your hydraulic calculation if using bushings, 
since the sprinkler is no longer directly connected to the tee? Or is it 
acceptable to consider a tee with a bushing as one fitting for the purpose of 
hydraulic calculations.

Kyle Montgomery
 
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com<mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=xONAci0UC7sPTASVpdOk7mh350ELRPoYKgI2eKmRMr4&s=Qr69bFNTqNZekzRajGBaJMz67TLQ7IczfX4FgFDqWoo&e=>

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

Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Esteemed members of the fire sprinkler community,

NFPA 13 (2016 Edition) section 8.15.20 is basically telling us to provide 
bushed 1" outlets for sprinklers in shell spaces, right?

Section 23.4.4.8.1(9) tells us that friction loss can be excluded for the 
fitting directly connected to a sprinkler.

In your opinion(s), is it the intent of the standard that you have to add the 
friction loss for a tee into your hydraulic calculation if using bushings, 
since the sprinkler is no longer directly connected to the tee? Or is it 
acceptable to consider a tee with a bushing as one fitting for the purpose of 
hydraulic calculations.

Kyle Montgomery
 [cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misc. Storage

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

y. It doesn't seem to be about right and wrong anymore. It's how many 
people can they get to share the blame. So designing a system that is 2000 sq. 
ft. over what NFPA states is the maximum, would mean you just took 
responsibility for the entire thing.

Mike Hill

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 1:50 PM
To: Parsley Consulting 
mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; Brian Harris 
mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misc. Storage

I understand that perspective. I often have a similar conversation with the PE 
who reviews our plans.

I'm curious to those of you who have been in a lawsuit situation or just those 
that understand the legal system better than I do: Is the mere fact that 
something was not "to code" enough to find fault, or does there need to be some 
kind of proof or reasonable suspicion that the omission actually in some way 
contributed to the damage?

For example, if someone designed a storage facility as a light hazard 
occupancy, and it burned down, it would be pretty easy to point at that and say 
the sprinkler system was inadequate and likely contributed to the damage.

Conversely, if you were to properly design a storage facility, but have a zone 
that exceeds the allowable area by 2,000 sq. ft., it would seemingly be very 
difficult to prove that the extra area contributed to the damage. In all 
likelihood, you'd be looking at a sprinkler system that did its job and 
minimized property loss and kept people safe.

My argument is that the goal should not necessarily be minimizing/eliminating 
all risk, but establishing an acceptable amount of risk and not exceeding it. 
But that's easy for me to say since I'm not the one with the extra initials who 
stamps his name on the plans.

This is the part where I need to add the disclaimer that this is just my 
opinion and not that of my employer.

-Kyle M

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misc. Storage

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I understand that perspective. I often have a similar conversation with the PE 
who reviews our plans.

I'm curious to those of you who have been in a lawsuit situation or just those 
that understand the legal system better than I do: Is the mere fact that 
something was not "to code" enough to find fault, or does there need to be some 
kind of proof or reasonable suspicion that the omission actually in some way 
contributed to the damage?

For example, if someone designed a storage facility as a light hazard 
occupancy, and it burned down, it would be pretty easy to point at that and say 
the sprinkler system was inadequate and likely contributed to the damage.

Conversely, if you were to properly design a storage facility, but have a zone 
that exceeds the allowable area by 2,000 sq. ft., it would seemingly be very 
difficult to prove that the extra area contributed to the damage. In all 
likelihood, you'd be looking at a sprinkler system that did its job and 
minimized property loss and kept people safe.

My argument is that the goal should not necessarily be minimizing/eliminating 
all risk, but establishing an acceptable amount of risk and not exceeding it. 
But that's easy for me to say since I'm not the one with the extra initials who 
stamps his name on the plans.

This is the part where I need to add the disclaimer that this is just my 
opinion and not that of my employer.

-Kyle M


From: Parsley Consulting [mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Brian Harris 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misc. Storage

No desire for confrontation here either, Kyle.

However, if that AHJ is willing to extend that "reasonable" perspective and 
allow me to protect > 40,000 ft² of storage with a single system, and ignore 
the limitation imposed by NFPA 13, then I'll likely ask him if he's willing to 
sign a document defending me in court should it ever come to that.

I've not had the experience in court that some of the others on this forum 
have, however I can relate that in one instance I pointed to NFPA 13 and said, 
"It's right here, your honor, I didn't make it up," and was dismissed from the 
case AND awarded attorney's fees.

I don't have any issue with create a 2,000 ft² or more area of some other 
occupancy.

sincerely,
Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit the 
website<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.parsleyconsulting.com_&d=DwMD-g&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=Ny9euLltibCgctyfRXVZGuicLBdjOVrigQ2i3WLuKGg&s=CLCVR8_SFo0LibV2pOZMu0Zbv_OaKcqDvUuxtkt0XeM&e=>
On 01/29/2020 9:30 AM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum wrote:
Don't mean to hi-jack, but does anyone here think that breaking a 42,000 sq. 
ft. building up into two separate systems actually improves the level of 
protection? If your AHJ is reasonable, they might let you save that extra riser 
and feed main and just use one system. Or, if there is a small office in the 
corner or some area that will be designated for manufacturing or something 
other than storage, you could look at applying 8.2.3.

In a building this small, adding that extra zone will end up being a 
not-so-insignificant cost increase.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:31 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Brian Harris <mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Misc. Storage

Ken-
Thank you sir, haven't talked to you in a while. Much appreciate your insight 
and clarity as always.
If EH kicks in looks like (2) Risers

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssytemsinc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bvssystemsinc.com_&d=DwMFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=_i-3gtRgUe3C3_NF6JEVrRsp03qeNc1whW5ctjjD9go&s=Eehr8EULwOEFVj7mx_BUUA9FU4i6_xpQB4y6xdkenyc&e=>

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:16 AM
To: Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Parsley Consulting 
mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: Misc. Storage

Brian,

I'll be happy to share my perspective for you.

  *   Review the definition of miscellaneous storage in the paragraph you 
quoted.  It sounds to me as though you've described a building where the 
storage of 42,000 ft² is not "incidental" to other use of the building, is

RE: Misc. Storage

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Don't mean to hi-jack, but does anyone here think that breaking a 42,000 sq. 
ft. building up into two separate systems actually improves the level of 
protection? If your AHJ is reasonable, they might let you save that extra riser 
and feed main and just use one system. Or, if there is a small office in the 
corner or some area that will be designated for manufacturing or something 
other than storage, you could look at applying 8.2.3.

In a building this small, adding that extra zone will end up being a 
not-so-insignificant cost increase.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Misc. Storage

Ken-
Thank you sir, haven't talked to you in a while. Much appreciate your insight 
and clarity as always.
If EH kicks in looks like (2) Risers

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssytemsinc.com

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:16 AM
To: Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Parsley Consulting 
mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net>>
Subject: Re: Misc. Storage

Brian,

I'll be happy to share my perspective for you.

  *   Review the definition of miscellaneous storage in the paragraph you 
quoted.  It sounds to me as though you've described a building where the 
storage of 42,000 ft² is not "incidental" to other use of the building, is not 
less than 4,000 ft² in area, and is not less than 10% of the building area.  It 
meets only one of the criteria as miscellaneous storage - that it doesn't 
exceed 12' in height.

  *   So, we're looking at rack storage of class I-IV commodities, to 12'-0" 
high.  In §16.2.1.2.1 the protection for those commodities, stored up to and 
including 12'-0" "shall be the same as miscellaneous storage from Chapter 13."  
That does not mean that it IS miscellaneous storage, simply that it is to be 
protected per the criteria in chapter 13.  This is confirmed in §13.2.1(5) 
which says Table 13.2.1 and Figure 13.2.1 shall apply to "storage of class I 
through IV commodities up to 12' in height as directed by 14.2.3.1 and 
16.2.1.2.1.

  *   Sorry to disagree with your client, however in my read of table 13.2.1, I 
see that Class IV commodities stored in "rack storage" below 10' can be 
protected by an OH2 density.  Once the storage exceeds 10', but remains less 
than 12', the density jumps to EH1, the ceiling height is limited to 32'.

  *   I suggest you take a good long look at 5.6.1.2, in its entirety for 
protection of mixed commodities.

