[Sprinklerforum] Re: CLASS I-IV / CMDA
FYI, if it is a retrofit, you are not specifically tied to 12.6.2 and 12.6.3 with sprinklers of K-11.2 or greater. The following Subsection 12.6.4 is an "exception" to those provisions: 12.6.4* Unless the requirements of 12.6.5 are met, the requirements of 12.6.2 and 12.6.3 shall not apply to modifications to existing storage application systems, using sprinklers with K-factors of K-8.0 (115) or less. A.12.6.4 Modification of an existing system includes extending sprinkler protection into adjacent areas. With this, EOR call ups not-with-standing, NFPA 13-2013 allows you to utilize any K sprinkler that works for you hydraulically. The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 13 Technical Committees. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Brian Harris Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:46 PM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: CLASS I-IV / CMDA Warning! This email came from outside your company. Travis- Thanks. I should have mentioned I need it to be an upright. It's a retro-fit job. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/> From: Travis Mack mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:40 PM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: CLASS I-IV / CMDA https://www.reliablesprinkler.com/files/bulletins/146.pdf?x76626 Travis Mack, SET M.E.P.CAD | Instructor / Support 181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074 www.mepcad.com<http://www.mepcad.com/> | m: 480.547.9348| Whatspp: +14805479348 Email: t.m...@mepcad.com<mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com> AutoSPRINK | AutoSPRINK FAB | AutoSPRINK RVT | AlarmCAD From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:34 AM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: CLASS I-IV / CMDA Eric- Thank you. I have an EOR that called for a K14.0 CMDA on a specific job. Since I can't find one, I was wondering if I could use a K11.2 instead. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/> From: Eric Rieve mailto:e...@rievefire.com>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:48 AM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: CLASS I-IV / CMDA Brian, To expand on this slightly, it's not that "general storage applications" directly means class I-IV commodities, but that chapter 12 applies to all the following storage criteria chapters. So, "general storage applications" is how they show that 12.6.3 applies to chapters 14 and 15 for solid-piled commodities, and then "rack storage" is there to reference chapters 16 and 17. The rest of the sentence containing "rubber tire storage, roll paper storage, and baled cotton storage" is how they reference chapters 18, 19, and 20 respectively to round out the rest of chapters. [A close up of text] Hope this helps! Eric Rieve, SET Rieve Fire Protection From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:32 AM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: CLASS I-IV / CMDA Eric- Thank you. I didn't want to assume class I-IV fit into "general". Much appreciated. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbvssystemsinc.com%2f=E,1,0GPrjmr1UnUZUD1dC2S_0zPb18z5RsmivEapMbxWxXZh0Z8xeW_wo38ttJ26ezgjT88xjZeUN-zIwYtZW3LVrX02vu1_1ePrf-JdHuJVtMUmNiCMD84,=1> From: Eric Rieve mailto:e...@rievefire.com>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:27 AM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: CLASS I-IV / CMDA Brian, Yes, it does per the "general storage applications" segment of the code section. Eric Rieve, SET Rieve Fire Protection From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] CLASS I-IV / CMDA Would 12.6.3 (NFPA-13 2013) apply for class I-IV? My remote area is .36/2000. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssystemsinc.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbvssystemsinc.com%2f=E,1,Fz_3mU2H_Ojb1YY6oijGOLnnNaRa7hDR_0xsbgsJ7z6pCBxHT1MEGLQdRZPurT2UN0kMjjHnC-ulMsxAg9BZ1lIW3A4QFGpu82oXRLmyd4G-kzjUnLn2Yg,,=1> Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935
RE: pipe schedule/residual pressure
I'm not sure how the wording got revised over the years, but back-in-the day the standard was a lot clearer that the residual pressure was measured at the base of the riser. Here is what the old note used to say under the table for Water Supply Requirements for Pipe Schedule Sprinkler Systems: NOTES: 1. The pressure required at the base of the sprinkler riser(s) shall be the residual pressure required under the roof plus the pressure required to reach this elevation. Whenever I've done such evaluations, the analysis would take into account the losses due to elevation and friction losses in the underground piping, between the water supply at the street and the base of the riser, based on flowing the Acceptable Flow at Base of Riser (Including Hose Stream Allowance) from the table. Then I would factor in the loss through the backflow preventer and the pressure due to the elevation to the highest sprinkler. Thus determining the residual pressure under the roof. Since the evaluation is for existing systems, the Minimum Residual Pressure Required only needs to be the 15 psi for light hazard or the 20 psi for ordinary hazard. The 50 psi value is only for new systems thar are greater than 5000 sq.ft. For the new system, I would usually opt to calculate it hydraulically. It should be recognized that the above is my personal opinion and not that as a member of the NFPA and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Best regards, Larry Keeping. P.Eng. Senior Technical Specialist PLC FIRE SAFETY SOLUTIONS 3413 Wolfedale Road, Suite 7 Mississauga, ON L5C 1V8 Phone: 905-949-2755 Ext 204 Fax: 905-949-1752 Email: lkeep...