Also, how are you intending to exceed the limit for a system protection storage 
of 40,000 ft² in 8.2.1, or EH?

hope that gives you some help,
Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit the 
website
On 01/29/2020 7:44 AM, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum wrote:
Just want to confirm per the definition of Misc. Storage (3.9.1.18 NFPA 2013) 
that just because something is stored less than 12' high doesn't automatically 
make it misc. storage. Working on a project that is 42,000 sq.ft. and the owner 
is storing Class I-IV commodities on double row racks. Says he was told as long 
as he doesn't exceed 12' high he only needs OH-2 protection at the ceiling...

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935



___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

___
Sprinkl

RE: [EXTERNAL] 13D Residential Sprinkler use in open Bar joists?

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Viking makes an upright residential head, I think that could work for you.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 1:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 13D Residential Sprinkler use in open Bar joists?

Does anyone know of a residential fire sprinkler that can be used in steel bar 
joists in a 13D install or will we have to go w/ quick response? This is a 
garage in a single family home and there will be no ceiling.

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

RE: Storage Tank High Level Sensor

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I don’t believe the high-water sensor is required, but I am far from a tank 
expert.

I am curious; if 12” is too small of a range (less than 0.5 psi) for the fill 
valve to operate in, what range can it reliably operate in? It’s just using 
pressure for the on/off, right?

They have some fill valve arrangements that actually use level sensors to 
open/close the valve, rather than relying on pressure. Might not be a good 
option for you, but would probably be a way to make it work without disabling 
the high-level alarm if you were set on keeping it in place.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 4:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Storage Tank High Level Sensor

I am dealing with an above ground, non-pressurized,  water storage tank (full 
storage, not a break tank) that has a large visible float gauge on the outside, 
an electronic low water sensor, and an electronic high water sensor.

The high and low water sensors are placed so near each other on the wall of the 
tank that the altitude valve cannot reliably stop in between them (they are 
separated by 12” on a 28’ water column). If the automatic fill valve is set so 
that it always fills higher than the low water sensor – it frequently 
over-fills and trips the high water sensor. If the fill valve is calibrated so 
that it does not trip the high-water sensor, it frequently stops too soon and 
does not fill enough to turn off the low water sensor. The valve manufacturer 
has confirmed that this is the design accuracy of the valve – nothing to be 
‘fixed’ with it.

Also, the tank has an overfill discharge/dump pipe that is much larger than the 
fill line (2” fill, 4” overflow) so if the refill valve were to jam open, it 
would dump the water onto a parking lot (not great, but visible, and not 
damaging to the tank).

QUESTION: Is it necessary to have the high-water sensor?

My first thought for a solution is to disable the high-water sensor and 
calibrate the altitude valve so it always fills enough to satisfy the low-water 
sensor, but not enough to overflow. That is a wide enough spread that it can 
hit it reliably.

I can’t find anything in the code that says the high-water sensor is required 
at all, but I wanted to run the idea by the forum. What do you think?

Thanks!!

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Are you familiar with the term ‘C.O.J.’?

Heheheh…

Just in case you aren’t, it’s not dirty or anything. It means “cut on job”.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 7:42 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

I’ve never drawn up a fab order. I always assumed you’d need this information. 
Do I get it wrong.

Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Jan 13, 2020, at 06:15, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
I’m curious why there is any confusion over this?

Example: If you have sprinklers on sprigs and don’t provide any elevation 
information, the shop drawing reviewer or permit reviewer will have to 
calculate the fitting takeouts and sprig lengths to be sure your sprinkler is 
within the allowable dimensions from the deck.  Without piping elevations how 
will the crew know where the pipe is supposed to be routed so that it doesn’t 
run into every other system that’s in the same space?

When reviewing calculations, having elevations shown on the drawing that 
correlate to the calcs helps verify that the design depicted on drawings and in 
the calcs actually match.

Dimensions are great too as well as building column lines for reference.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 6:10 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)


Bob,
The committee wants to see relative elevation changes.  This helps with lengths 
of pipe and calcs too.
We use the word relative because it doesn't need to be Above Sea Level.
(But I think you already know this!!)

Cecil




It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, 
and 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 the NFPA, nor any 
of their technical committees.

Sincerely,


Cecil Bilbo
Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
Champaign, IL
217.607.0325
www.sprinkleracademy.com
ce...@sprinkleracademy.com
??
OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 3:41:36 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Bob Knight mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>>
Subject: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)


From NFPA 13 (2013 ED), 23.1.3 (37)  Relative  elevations  of  sprinklers,  
junction  points,  and supply or reference points.

This is probably an obvious question, but not to me.  What is this asking for?





Thank you,



Bob Knight, CET III

Fire by Knight, LLC

208-318-3057







NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Spr

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Looking for a 6" hanger for sloped roof

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I think the Tolco/Cooper B-Line Fig. 75 is similar, if you want another option.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of James Litvak via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 7:55 AM
To: vi...@wtfp.net
Cc: James Litvak ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Looking for a 6" hanger for sloped roof

I would still need a swivel with those. But someone just emailed me about the 
Afcon AF777 which is a 3/8" and 1/2" swivel attachment with both sizes listed.

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:35 AM Vince Sabolik 
mailto:vi...@wtfp.net>> wrote:
Top beam clamps, narrow or wide throat.
On 1/2/2020 8:36 AM, James Litvak via Sprinklerforum wrote:
I'm trying to hang 6" pipe flat beneath a roof with a 4:12 slope, but having 
trouble finding an attachment. It's a standard Butler-style building with 
Z-purlins, and I'm hanging the pipe flat, both perpendicular and parallel to 
the slope. The Sammy hangers with swivels are not listed, and the slope is way 
too steep to "adjust" the rod. About the only thing I have been able to find is 
welded linked eye rods from Tolco 
(http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/dam/public/bline/Resources/Library/catalogs/pipe_hangers/pipe_hangers_and_supports/TA-EyeRod.pdf).
 However, even though the Z-purlins are heavy gauge, it seems like a bad idea 
to hang from the bottom lip. In which case, even if I went with the linked eye 
rods, hanging from the side of the purlin seems like it would create its own 
difficulty. Does anyone here have a suggestion for how to hang in this 
situation? I also need to trapeze the pipe across the slope, but I figure 
whatever solution I can use to hang the pipe across the slope will also work 
for trapeze hangers.


___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

--
[cid:image001.png@01D5C142.4D246210]

Vince Sabolik
West Tech Fire Protection, Inc.
11351 Pearl Road   /   Strongsville, Ohio   44136
Phone 440 238-4800Fax  440 238-4876   Cell 440 724-7601
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Panel Construction

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

I agree that if the spaces are less than 300 sq. ft. and there are no unfilled 
penetrations, that you can treat it as panel construction. Even if it’s the 
walls of the room that help create the less than 300 sq. ft. area. Although Mr. 
Layton’s example of the TJIs makes me at least question that a little bit.

What I don’t understand though, is WHY you can have those openings in beam and 
girder construction and still have the greater deflector distances, but not 
with panel construction. You can have a building where the girders are spaced 
60 ft apart and the beams are spaced 7.5 ft apart (450 sq. ft. bays), and it’s 
OK to have your deflectors greater than 12” from the deck because it’s “Beam 
and Girder Construction”. Same building, but with girders at 30 ft and beams at 
8 ft (240 sq. ft. bays), and now you end up putting heads in every beam pocket, 
because the beams are too far apart to be classified as “Beam and Girder”, and 
the unfilled openings mean it can’t be classified as . I can’t figure out why 
NFPA 13 allows the openings in one scenario but not the other.

I would be surprised if some fire modeling didn’t show very similar sprinkler 
activation times (assuming same deflector distances) in both scenarios. Maybe 
even faster in the 30 x 8 bays due to the smaller overall area of the bay. Has 
anyone actually done that modeling scenario?

Kyle Montgomery
 [cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com



From: Anthony C [mailto:anth...@archerconstruction.com]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:52 AM
To: 'Steve Leyton' ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Kyle.Montgomery 

Cc: 'Kerschner, Philip' ; jvankol...@mfpc.us; 'Travis 
Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G' 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Panel Construction

Here is what NFPA 13 -2019 edition states:
3.3.41.2* Unobstructed Construction.   Construction where
beams, trusses, or other members do not impede heat flow
or water distribution in a manner that materially affects the
ability of sprinklers to control or suppress a fire. Unobstruc‐
ted construction has horizontal structural members that are
not solid, where the openings are at least 70 percent of the
cross-section area and the depth of the member does not
exceed the least dimension of the openings, or all construc‐
tion types, with the exception of panel construction, where
the spacing of structural members exceeds 71∕2 ft (2.3 m) on
center

Anthony Carrizosa
Project Manager | Fire Protection
7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032
Cell: 206-679-5283 | Office: 253-872-7222

[cid:image001.jpg@01D5B73B.5E9FEBB0]
https://archerconstruction.com

From: Anthony C 
mailto:anth...@archerconstruction.com>>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:39 AM
To: 'Steve Leyton' 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>; 
'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>;
 'Kyle.Montgomery' mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Cc: 'Kerschner, Philip' 
mailto:pkersch...@ballinger.com>>; 
'jvankol...@mfpc.us' mailto:jvankol...@mfpc.us>>; 'Travis 
Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G' mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Panel Construction

Did you all notice what the appendix to 3.7.1 Definition of Panel construction.
A.3.7.1 Obstructed Construction. The following examples of obstructed 
construction are provided to assist the user in determining the type of 
construction feature:
(4) Panel Construction. The term panel construction as used in this standard 
includes ceiling panels formed by members capable of trapping heat to aid the 
operation of sprinklers and limited to a maximum of 300 ft2 (28 m2)in area.
There should be no unfilled penetrations in the cross-sectional area of the 
bounding structural members including the interface at the roof.
Beams spaced more than 71⁄2 ft (2.3 m) apart and framed into girders qualify as 
panel construction, provided the 300 ft2 (28 m2) area limitation is met.

That last sentence sounds a lot like what Jerry has described.

Although ; A.3.7.2 Unobstructed Construction. The following examples
of unobstructed construction are provided to assist the user in
determining the type of construction feature:
(3) Smooth Ceiling Construction. The term smooth ceiling construction as used 
in this standard includes the following:
(b) Continuous smooth bays formed by wood, concrete, or steel beams spaced more 
than 71⁄2 ft (2.3 m) on
centers — beams supported by columns, girders, or trusses.

Also sounds like this definition? So which is it?

Anthony Carrizosa
Project Manager | Fire Protection
7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032
Cell: 206-679-5283 | 

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Panel Construction

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Or, if they use spray-on fireproofing, that usually fills up the gaps.

But the OP's theory should be sound for calling it obstructed construction.

More to Travis's point, every time this comes up I wonder about that 
requirement for Panel Construction. Beam and Girder Construction doesn't 
require the spaces to be filled. For Bar Joist Construction with Fireproofing, 
it can be up to 70% open and still be considered obstructed. So why do the 
unfilled flutes matter so much for panel construction?

Kyle Montgomery
 [cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 
jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Panel Construction

If you have typical metal deck, then you have to fill the "flutes" with mineral 
wool or something similar.  Panel construction requires heat doesn't pass over 
the top of the members.  Typical metal deck will allow that to happen if the 
spaces aren't filled with a noncombustible material.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten."


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:12 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: Panel Construction

I just want to make sure I'm applying this section correctly.

I have a room with exposed deck ceiling, the framing is wide flange beams about 
11'-0" on center. The walls of the room will section the beam pockets into 
areas less than 300sqft. I can still consider this obstructed construction.

Jerry Van Kolken
Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
Oceanside, CA 92058
(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hydraulic Calc Phenomena?

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

That’s a good plan.

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com]
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 9:03 AM
To: Kyle.Montgomery ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: 'Brian Harris' ; 'Travis Mack' 

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hydraulic Calc Phenomena?

Yes Kyle, it was weird but it happened.  I don’t recall the exact situation, it 
was several years ago.  The memory is fading but I think it was a school with a 
gym, mechanical room, and secondary gym and the design area falling partially 
in the mechanical room and partially in one of the gyms.  I recall that it 
happened more than I recall the exact situation.

Let’s go drink a beer regardless.

Nick Maneen, SET
c 704.791.7789

From: Kyle.Montgomery [mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 10:54 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Nick Maneen; 'Brian Harris'; 'Travis Mack'
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hydraulic Calc Phenomena?

Changing pipe type to schedule 40 to improve hydraulics?

Over-discharging is a result of imbalance in the system, not pipe sizes that 
are too big. The only way you improve the hydraulics by “choking down” a system 
is if you strategically do it so that you don’t need more pressure to make the 
most demanding head work, but you increase friction loss to the other heads 
that are over-discharging to improve the balance. So you could downsize 
individual armovers or drops to the heads that are overdischarging, but then it 
can become a little tricky to know which sprinkler is actually the most 
demanding and you might have to play with the remote area.

But if you can show me a gridded system where changing the grid lines from 
Schedule 10 to Schedule 40 improves the hydraulics, I’ll owe you a beer or 
something. Gridded systems tend to be very well balanced unless you’ve got 
heads covering vastly different sized areas or something.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Nick Maneen via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 6:42 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Nick Maneen mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com>>; 'Brian 
Harris' mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>; 'Travis 
Mack' mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hydraulic Calc Phenomena?

I like Travis’ answer but I have a guess too.

Could have been over-discharging to begin with.  Yes, the elbows created 
friction loss but if the initial calculation was inefficient and you were 
flowing too much water adding the elbows does not hurt that much.  Ideally you 
were flowing less than 350 gpm originally.  If you were flowing a lot more than 
that, restricting flow means you increase the pressure required while reducing 
the volume demand.  You moved the water demand on the curve.  Does that make 
sense?  I have had calculations that I had to use sch 40 as opposed to sch 10 
to reduce over-discharge.

Your scenario does not sound that odd.


Nick Maneen, SET
c 704.791.7789

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 8:36 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack; Brian Harris
Subject: Re: Hydraulic Calc Phenomena?

Minimal flow in grid lines. Loss per foot is relatively low. Basic Hazen 
Williams stuff.

Hopefully that makes sense.
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271 x700
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 6, 2019, at 6:23 AM, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

Picture a grid with 4” front main, 2-1/2” back main. (7) 1-1/2” branchlines. 
Static=59, Residual=53, Flow = 1000. OH2, Calc’s run at +16.281 (28.6%)
Now imagine adding (12) 1-1/2” elbows to each line (84 elbows total) to break 
around duct. Calc’s run at +13.066 (23.0%).
I would never imagine adding that many elbows the calc’s would still work. Am I 
crazy?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hydraulic Calc Phenomena?

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Changing pipe type to schedule 40 to improve hydraulics?

Over-discharging is a result of imbalance in the system, not pipe sizes that 
are too big. The only way you improve the hydraulics by “choking down” a system 
is if you strategically do it so that you don’t need more pressure to make the 
most demanding head work, but you increase friction loss to the other heads 
that are over-discharging to improve the balance. So you could downsize 
individual armovers or drops to the heads that are overdischarging, but then it 
can become a little tricky to know which sprinkler is actually the most 
demanding and you might have to play with the remote area.

But if you can show me a gridded system where changing the grid lines from 
Schedule 10 to Schedule 40 improves the hydraulics, I’ll owe you a beer or 
something. Gridded systems tend to be very well balanced unless you’ve got 
heads covering vastly different sized areas or something.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Nick Maneen via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 6:42 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Nick Maneen ; 'Brian Harris' 
; 'Travis Mack' 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hydraulic Calc Phenomena?

I like Travis’ answer but I have a guess too.

Could have been over-discharging to begin with.  Yes, the elbows created 
friction loss but if the initial calculation was inefficient and you were 
flowing too much water adding the elbows does not hurt that much.  Ideally you 
were flowing less than 350 gpm originally.  If you were flowing a lot more than 
that, restricting flow means you increase the pressure required while reducing 
the volume demand.  You moved the water demand on the curve.  Does that make 
sense?  I have had calculations that I had to use sch 40 as opposed to sch 10 
to reduce over-discharge.

Your scenario does not sound that odd.


Nick Maneen, SET
c 704.791.7789

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 8:36 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack; Brian Harris
Subject: Re: Hydraulic Calc Phenomena?

Minimal flow in grid lines. Loss per foot is relatively low. Basic Hazen 
Williams stuff.