@plcfire.com Website: www.plcfire.com Toll Free: 1-800-675-2755 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum Sent: June 4, 2021 4:14 PM To: Sprinklerforum Cc: Jamie Seidl Subject: pipe schedule/residual pressure Warning! This email came from outside your company. I am looking at a project where we are renovating an existing building with a new system. There are other buildings on the site (1930's vintage) that share the underground lines. To bring the site into compliance with current codes, RPZ backflows are being added at the entrance to the site. The existing buildings are occupied, and the fire department is looking for some assurance that the systems will work with the addition of the backflow preventer. I remembered (though have never applied it) section 11.2.2.8 allows for the calculation of the residual pressure at the highest sprinkler, and deducting elevation, BFP losses ect... The buildings in question are over 5000 sqft, so the minimum 50 psi will apply. So my question is, do I just utilize the residual pressure from the closest hydrant, deduct the elevation and backflow losses from the residual and call it a day? Or do I need to account for additional friction through the system piping? Both 13 and the handbook seem to be mute on this. Thanks again, Forumites. Jamie Seidl ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Interstitial Space
Way back-in-the-day, when NFPA 13 would fit in a back pocket, there was a Formal Interpretation 80-29(A) that addressed interstitial spaces. It remained in play until at least the 1999 edition, there is a copy in the '99 Handbook. I never saw it "withdrawn", but it was probably dropped from reference when NFPA 13 added text for concealed spaces not requiring sprinkler protection, because it doesn't seem to be in the '02 Handbook. Anyway, here is what that old FI said in the '99 Handbook: Formal Interpretation 80-29(A) Reference 5-1.1, 5-13.1.3 Background: Construction - Structural steel frame with concrete floors. The floor-to-floor height is approximately 15½ feet. Approximately 9 feet above each floor, a gypsum deck has been poured to form an "interstitial space." Non-combustible ductwork, plumbing, electrical conduit, sprinkler piping and open cable trays run in the interstitial space. Access to the space is by five stairways, with access doors each being approximately 3 feet by 3 feet. Question: Is it the intent of 5-1.1 of NFPA 13 that sprinkler protection of the interstitial space described above be provided to consider the building completely protected by automatic sprinklers? Answer: No. The space described is essentially non-combustible with no occupancy and no combustible services [with the possible exception of the cable trays which could be protected in accordance with 5-5.1.3 if necessary] and so could be treated as a non-combustible concealed space. Use of the space for storage or the introduction of combustibles would require provision of sprinklers to maintain classification as completely protected by automatic sprinklers. Issue Edition: 1980 Reference: 3-10.3, 4.1 Date: October 1982 Please note there is a typo in that FI, because there is no 5-5.1.3 in NFPA 13-1999, and 5-13.1.3 does not seem to be applicable either. I think that reference in the answer should have been to 5-13.1.4 (b), which is the text that was referenced (as 4.4.4.4 (b)) in previous Handbooks in my library. I hope that you find this helpful, Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Ken Wagoner via Sprinklerforum Sent: May 11, 2021 3:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Ken Wagoner ; Mike Hairfield Subject: Re: Interstitial Space Warning! This email came from outside your company. Mike, I'm not sure which edition of the standard governs this project, however: from the 2016: 8.15.1.2.1 concealed spaces of non- or limited combustible construction require no sprinklers 8.15.1.2.2 concealed spaces of non- or limited combustible construction with limited access, and no occupancy, or storage of combustibles require no sprinklers. Those same sections are unmodified in the '19 edition, in 9.2.1.1 and 9.2.1.2. hope that helps, *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting* *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> * ** On 5/11/2021 12:38 PM, Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum wrote: > Got a project where there is a walkable ceiling with a non-combustible > interstitial space above. > > FM Global did not require sprinkler protection in this space. > > The local AHJ is saying that it needs to be protected with sprinklers. > > Where in NFPA-13 can I find where it doesn't require protection. > > Thanks, > > Mike > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage
>From NFPA 13-2016, Table A.5.6.3: Food Products - Non-Frozen Dry foods (such as baked goods, candy, cereals, cheese, chocolate, cocoa, coffee, grains, granular sugar, nuts, etc.); bagged or cartoned Class III Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum Sent: April 7, 2021 3:38 PM To: Sprinklerforum Cc: Jamie Seidl Subject: Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage Warning! This email came from outside your company. I am looking at a project that is storing soybean, corn, oat and wheat seeds in large polypropylene bags (think large sand / rock bags) . The client has indicated that these are to be stored on floor, two high for a total storage height of less than 12'. I know NFPA 13 does not address this, and FM seems to be silent also. Based on the storage height, and free flowing nature of the product I am leaning towards an ordinary group 2 classification, but wanted to run it by the forumites to see if anyone has run across this in the past. Any Takers? Thanks, Jamie Seidl ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?
A while back I questioned a contractor's installation that didn't follow the Potter guidelines, so the contractor got a letter from Potter. This letter said: "... This is only a recommendation, not a requirement. ..." "... There are no UL, FM, or NFPA codes or standards requiring a certain distance between a valve or fitting and a flow switch. If the device passes the flow test it can be considered an acceptable installation. ..." "... We simply may have overcome the need to maintain this distance recommendation as our product has evolved and improved over the years." Best regards, Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum Sent: March 15, 2021 7:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Mike Henke Cc: Matthew J Willis ; Steve Leyton Subject: Re: Check Valve After Flow switch? Warning! This email came from outside your company. Yeah, I get the listed assembly. Just begs the question, If it's good for the goose.. I know jurisdictions that reject if you do not have the 3psi loss on your calcs. Sure they have a listing, but there are folks out there that think only a listed can be installed. When in reality, listed devices need only need installed. Matt Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> From: Mike Henke Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:35:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Steve Leyton ; Matthew J Willis Subject: RE: Check Valve After Flow switch? Steve is correct. The flowswitches on the listed preassembled manifolds and risers are part of a listed assembly and are tested as part of that assembly. The recommendations on the Potter literature are recommendations, not code requirements. The purpose of the recommendation is to try to prevent people from installing the flowswitch too close to a valve or change in direction that could cause enough turbulence to prevent the flowswitch from operating when a calibrated flow test is conducted. The installer would then have to relocate the flowswitch. Kind Regards, mike Mike Henke CET Sprinkler Product Manager ___ Potter Electric Signal Company, LLC 1609 Park 370 Place, St. Louis, MO 63042 phone: 800-325-3936 | direct: 314-595-6740 mi...@pottersignal.com | www.pottersignal.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 6:26 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Steve Leyton ; Matthew J Willis Subject: RE: Check Valve After Flow switch? If an assembly is tested and listed as a unit, and passes the required tests as configured, then the listing supersedes such restrictions. I remember asking this question when Resi-Risers first came out. Steve L. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Matthew J Willis Subject: RE: Check Valve After Flow switch? I would as well. What happened to the "not within 24" of a drain or valve?" A check valve is a valve.. Right? R/ Matt -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: John Denhardt Subject: Re: Check Valve After Flow switch? I would like to know why this is the "best way" for the installation. I am not stating it is not, just not sure why one way is better especially since we have done it a certain way for years. 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://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> *Our members are at the heart of everything we do* *Expand your business with ITM* Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for Spring 2021 <https://www.firesprinkler.org/itm>. On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:05 PM Henry Fontana via Sprinklerforum < sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > Hello all. > > This is not a code change. Both manufacturers (one of them I work for) > state that this is the best way for in
RE: Tyco LFP - antifreeze