Hopefully that makes sense.
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271 x700
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 6, 2019, at 6:23 AM, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

Picture a grid with 4” front main, 2-1/2” back main. (7) 1-1/2” branchlines. 
Static=59, Residual=53, Flow = 1000. OH2, Calc’s run at +16.281 (28.6%)
Now imagine adding (12) 1-1/2” elbows to each line (84 elbows total) to break 
around duct. Calc’s run at +13.066 (23.0%).
I would never imagine adding that many elbows the calc’s would still work. Am I 
crazy?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

cannot distribute to contractors and even though it 
makes no sense whatsoever, sometimes that can include even floor plans and 
steel plan models or CAD files.   PDFs are OK, but nothing electronic.

I’ve also heard the statement made “why should we give the contractor something 
for free that he will use to make money off of.”

Or

“Just send them PDFs and let them figure it out.”

You have S many in the engineering/architectural realm that have never set 
foot on a construction site or talked to a contractor or have any clue how 
their grand, majestic designs become steel and concrete real life buildings.  
Now even worse is the black-magic associated with the fire sprinkler  trade.

The fire sprinkler trade is probably the only one that has to do its own design 
and layouts.  Plumbers, HVAC, Electricians don’t have to create their own 
drawings from scratch for installation or to get their permits.

There is much education needed in the world of architects and engineers on how 
their grand ideas become reality and what it takes to get there.  I’m just not 
sure how to go about making that happen.  Too many just don’t care.

Since I’ve been a sprinkler contractor, I’ve been criticized for information 
I’ve provided on drawings which some deemed excessive or unwarranted.  Now, 
those making the comments are not nor ever have had any experience in the fire 
protection discipline.  I’m providing info I know I’d be looking for as a 
sprinkler tech doing the system layout.  Of course that might not make sense to 
the Civil engineer.

Personally, I don’t believe a single Architect or PE license should be issued 
until that applicant has spent at least a year working for a contractor in the 
field (not in the office sorting paper clips) so they grasp an understanding of 
what their role is in the industry.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | 
www.jacobs.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobs.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=i-9e61heIZz94tEwJ5KyalBxOjClmU4dKUZn8QOWQnY&s=VZkEuwQJf3cCcQhKmLVf3f0trjHf0UWe7BsJcjQUJKs&e=>
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:51 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; 
damshan...@gmail.com<mailto:damshan...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files


For the longest time we've been requesting that architects export individual 
sheets (floor plans, reflected ceiling, etc.) to 2D AutoCAD files so that we 
can use them as our backgrounds, and many times they state that it's too much 
work and will only provide the full Revit model (which of course takes about 10 
times longer for us to get and export our own files than it would be for the 
architect to do it). Now, you want the full Revit file and they won't give it 
to you. Sounds like they need to add a section to NFPA 13, chapter 3: Irony.



-Kyle M







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of damshannon--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:27 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: damshan...@gmail.com<mailto:damshan...@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files



You might be able to get them to export their Revit files to IFC files as that 
would 'dumb down' their model but still give you the geometry. Then bring the 
IFC into Revit.



https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__knowledge.autodesk.com_support_revit-2Dproducts_learn-2Dexplore_caas_Clo&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=K1QlWaq1qqGSRHw1TkBMRf9MEqKbatUGPJ6ypbJlZOg&e=

udHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-C61C2E42-0561-48C9-8459-3EA

C10EC8E16-htm.html



Not as nice as native Revit file but better than them doing exports of 2D plans 
to dwg.



Regards.



Damien Shannon.







-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:44 PM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Dane Long'

mailto:da...@bamfordfire.com>>

Subj

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

BxOjClmU4dKUZn8QOWQnY&s=VZkEuwQJf3cCcQhKmLVf3f0trjHf0UWe7BsJcjQUJKs&e=>
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:51 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; 
damshan...@gmail.com<mailto:damshan...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files


For the longest time we've been requesting that architects export individual 
sheets (floor plans, reflected ceiling, etc.) to 2D AutoCAD files so that we 
can use them as our backgrounds, and many times they state that it's too much 
work and will only provide the full Revit model (which of course takes about 10 
times longer for us to get and export our own files than it would be for the 
architect to do it). Now, you want the full Revit file and they won't give it 
to you. Sounds like they need to add a section to NFPA 13, chapter 3: Irony.



-Kyle M







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of damshannon--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:27 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: damshan...@gmail.com<mailto:damshan...@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files



You might be able to get them to export their Revit files to IFC files as that 
would 'dumb down' their model but still give you the geometry. Then bring the 
IFC into Revit.



https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__knowledge.autodesk.com_support_revit-2Dproducts_learn-2Dexplore_caas_Clo&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=K1QlWaq1qqGSRHw1TkBMRf9MEqKbatUGPJ6ypbJlZOg&e=

udHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-C61C2E42-0561-48C9-8459-3EA

C10EC8E16-htm.html



Not as nice as native Revit file but better than them doing exports of 2D plans 
to dwg.



Regards.



Damien Shannon.







-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:44 PM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Dane Long'

mailto:da...@bamfordfire.com>>

Subject: RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files



Haven't had much push back.  The thing I hate is when they strip out the sheet 
sets.  But, we typically get the model.  It is in all of our quotes that it is 
to be provided when the project is drawn in REVIT.





Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271 ext. 700

fax: 866-430-6107

tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=9M7o5SwNp2fNhM8M-oDP0VixLRPGEzT78nsXC3sxu-U&e=



Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=d4f5UPAZAWkA6JOG_g_EO06bGtT-NW4auaSlMMksLnw&e=

LinkedIn: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_travismack&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=AEguheP5IIDfIBIsVwFEciwkNacvi-rccNgl427jrd0&e=



“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”





-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Dane Long via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:43 PM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Cc: Dane Long mailto:da...@bamfordfire.com>>

Subject: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files



Good Afternoon Forum,



We recently change to HydraCAD for Revit and seem to be having some issues 
getting some of the architectural firms to release Revit files. They say they 
can't release or share these files because they contain proprietary 
information. I've tried multiple times to inform them I would sign a form, but 

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

For the longest time we've been requesting that architects export individual 
sheets (floor plans, reflected ceiling, etc.) to 2D AutoCAD files so that we 
can use them as our backgrounds, and many times they state that it's too much 
work and will only provide the full Revit model (which of course takes about 10 
times longer for us to get and export our own files than it would be for the 
architect to do it). Now, you want the full Revit file and they won't give it 
to you. Sounds like they need to add a section to NFPA 13, chapter 3: Irony.



-Kyle M







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of damshannon--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: damshan...@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files



You might be able to get them to export their Revit files to IFC files as that 
would 'dumb down' their model but still give you the geometry. Then bring the 
IFC into Revit.



https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__knowledge.autodesk.com_support_revit-2Dproducts_learn-2Dexplore_caas_Clo&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=K1QlWaq1qqGSRHw1TkBMRf9MEqKbatUGPJ6ypbJlZOg&e=

udHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-C61C2E42-0561-48C9-8459-3EA

C10EC8E16-htm.html



Not as nice as native Revit file but better than them doing exports of 2D plans 
to dwg.



Regards.



Damien Shannon.







-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:44 PM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Dane Long'

mailto:da...@bamfordfire.com>>

Subject: RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files



Haven't had much push back.  The thing I hate is when they strip out the sheet 
sets.  But, we typically get the model.  It is in all of our quotes that it is 
to be provided when the project is drawn in REVIT.





Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271 ext. 700

fax: 866-430-6107

tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=9M7o5SwNp2fNhM8M-oDP0VixLRPGEzT78nsXC3sxu-U&e=



Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=d4f5UPAZAWkA6JOG_g_EO06bGtT-NW4auaSlMMksLnw&e=

LinkedIn: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_travismack&d=DwIFAw&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=VKA9bmHyPeFp2FY2au6X-yd_m3iPAkSdkziKuk5Vz_g&s=AEguheP5IIDfIBIsVwFEciwkNacvi-rccNgl427jrd0&e=



"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten."





-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Dane Long via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:43 PM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Cc: Dane Long mailto:da...@bamfordfire.com>>

Subject: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files



Good Afternoon Forum,



We recently change to HydraCAD for Revit and seem to be having some issues 
getting some of the architectural firms to release Revit files. They say they 
can't release or share these files because they contain proprietary 
information. I've tried multiple times to inform them I would sign a form, but 
still have no luck. Anyone else run into this issue? Also any advice on how to 
get them to release these files?



Thanks,



Dane Long, CET

Design Technician | Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc.

P:785.825.7710

F:    785.825.0667

A:   1383 W. North Street  Salina, KS  67401







-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 8:28 AM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; Frans Stoop 
mailto:f

RE: [EXTERNAL] Groove rolled pipe under vibration

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

So, you are worried about the grooved joint failing due to the ends of the pipe 
distorting? I think you worry too much, but if you are going to worry about 
something, I think the nuts on the coupling coming loose would be a more likely 
failure mode.

I've seen a LOT of diesel fire pump rooms with large diameter (10" & 12"), 
Schedule 10 pipe with roll-grooved joints and I'm not aware of any failures 
other than "not installed correctly in the first place" (i.e. grooved coupling 
left loose or not tightened evenly). Not to say that your concern is completely 
unfounded, just that I have yet to witness it.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Frans Stoop via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 8:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Frans Stoop 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Groove rolled pipe under vibration

Dear colleagues,

Years ago I read an article in Sprinkler Age (or was it in the NFPA
Journal?) about a sprinkler pipe that came loose from a groove coupling in a 
vibrating environment.
Unfortunately I can't remember in what month or year it was. Is there anyone of 
you who can?
Do you know of other instances where a pipe came loose from a coupling under 
conditions of vibration?

I can very well imagine how this is possible. Prior to installation, the steel 
wall of the pipe is distorted by rolling a groove in one or two of the pipe 
ends by a groove roller machine (Ridgid or alike).
When this pipe is installed in a static system this works very well, even with 
high water pressure inside the pipe.
However, in a highly vibrating environment, that induces small movements of the 
piping on both sides of a coupling, the water pressure inside a steel pipe 
might easily distort the groove further (little by little) until it comes loose 
from the coupling. I see two important factors:
- the thinner the pipe, the easier it can be distorted,
- larger diameters result in higher separating forces by water pressure.

For the above reason we specified to use flanges for the 10 inch and
12 inch piping in a pumproom with large diesel driven fire pumps
(4500 GPM). I think this is in particular important for the discharge en test 
piping. The diesel engines create heavy vibration and the diameters are not 
small. Furthermore, the wall thickness will be only
5.6 to 6.3 mm (= approx. Schedule 20).
We have a discussion with a contractor who states that groove couplings are 
suited for pressures upto 24 bar (350 psi) and there is nothing against using 
it in the above described pumproom.
My point of view is that there is nothing wrong with the couplings itself, but 
it is the pipes that will be distorted and come loose under the vibration by 
the diesels and the output pressure of the pumps.

What is your technical opinion?

Frans Stoop
Riskonet BV

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=evAOpe4WWGYtDDKUphs-pkFgceoT7eIG5Uzr_9ieEJE&s=xX7weNHfWmxZD5OTwuBWN1zXZZ5r8E0lkJyU9_29OPk&e=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

forum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; Ed Kramer 
mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

Notice the defined term [ICC conveniently italicizes defined terms] used in 
2015 IBC 1003.3 is “circulation paths”
1003.3 Protruding objects. Protruding objects on circulation
paths shall comply with the requirements of Sections
1003.3.1 through 1003.3.4.
•This section begins the provisions that apply to protruding
objects and helps to improve awareness of
these safety and accessibility-related provisions. The
intent of the phrase “on circulation paths” is intended
to allow for judgment determining where people walk
versus all floor surfaces. For example, a drinking
fountain in an alcove is over a floor, but it is not over a
circulation path; therefore, it typically it would not be
considered a protruding object.

From 2015 IBC 202:

CIRCULATION PATH. An exterior or interior way of passage
from one place to another for pedestrians.
•Examples of circulation paths include sidewalks,
walkways, corridors, aisles, courtyards, ramps, stairways
and landings. While a stairway is never part of
an accessible route, it can be part of a general circulation
path for ambulatory persons. Not all floor areas
are circulation paths. What part of a floor is not a circulation
path will be subjective. For example, if a
drinking fountain is moved into an alcove, it has been
moved off the circulation path. So, while still being
over a floor, it is no longer considered a protruding
object.


Respectfully,

David Blackwell

David Blackwell, P.E.
Chief Engineer
(803)896-9833

Office of State Fire Marshal
141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203
http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__statefire.llr.sc.gov_&d=DwMGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=v0c6RYpM-3qtKhKszl6eqHTh4c2s2ahYnWf9LOrAMzY&s=AddRn1mo5PiyetLmfM5SSN2pZZaqT1aDKaK5G-2XYbs&e=>
(803)896-9800

"Our firefighting starts with plan review..."

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 3:32 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; Ed Kramer 
mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

*** SCDLLR NOTICE ***
•  This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
•  Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in e-mail 
text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.
Now THIS has some potential. I’ll dig into this a little bit further. Seems to 
contradict the post-mounted sign example that David mentioned, though.

The thing that’s frustrating is that it’s in the CORNER of the stairwell, 
outside of the indicated “path of egress”. Even if the cane couldn’t detect the 
standpipe (which of course it can) it certainly would detect both of the walls 
and the person would almost certainly turn before walking headlong into the 
wall. It’s almost funny to imagine a scenario where someone is hugging the 
outside corner closely enough that this would be an issue.

Thanks for your help. I’ll look into this. If anyone else has any additional 
advice or experience, please continue to share.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:08 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Ed Kramer mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

This may or may not help you . . .
Section 307.3 of the ADA  Standards addresses “Post-Mounted Objects”.  
Standpipes probably aren’t technically ‘posts’, but if the standpipe extends 
down to (or through) the floor, the concept is the same.  That section allows 
objects attached to the posts to extend up to 12” from the post.  If you don’t 
come up with a better defense, it may be worth pursuing.

Ed K

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Nick Maneen mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com>>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

Agreed, but the hose valve protrudes more than 4”. And unless we’re the only 
ones not privy to some kind of “micro hose valve” I’m pretty sure every 
standpipe installation in existence would have this same issue. Which is why 
I’m thinking there must 

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Thanks, David. This is helpful.

Thanks to you too, Ed, although apparently the IBC took it upon itself to meet 
OR EXCEED the ADA requirements, and in this case has exceeded them and that is 
the requirement we’re being held to (4” max protrusion). So apparently even the 
IBC has something in common with most local jurisdictions: “Code says this, but 
we’ll make it even better!”.  It boggles my mind that the IBC would presume to 
know more about the requirements of the visually impaired than the ADA does… 
but that’s for another story.

We’re still working on this one. Thanks for everyone’s help and I’ll try to 
report back on the outcome.

-Kyle M

From: David Blackwell [mailto:david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Ed Kramer 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

Notice the defined term [ICC conveniently italicizes defined terms] used in 
2015 IBC 1003.3 is “circulation paths”
1003.3 Protruding objects. Protruding objects on circulation
paths shall comply with the requirements of Sections
1003.3.1 through 1003.3.4.
•This section begins the provisions that apply to protruding
objects and helps to improve awareness of
these safety and accessibility-related provisions. The
intent of the phrase “on circulation paths” is intended
to allow for judgment determining where people walk
versus all floor surfaces. For example, a drinking
fountain in an alcove is over a floor, but it is not over a
circulation path; therefore, it typically it would not be
considered a protruding object.

From 2015 IBC 202:

CIRCULATION PATH. An exterior or interior way of passage
from one place to another for pedestrians.
•Examples of circulation paths include sidewalks,
walkways, corridors, aisles, courtyards, ramps, stairways
and landings. While a stairway is never part of
an accessible route, it can be part of a general circulation
path for ambulatory persons. Not all floor areas
are circulation paths. What part of a floor is not a circulation
path will be subjective. For example, if a
drinking fountain is moved into an alcove, it has been
moved off the circulation path. So, while still being
over a floor, it is no longer considered a protruding
object.


Respectfully,

David Blackwell

David Blackwell, P.E.
Chief Engineer
(803)896-9833

Office of State Fire Marshal
141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203
http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__statefire.llr.sc.gov_&d=DwMGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=v0c6RYpM-3qtKhKszl6eqHTh4c2s2ahYnWf9LOrAMzY&s=AddRn1mo5PiyetLmfM5SSN2pZZaqT1aDKaK5G-2XYbs&e=>
(803)896-9800

"Our firefighting starts with plan review..."