I beg to differ. I was looking into using the new TYCO A/F on one of my projects, but when I met with one of their reps. I was advised that the listing is for system volumes of 50 US gallons or less. Best regards, Larry Larry Keeping. P.Eng. Senior Technical Specialist PLC FIRE SAFETY SOLUTIONS 3413 Wolfedale Road, Suite 7 Mississauga, ON L5C 1V8 Phone: 905-949-2755 Ext 204 Fax: 905-949-1752 Email: lkeep...@plcfire.com Website: www.plcfire.com Toll Free: 1-800-675-2755 DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. The recipient should also check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum Sent: February 10, 2021 10:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com Subject: RE: Tyco LFP - antifreeze Warning! This email came from outside your company. Interesting stuff with the AF. It is good for up to 500 gal system capacity. However, if you are over 200 gallons, you must calculate as a dry system. That seems to negate the use of AF over 200 gallon capacity. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471 mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com www.mfpdesign.com Send large files to us via: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0 From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: David Williams Subject: Tyco LFP - antifreeze Hey Scott and other cold weather practitioners in Fire Protection. Any feed back on the "new" Tyco LFP antifreeze. Looks like it may have some use in southern MN locations, but with Duluth at annual 99% extreme of -24.9 and 50 year extreme at -36.6 maybe not such a good idea yet. We plan on sticking with the dry systems we have been specifying since the flammability concerns about glycol came out unless working south of Minneapolis! As per Scott we spec nitrogen for dry systems, but it sure seems owners want to take the VE from the sprinkler contractors even when we present the long term value to them. David Toshio Williams, PE*, FPE - Lead MEP/FP Engineer (*Registered in MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, ND, VT) 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802 Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446 LHBcorp.com LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN. ...sent from the cloud through the tubes! ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Distilled Spirits
Here is something from the March/April 2018 NFPA Fire Journal: "NFPA codes and standards and other codes like the International Fire Code (IFC) don't include information specifically about distilling-a result of the industry's history of lobbying and self-regulation. Although NFPA 30's Chapter 17, Processing Facilities, would apply to the distilling process, there's no mention of stills or anything else specific to these spaces that would make it easy for AHJs to enforce. The code excludes spirits from its chapters on storage. "[AHJs] need something more in a code to help them know what to look for and what hazards are being presented," Gittleman says. The DISCUS fire protection manual, a product of input from large distillers like Jim Beam, provides a lot of this information in a relatively easy-to-digest manner. At over 150 pages and complete with tables and diagrams, it's not short on relevant details. It references numerous NFPA codes and standards ...". I had a copy of the DISCUS Manual way-back-when, and it was great. Also, I believe FM has a data sheet on alcohol /barrel storage. Best regards, Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum Sent: February 3, 2021 1:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Matt Grise Subject: RE: Distilled Spirits Warning! This email came from outside your company. The production area (distillery) is listed in the 13 annex as OH2. The storage would probably be NFPA 30. Matt -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 12:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; trilliumf...@cwisp.ca Subject: RE: Distilled Spirits If you are over 20% alcohol, I believe you go into flammable liquids stuff. Try over in that direction. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471 mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com=E,1,OWMzZSRhKB4XqBaXs-PlCGH6HcuM6Ok_Q5bhLJVaaA28325NKVd28IqxTiQZ3a7TpNkIc7RNsSlyeSsUDFKCSXM3PZlBnhjZ7Aw23QjecC7Rpi8RFDWXvwRBhmo,=1 Send large files to us via: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0 From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 11:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. Subject: Distilled Spirits Can anyone direct me to design criteria for the manufacturing and storage of distilled spirits ( Rum)? Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Troy ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,Em7J0PeoiwFnWUKftG9NGBT6Gf9_ZW6_YjrI8pq-jlRyZUO6UlxtpNQUdey-ogrxKS3qPoy90Ad_7_uJqP6QLfiZUdO3aG-QfQjO9s288GU,=1 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,OFxEpnsL7-F1epzxBqoITLrv1x2gmS1P8eNzedF-nx9ttDqrqw4GZNpIaoDFklyM6SgFZuE6A2qBOtk-aXch6KGSwgXWHUKJvXO8mjyLyvQ75RE,=1 ___ 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: schedule 7 pipe?