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 3:32 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; Ed Kramer 
mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

*** SCDLLR NOTICE ***
•  This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
•  Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in e-mail 
text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.
Now THIS has some potential. I’ll dig into this a little bit further. Seems to 
contradict the post-mounted sign example that David mentioned, though.

The thing that’s frustrating is that it’s in the CORNER of the stairwell, 
outside of the indicated “path of egress”. Even if the cane couldn’t detect the 
standpipe (which of course it can) it certainly would detect both of the walls 
and the person would almost certainly turn before walking headlong into the 
wall. It’s almost funny to imagine a scenario where someone is hugging the 
outside corner closely enough that this would be an issue.

Thanks for your help. I’ll look into this. If anyone else has any additional 
advice or experience, please continue to share.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:08 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Ed Kramer mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

This may or may not help you . . .
Section 307.3 of the ADA  Standards addresses “Post-Mounted Objects”.  
Standpipes probably aren’t technically ‘posts’, but if the standpipe extends 
down to (or through) the floor, the concept is the same.  That section allows 
objects attached to the posts to extend up to 12” from the post.  If you don’t 
come up with a better defense, it ma

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Now THIS has some potential. I’ll dig into this a little bit further. Seems to 
contradict the post-mounted sign example that David mentioned, though.

The thing that’s frustrating is that it’s in the CORNER of the stairwell, 
outside of the indicated “path of egress”. Even if the cane couldn’t detect the 
standpipe (which of course it can) it certainly would detect both of the walls 
and the person would almost certainly turn before walking headlong into the 
wall. It’s almost funny to imagine a scenario where someone is hugging the 
outside corner closely enough that this would be an issue.

Thanks for your help. I’ll look into this. If anyone else has any additional 
advice or experience, please continue to share.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ed Kramer 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

This may or may not help you . . .
Section 307.3 of the ADA  Standards addresses “Post-Mounted Objects”.  
Standpipes probably aren’t technically ‘posts’, but if the standpipe extends 
down to (or through) the floor, the concept is the same.  That section allows 
objects attached to the posts to extend up to 12” from the post.  If you don’t 
come up with a better defense, it may be worth pursuing.

Ed K

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Nick Maneen mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com>>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

Agreed, but the hose valve protrudes more than 4”. And unless we’re the only 
ones not privy to some kind of “micro hose valve” I’m pretty sure every 
standpipe installation in existence would have this same issue. Which is why 
I’m thinking there must be something I’m missing.

-Kyle M

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:36 PM
To: Kyle.Montgomery mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Cc: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

Sorry for the incomplete email.  It just went ahead and sent...
Anyway, in my experience, a piece of pipe on a floor flange under the standpipe 
should work.  It seems to follow the illustration David Blackwell sent.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:28 PM Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>> wrote:
Nick,

I wasn’t suggesting that bollards would be necessary, I was just comparing them 
as an example of something that may be required to go along with a 
sprinkler/standpipe system that typically would be provided “by others”. One of 
my issues right now is that the GC is siding with the AHJ and just saying “Yep, 
we need it, you need to provide it, no extra money.”

The problem we have is that the hose valves protrude more than 4” from the 
standpipe, so we’re being told it is required. But I’m pretty sure every hose 
valve on every standpipe in existence does this, so how has this never been an 
issue for us before?

-Kyle M

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com<mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com>]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:19 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

I have been asked to turn the valves so they don't protrude further from the 
wall than the standpipe does (leaving clearance for firefighter use) and run 
the standpipe down to the floor so the cane can find the bottom of the pipe.  I 
have had an AHJ accept a piece of 1" that does from the bottom of the standpipe 
to the cap on the 4" to act as the detection.  I don't think bollards would be 
required or at least they haven't been around here in North Carolina yet.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
All,

I’m running into some issues on a project where the AHJ is asking for “Cane 
Detection”. For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, the short 
answer is that cane detection is required for objects that protrude into the 
circulation path so that a blind/visually impaired person can detect the 
presence of the object with his/her cane and therefore not bump into it. It’s 
required for objects that protrude more than 4” from the wall, and are located 
within a height range of 27”-80”; objects higher than 80” are above the 
required headroom clearance, and objects lower than 27” are within the “cane 
sweep” and thus will be detected. (Just Google “Cane Detection

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Well, the building is 17 stories with two or more stairs on each level. So 
there’s over 40 hose valves. It will end up costing way more than a hundred 
bucks to satisfy the requirement they are proposing, regardless of the method 
we choose.

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:01 PM
To: Kyle.Montgomery 
Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

I have only been asked to do something around standpipes in the last three 
years and both occasions they were in the path of egress.  It seems to me that 
if you are tucked into the corner and out of the way of normal travel, someone 
is being a little over zealous with their interpretation.

As far as your next course of action, you have options.  I am all for fighting 
the fight and standing up for yourself that these valves are outside the path 
of egress, therefore the detection is not required.  Then if you discover you 
are talking to a wall, ask yourself if you would take a client out and spend 
$100 on dinner to secure future relationships and work?  Would you spend $100 
on this GC, roll your eyes at the inspector, and move on to the next project?  
My view on this is completely determined on the dollar amount spent.  I can 
think of all kinds of different scenarios where I would dig my heels in and not 
budge, but I don’t think this is one.  We recently gave a GC a case of 
escutcheons for free because the painter messed up the outer ring on dozens of 
heads and instead of going for the back charge to change them out, we went for 
the relationship.

Nick Maneen, SET
c 704.791.7789

From: Kyle.Montgomery [mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:40 PM
To: Nick Maneen
Cc: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

Agreed, but the hose valve protrudes more than 4”. And unless we’re the only 
ones not privy to some kind of “micro hose valve” I’m pretty sure every 
standpipe installation in existence would have this same issue. Which is why 
I’m thinking there must be something I’m missing.

-Kyle M

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:36 PM
To: Kyle.Montgomery mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Cc: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

Sorry for the incomplete email.  It just went ahead and sent...
Anyway, in my experience, a piece of pipe on a floor flange under the standpipe 
should work.  It seems to follow the illustration David Blackwell sent.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:28 PM Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>> wrote:
Nick,

I wasn’t suggesting that bollards would be necessary, I was just comparing them 
as an example of something that may be required to go along with a 
sprinkler/standpipe system that typically would be provided “by others”. One of 
my issues right now is that the GC is siding with the AHJ and just saying “Yep, 
we need it, you need to provide it, no extra money.”

The problem we have is that the hose valves protrude more than 4” from the 
standpipe, so we’re being told it is required. But I’m pretty sure every hose 
valve on every standpipe in existence does this, so how has this never been an 
issue for us before?

-Kyle M

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com<mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com>]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:19 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

I have been asked to turn the valves so they don't protrude further from the 
wall than the standpipe does (leaving clearance for firefighter use) and run 
the standpipe down to the floor so the cane can find the bottom of the pipe.  I 
have had an AHJ accept a piece of 1" that does from the bottom of the standpipe 
to the cap on the 4" to act as the detection.  I don't think bollards would be 
required or at least they haven't been around here in North Carolina yet.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
All,

I’m running into some issues on a project where the AHJ is asking for “Cane 
Detection”. For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, the short 
answer is that cane detection is required for objects that protrude into the 
circulation path so that a blind/visually impaired person can detect the 
presence of the object with his/her cane and therefore not bump into it. It’s 
required for objects that protrude more than 4” from the wall, and are located 
within a height range of 27”-80”; objects higher than 80” are above the 
required headroom clearance, and objects lower than 27” a

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Agreed, but the hose valve protrudes more than 4”. And unless we’re the only 
ones not privy to some kind of “micro hose valve” I’m pretty sure every 
standpipe installation in existence would have this same issue. Which is why 
I’m thinking there must be something I’m missing.

-Kyle M

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:36 PM
To: Kyle.Montgomery 
Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

Sorry for the incomplete email.  It just went ahead and sent...
Anyway, in my experience, a piece of pipe on a floor flange under the standpipe 
should work.  It seems to follow the illustration David Blackwell sent.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:28 PM Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>> wrote:
Nick,

I wasn’t suggesting that bollards would be necessary, I was just comparing them 
as an example of something that may be required to go along with a 
sprinkler/standpipe system that typically would be provided “by others”. One of 
my issues right now is that the GC is siding with the AHJ and just saying “Yep, 
we need it, you need to provide it, no extra money.”

The problem we have is that the hose valves protrude more than 4” from the 
standpipe, so we’re being told it is required. But I’m pretty sure every hose 
valve on every standpipe in existence does this, so how has this never been an 
issue for us before?

-Kyle M

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com<mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com>]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:19 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

I have been asked to turn the valves so they don't protrude further from the 
wall than the standpipe does (leaving clearance for firefighter use) and run 
the standpipe down to the floor so the cane can find the bottom of the pipe.  I 
have had an AHJ accept a piece of 1" that does from the bottom of the standpipe 
to the cap on the 4" to act as the detection.  I don't think bollards would be 
required or at least they haven't been around here in North Carolina yet.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
All,

I’m running into some issues on a project where the AHJ is asking for “Cane 
Detection”. For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, the short 
answer is that cane detection is required for objects that protrude into the 
circulation path so that a blind/visually impaired person can detect the 
presence of the object with his/her cane and therefore not bump into it. It’s 
required for objects that protrude more than 4” from the wall, and are located 
within a height range of 27”-80”; objects higher than 80” are above the 
required headroom clearance, and objects lower than 27” are within the “cane 
sweep” and thus will be detected. (Just Google “Cane Detection” for more 
information)

I understand the need for this, but am uncertain of all the requirements. 
Here’s our situation:

We don’t need the detection for the standpipe itself (or the drain) because 
that continues through the floor and can be detected by the cane. However, the 
hose valves protrude more than 4” from the standpipe, and are above 27”, so 
we’re being told that we need it for the hose valves. So, I’ve got two 
questions:


1.   Is the code being applied the correct way? Have any of you run into 
this and are the any exceptions for standpipes or life safety equipment? I’m 
wondering how this hasn’t been a problem for us many times before if this is 
the correct interpretation of the code.

2.   If this IS the correct requirement, should the installation of cane 
detection fall to the fire sprinkler subcontractor? I mean, we’re not typically 
responsible for installing bollards to protect risers in warehouses and similar.

I’m interested to hear the forum’s thoughts and experiences. Thanks for your 
help.

Kyle Montgomery
 [cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com<mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=ZbncDeKd4kt8sHgJUrCq0Fsv718COPm03mwxIoyBeCw&s=Yo7qU21orIb76JaDUEbO9Tvxv0-3PcDvVcQnXEh3S0w&e=>


--

Nick Maneen

Estimator

2553 South Fayetteville Street

Asheboro, 

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Nick,

I wasn’t suggesting that bollards would be necessary, I was just comparing them 
as an example of something that may be required to go along with a 
sprinkler/standpipe system that typically would be provided “by others”. One of 
my issues right now is that the GC is siding with the AHJ and just saying “Yep, 
we need it, you need to provide it, no extra money.”

The problem we have is that the hose valves protrude more than 4” from the 
standpipe, so we’re being told it is required. But I’m pretty sure every hose 
valve on every standpipe in existence does this, so how has this never been an 
issue for us before?

-Kyle M

From: Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:19 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Cane Detection

I have been asked to turn the valves so they don't protrude further from the 
wall than the standpipe does (leaving clearance for firefighter use) and run 
the standpipe down to the floor so the cane can find the bottom of the pipe.  I 
have had an AHJ accept a piece of 1" that does from the bottom of the standpipe 
to the cap on the 4" to act as the detection.  I don't think bollards would be 
required or at least they haven't been around here in North Carolina yet.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
All,

I’m running into some issues on a project where the AHJ is asking for “Cane 
Detection”. For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, the short 
answer is that cane detection is required for objects that protrude into the 
circulation path so that a blind/visually impaired person can detect the 
presence of the object with his/her cane and therefore not bump into it. It’s 
required for objects that protrude more than 4” from the wall, and are located 
within a height range of 27”-80”; objects higher than 80” are above the 
required headroom clearance, and objects lower than 27” are within the “cane 
sweep” and thus will be detected. (Just Google “Cane Detection” for more 
information)

I understand the need for this, but am uncertain of all the requirements. 
Here’s our situation:

We don’t need the detection for the standpipe itself (or the drain) because 
that continues through the floor and can be detected by the cane. However, the 
hose valves protrude more than 4” from the standpipe, and are above 27”, so 
we’re being told that we need it for the hose valves. So, I’ve got two 
questions:


1.   Is the code being applied the correct way? Have any of you run into 
this and are the any exceptions for standpipes or life safety equipment? I’m 
wondering how this hasn’t been a problem for us many times before if this is 
the correct interpretation of the code.

2.   If this IS the correct requirement, should the installation of cane 
detection fall to the fire sprinkler subcontractor? I mean, we’re not typically 
responsible for installing bollards to protect risers in warehouses and similar.

I’m interested to hear the forum’s thoughts and experiences. Thanks for your 
help.

Kyle Montgomery
 [cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com<mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=ZbncDeKd4kt8sHgJUrCq0Fsv718COPm03mwxIoyBeCw&s=Yo7qU21orIb76JaDUEbO9Tvxv0-3PcDvVcQnXEh3S0w&e=>


--

Nick Maneen

Estimator

2553 South Fayetteville Street

Asheboro, NC 27205

P 336-625-2304

F 336-625-4649

C 704-791-7789
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Cane Detection

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

All,

I'm running into some issues on a project where the AHJ is asking for "Cane 
Detection". For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, the short 
answer is that cane detection is required for objects that protrude into the 
circulation path so that a blind/visually impaired person can detect the 
presence of the object with his/her cane and therefore not bump into it. It's 
required for objects that protrude more than 4" from the wall, and are located 
within a height range of 27"-80"; objects higher than 80" are above the 
required headroom clearance, and objects lower than 27" are within the "cane 
sweep" and thus will be detected. (Just Google "Cane Detection" for more 
information)

I understand the need for this, but am uncertain of all the requirements. 
Here's our situation:

We don't need the detection for the standpipe itself (or the drain) because 
that continues through the floor and can be detected by the cane. However, the 
hose valves protrude more than 4" from the standpipe, and are above 27", so 
we're being told that we need it for the hose valves. So, I've got two 
questions:


1.   Is the code being applied the correct way? Have any of you run into 
this and are the any exceptions for standpipes or life safety equipment? I'm 
wondering how this hasn't been a problem for us many times before if this is 
the correct interpretation of the code.

2.   If this IS the correct requirement, should the installation of cane 
detection fall to the fire sprinkler subcontractor? I mean, we're not typically 
responsible for installing bollards to protect risers in warehouses and similar.

I'm interested to hear the forum's thoughts and experiences. Thanks for your 
help.

Kyle Montgomery
 [cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Anybody?

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

So it’s determined by testing the specific orifice, I kind of figured that. Do 
you (or anybody on the forum) know of a good way to estimate what the 
approximate Cd would be for an orifice?

We’re sometimes asked to estimate what the discharge would be through an open 
orifice of unknown discharge coefficient, such as an open pipe or elbow at the 
end of a drain line. The most common scenario is when we have a drain that has 
to discharge into an interior floor drain. I could use the formula below and 
just assume a worst-case Cd = 1, develop a K-factor, and calc it like normal. 
That should work, but I wonder if that theoretical discharge is close or way 
higher than actual?

Anyone have any thoughts on that? Or another method that works without getting 
into some advanced hydraulics and linear equations?

Thanks for your help.

-Kyle M

From: Kerschner, Philip [mailto:pkersch...@ballinger.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 9:39 AM
To: Kyle.Montgomery ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; vi...@wtfp.net; Prahl, Craig/GVL 

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Anybody?

From the NFPA Handbook Section 15 Chapter 3

The coefficient of discharge, Cd, is defined as the ratio of the actual 
discharge to the theoretical discharge.  For any specific orifice or nozzle, 
vales of Cd are determined by standard test procedures using this definition.  
The actual rate of flow is measured by calibrated meter, or “weigh tanks”.  The 
theoretical flow is calculated using Cd=1.0, the carefully measured orifice or 
nozzle diameter, and the measured velocity pressure in the flow equation.


|   PHIL KERSCHNER, PE
FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY
B  A  L  L  I  N  G  E  R
215 446 0380

From: Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:22 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
 vi...@wtfp.net; Prahl, Craig/GVL 
mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>
Cc: Kerschner, Philip 
mailto:pkersch...@ballinger.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Anybody?