Good morning: I have been reading through this e-mail chain and I noticed a couple of references to the ASTM A-53 pipe spec. I stand to be corrected, but out that in all of the data sheets that I have ever seen, for "Schedule 7" or for any other listed sprinkler pipes, with wall thicknesses less than Schedule 40, are to the ASTM A135/A795 specs. The only data sheets that I am familiar with that meet the ASTM A53 spec. is for Schedule 40 pipe. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum Sent: January 20, 2021 5:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: John Denhardt Subject: Re: schedule 7 pipe? Warning! This email came from outside your company. Matt - fully understand the position you have. To answer your initial question specifically, I have heard of *no* push to change NFPA 13 with regard to piping material. 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://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> *Our members are at the heart of everything we do.* *Expand your design department in 2021!* AFSA is taking its popular two-week Beginning Fire Sprinkler System Planning School on the road. From San Diego to Tampa Bay and stops in between, our technical experts will teach the basics of system layout based on the 2019 edition of NFPA 13. Space is limited. Enroll today at https://www.firesprinkler.org/schools. On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:03 PM Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum < sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > There is no doubt that thicker pipe lasts longer. > > However, when the owner of a warehouse specifies schedule 7 piping for > the sprinkler system in a hard bid, the installing contractor will be > using schedule 7. > > Matt > > -Original Message- > From: Lucas Kirn > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 3:34 PM > To: Matt Grise ; > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: schedule 7 pipe? > > Matt, > > Having seen many cases of failed sch. 7 pipe over the past 10+ years I > would tell anyone willing to listen to stay far, far away from it. > Pipe schedule is the most basic form of corrosion/leak protection. The > thinner the pipe, the shorter the lifespan. > > I have also seen several instances where a GC or property owner came > back and tried to sue the installing sprinkler contractor because the > system started leaking after less than 10 years - through no fault of > the contractor. In my opinion installing an inferior product exposes > your company to more liability. > > Lucas Kirn, PE > > Engineered Corrosion Solutions > (314) 415-1387 | > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fecscorrosion.com= > E,1,xpOWPXSiPcfMjrQXW0481anSuS-LAdKXY8Csy9gBfPzMFPZQ61fHBTnx1JPCTU5vcU > quYUcmx0Hs_Eg8_66rAgyi9fc2BhzVgD_0ACnhMOXX6-GkecLttgY,=1 > > -Original Message- > From: Matt Grise > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:58 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: schedule 7 pipe? > > Has there been any push/interest in allowing unlisted (standard ASTM > A53) schedule 7 steel pipe to be allowed by code in place of the listed "flow" > piping options? > > Matt > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 3000 sqft rule
According to my records, there has been a “3000 sq. ft. rule” as long as there have been area / density curves. In the 1973 and 1974 editions, there was a note below Table 2-2.1(B) that said: For combustible construction with wet or dry system the minimum area of application shall be 3,000 sq. ft. Then for the 1975 edition the note was modified to say: For construction having unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces, the minimum area of sprinkler operation shall be 3,000 square feet. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum Sent: March 4, 2020 3:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Ron Greenman Subject: 3000 sqft rule Does anyone know what edition of 13 the 3000 sqft rule was introduced? Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com<mailto: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-) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Missing table in chapter 21