Phil,

In the case of the 5.6k sprinkler you reference below, how is it determined 
that Cd = 0.75?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kerschner, Philip via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 8:32 AM
To: vi...@wtfp.net; Prahl, Craig/GVL 
mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kerschner, Philip 
mailto:pkersch...@ballinger.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Anybody?

There has always been a K factor in the sense that:

Q=K*sqrt(P) is the same as
Q=29.83*Cd*(d^2)*sqrt(p)

The K factor is equal to [29.83*Cd*(d^2)]

Where Cd is the discharge coefficient of the orifice (ranging between 0 and 1) 
and d is the diameter.

For instance, your standard 5.6k sprinkler head is equal to 
29.83*0.75*(0.5^2)=5.593 or 5.6K

Similarly an 8k head is equal to 29.83*0.95*((17/32)^2)=7.998 or 8K

You can find many of these discharge coefficients in the NFPA handbook Section 
15 chapter 3 but they are also determined through testing.

As for how long the K factor has been associated with sprinkler heads I would 
defer to Craig.


|   PHIL KERSCHNER, PE
FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY
B  A  L  L  I  N  G  E  R
215 446 0380

From: Vince Sabolik mailto:vi...@wtfp.net>>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 7:30 PM
To: Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Anybody?

Craig (and others) -

Thank you so much! After I posted I realized that I had a copy of Clyde Woods'  
"Hydraulic Data For Automatic Sprinkler Systems".
It refers to discharge tables from the 30s & 40s. So there was the "K factor", 
at least for him. I learned how to do hydraulic calculations from
that book and I would recommend it to anyone, especially in our button push 
world.

Now, about bay and beam. I've been doing design for fifty years. Ed MacFalls, 
the guy that taught me had about sixty years. We were on a job in
Cleveland and I noticed sprinkler head in a bay; sprinkler head under a beam; 
repeat. The beam heads sat under a large reveal, about 24" down.
I thought that maybe the designer or fitter screwed up. But Ed said it was bay 
and beam design and it was supposed to be that way.
If I remember God knows, I thought Ed said something about the Kresge Building 
in New York had been done that way. He should have known... he worked on it!





On 11/18/2019 4:37 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote:
Bay and beam might be related to the smooth ceiling rule for Continuous smooth 
bays formed by wood, concrete or steel beams spaced more than 7.5 ft on centers 
– beams supported by columns, girders or trusses.

Beam and Girder construction also references Beams and Bays.

According to historical data, K-factor was a value known an

RE: [EXTERNAL] Anybody?

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

Phil,

In the case of the 5.6k sprinkler you reference below, how is it determined 
that Cd = 0.75?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kerschner, Philip via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 8:32 AM
To: vi...@wtfp.net; Prahl, Craig/GVL ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kerschner, Philip 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Anybody?

There has always been a K factor in the sense that:

Q=K*sqrt(P) is the same as
Q=29.83*Cd*(d^2)*sqrt(p)

The K factor is equal to [29.83*Cd*(d^2)]

Where Cd is the discharge coefficient of the orifice (ranging between 0 and 1) 
and d is the diameter.

For instance, your standard 5.6k sprinkler head is equal to 
29.83*0.75*(0.5^2)=5.593 or 5.6K

Similarly an 8k head is equal to 29.83*0.95*((17/32)^2)=7.998 or 8K

You can find many of these discharge coefficients in the NFPA handbook Section 
15 chapter 3 but they are also determined through testing.

As for how long the K factor has been associated with sprinkler heads I would 
defer to Craig.


|   PHIL KERSCHNER, PE
FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY
B  A  L  L  I  N  G  E  R
215 446 0380

From: Vince Sabolik mailto:vi...@wtfp.net>>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 7:30 PM
To: Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Anybody?

Craig (and others) -

Thank you so much! After I posted I realized that I had a copy of Clyde Woods'  
"Hydraulic Data For Automatic Sprinkler Systems".
It refers to discharge tables from the 30s & 40s. So there was the "K factor", 
at least for him. I learned how to do hydraulic calculations from
that book and I would recommend it to anyone, especially in our button push 
world.

Now, about bay and beam. I've been doing design for fifty years. Ed MacFalls, 
the guy that taught me had about sixty years. We were on a job in
Cleveland and I noticed sprinkler head in a bay; sprinkler head under a beam; 
repeat. The beam heads sat under a large reveal, about 24" down.
I thought that maybe the designer or fitter screwed up. But Ed said it was bay 
and beam design and it was supposed to be that way.
If I remember God knows, I thought Ed said something about the Kresge Building 
in New York had been done that way. He should have known... he worked on it!





On 11/18/2019 4:37 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote:
Bay and beam might be related to the smooth ceiling rule for Continuous smooth 
bays formed by wood, concrete or steel beams spaced more than 7.5 ft on centers 
– beams supported by columns, girders or trusses.

Beam and Girder construction also references Beams and Bays.

According to historical data, K-factor was a value known and established in the 
early 1900’s.  It was a mathematical formula based on orifice size and 
pressure.  Sprinklers standardized around the ½” orifice and the minimum 
operating pressure was set to 7 psi.  The pipe schedule system was the standard 
for designing system well into the 1970’s but even before that time, hydraulic 
calculations could be performed when deemed necessary.  These manual 
calculations were performed by hand unless the contractor or engineer had 
access to a University or other such entity’s main frame computer.  In the 
1980’s with the ever increasing prevalence of personal computers, software 
programs were developed to assist designers in performing more detailed and 
complex system calculations.

Sprinklers prior to 1953 had a smaller deflector with approximately 40% of 
their discharge deflected upward with the remainder downward.  These are 
commonly referred to as “Old Style” or “Conventional” sprinklers.

In 1953 a new style sprinkler was created with a larger deflector to create a 
more uniform spray pattern and were referred to as “Spray Sprinklers”.  In 1958 
they were referred to as “Standard Sprinklers”.  These Spray sprinklers were 
designed to be installed in either the upright, pendent or sidewall position 
based on the deflector style provided.

So the knowledge of k-factors existed long before 1953 but for the most part, 
it was not a relevant factor in the design of sprinkler systems since the Pipe 
Schedule system was used for Light, Ordinary and even Extra Hazard occupancies.

In the 1970’s, the large orifice (8.0K), 17/32” orifice storage sprinkler was 
introduced.  This special sprinkler was one of the first requiring hydraulic 
calculations.


Excerpts from 2011 FireLine “Evolution of the Fire Sprinkler”.

Craig Prahl |Jacobs| Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com|www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carol

RE: Interstitial Spaces

[Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum]

OK. So the code doesn't require sprinklers, but they may want them in order to 
omit the detection. That's good to know. Thanks.

-Kyle M

From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 9:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Mike Hairfield 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Interstitial Spaces

The building code requires detection in return air plenums but allows an 
exception if the space in furnished with fire sprinklers.

Steve

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 9:21 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery; Mike Hairfield; Steve Leyton
Subject: RE: Interstitial Spaces

Steve,

Can you expound upon your question about if it is used as a return air plenum? 
How does that impact if sprinklers are required in a concealed space or not?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 8:19 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>; Mike Hairfield 
mailto:fsl...@msn.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Interstitial Spaces

Is the sprinkler system you're proposing in accordance with 13 or 13R?   Is the 
architect focused specifically on the interstitial spaces or is it a twist of 
the 13/13R thing?   Area and height increases can't be taken with 13R systems 
...

Steve


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 7:59 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Mike Hairfield
Subject: Re: Interstitial Spaces

Non-Combustible and not a return air plenum without any storage.

Mike


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 10:54 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>; Mike Hairfield 
mailto:fsl...@msn.com>>
Subject: RE: Interstitial Spaces


Are the "interstitial spaces"  combustible?   If not, are they being used as a 
return air plenum?



Steve L.



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 7:53 AM
To: Sprinkler Forum
Cc: Mike Hairfield
Subject: Interstitial Spaces



Got a project that has a Interstitial Space and the Architect is stating that 
in order for the building to be

considered fully sprinklered building the Interstitial spaces have to be 
protected.



I've done numerous facilities in the past where the Interstitial Spaces were 
not protected.



Is the architect correct or is he pulling this out of his butt?



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