I think you meant to ask what happened to Table 21.2.2. During the revision cycle for the 2016 edition, Section 21.2 was greatly revised. Table 21.1 was deleted and so Table 21.2.2 from the 2013 edition became a new Table 21.2.1 in the 2016. This table was also revised, to delete the bin box and shelf storage, hose stream and duration columns, etc. so it looks different. Here is the Committee Statement for First Revision No. 229: “The revisions to section 21.2 and the associated tables eliminate a significant amount of redundancy. Hose stream and duration columns were deleted since this required is address in Table 21.4.1. Extended coverage sprinklers utilizing Fast Response or Standard Response elements are all in the standard response category. The testing associated with the referenced sprinkler did not include bin box or shelf storage, therefore these arrangements are not considered in the tables.” In the 2019 edition, it is now Table 24.2.1. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Ben Young via Sprinklerforum Sent: December-06-19 3:48 PM To: 321 via Sprinklerforum Cc: Ben Young Subject: Missing table in chapter 21 Does anyone know what happened to Table 22.2.2 in between the 2013 and 2016 editions? Nothing explaining the lack of the table in the annex or handbook commentary that I can see. The table was titled Palletized, solid-piled, bin box, shelf, or back to back shelf storage of class 1 through class 4 and cartoned unexpanded commodities. My educated guess is that someone figured out that solid shelves don't do so well in these situations. I checked in 2019 as well, not in there either. RIP back-to-back shelf storage 6 EC head calcs with 250 GPM hose I guess. Benjamin Young ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: partial systems - running piping through unprotected areas
I think the section that you might be looking for is in A.8.1 of NFPA 13-2013. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G Sent: July-15-19 7:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: partial systems - running piping through unprotected areas My memory is failing me today. Isn't there a section that says I can't run piping through un-protected areas? We have a building that has a partially protected basement. Basically, we have to bulk across the basement to protect 3 areas. Can some one help me find the section of 13 that says this is acceptable or not? [MFP_logo_F]<http://www.mfpdesign.com/> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET MFP Design, LLC 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten." ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Storage of motorcycle tires
This is just my opinion, but just because the definition doesn't reference motorcycle tires (or ATV tires for that matter, or the one on my wheel barrow) doesn't negate the fact that motorcycle tires are rubber tires. That definition doesn't comply with the NFPA Manual of Style either, so the definition is definitely flawed. However, in Chapter 18 of NFPA 13-2013 (for example) tires on racks on tread are covered, so I don't think you really have a problem with design criteria. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: July-12-19 4:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Storage of motorcycle tires I am looking at a storage area for motorcycle tires on fixed racks on tread. NFPA 13 excludes such tires from its definition of rubber tires (FM 8-3 does not). I would like your opinion about how to determine protection criteria for this storage? (Miscellaneous storage does not apply.) Thanks, David Bitton, ing./Eng. Quest Loss Control Services Inc. Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200 Montréal, Québec H4P 1T8 (514) 341-4545 www.questlosscontrol.com<http://www.questlosscontrol.com/> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Suction Control Valve
Back to the original question of “Who/What determines when a Suction Control Valve is needed?”, the AHJ calls for it. The Handbook for NFPA 20-2013 has the provision from the standard plus some explanatory text: 4.15.9 Low Suction Pressure Controls. 4.15.9.1 Low suction throttling valves or variable speed suction limiting controls for pump drivers that are listed for fire pump service and that are suction pressure sensitive shall be permitted where the authority having jurisdiction requires positive pressure to be maintained on the suction piping. The use of low suction pressure throttling valves is discouraged but permitted if required by an AHJ. A low pressure throttling valve reduces the pressure available to the fire protection system and provides another potential point of failure. When used, a low pressure throttling valve is installed in the discharge piping, with the sensing line for the device connected to the suction piping. … Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G Sent: June-18-19 7:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Suction Control Valve Check out the Bermad FP 436. It is a “pressure sustaining valve.” I’ve seen water purveyors require these so that you don’t draw the suction line below 20 psi. It is installed in the pump discharge. It also acts as your pump discharge check valve. [MFP_logo_F]<http://www.mfpdesign.com/> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET MFP Design, LLC 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.” From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Mark.Phelps Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:26 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Suction Control Valve The 2019 version of NFPA 20 goes on to say : 4.16.5.4 No control valve other than a listed OS valve and the devices as permitted in 4.29.3<https://codesonline.nfpa.org/code/40e1327d-3fd3-4a71-860f-4ec92a4bec89/e909aaad-4058-4ae1-9c1b-0a58441efe7a/np_58253fca-f642-11e7-914a-0547f3f12f9d.html#ID00020544> shall be installed in the suction pipe within 50 ft (15.3 m) of the pump suction flange. 4.29.3 describes how to install a backflow preventer a minimum of 50 feet from the suction flange of the fire pump. I don’t find anywhere in NFPA 20 where it describes or allows a “Throttle Control Valve. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Goins Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Suction Control Valve Please re-read my copied text from the NFPA 20, it says shall be installed on the suction line. Not should, but shall. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh Eze 11:19 On Jun 18, 2019, at 4:23 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>> wrote: On marginal municipal water supplies where there is the chance that the fire pump could draw flows greater than what could be provided, the water purveyor will often request a suction control valve. Basically, this throttles the flow from the pump and keeps the municipal system pressure from going negative. Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – 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_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=DfTAYwUJpJ5qWdFrEReH1LUJi7vmhhsyNN16NPQ7H4w=HvVurPrXKAWSL3gbUp-tLO7vWCSKDJaxF9EKKQ1WV5Y=> 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Vince Sabolik Sent: Tuesday, June 18,
Bags to Protect Sprinklers from Overspray
Can someone please provide a name/location for a supplier of the cellophane bags or the thin paper bags, used to protect sprinklers in spray booths from overspray. I remember from years gone by, small bags, just big enough to cover a sprinkler, with a thin draw string, to secure the bag in place, but now, at least in the Toronto area, no one seems to have a source for them. Thank you, Larry Keeping ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Fire Pump Question
Section 6.1.2 of NFPA 20-2019 is pretty clear: 6.1.2* Application. Centrifugal pumps shall not be used where a static suction lift is required. When I first started in the FP industry, NFPA 20 allowed horizontal pumps to be primed and operate with a suction lift, but, if memory serves, those provisions were taken out back in the 1974 or 1976 editions. I understand that there were a series of incidents of foot valve failure and lost prime that led to pumps running dry and being ruined. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Laleh Zargarinejad Sent: June-05-19 9:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Fire Pump Question Is vertical turbine fire pump the only type approved by NFPA for negative suction lift? (fire pump above the tank). I designed one for a high rise in Houston years ago, where we put a diesel powered vertical turbine pump over an underground tank (tank was there as second source of water supply). Is there a way to use a centrifugal pump and prime it (in a fashion acceptable to NFPA)? Otherwise I am looking at an underground tank with the vertical turbine pump right over it and building a small heated shack for the pump and accessories. To compound my question, what are the restrictions for a campus-wide type fire protection, such as a cluster of 9 small one story buildings (~2,500 sq ft each), all R-2 classification(sleeping quarters for the students) + one larger bldg. (~10,000 sq ft one story), which has three classrooms , a kitchen and dining area (I am not sure if that would be E or A classification, but in any event it would be a NFPA-13 vs NFPA 13R for the smaller buildings serving as sleeping quarters). All the buildings within a say 150' radius. The issue here is it may be cost effective to install one fire pump and storage tank and serve all 10 buildings, however to provide a separate system for each building may become cost prohibitive. Laleh Zargarinejad Fire Protection Engineer ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 13 (2013ed) figure 15.2.2
As I understand it, the Table is based on test data using ½ and large orifice sprinklers, which don’t always give the best results against high piled storage, so that could explain some of the inconsistencies. Having said that though, it looks to me that Column C is generally less demanding than Column E. ie. For 20 ft storage in a 25 ft high building, Col. C wants a 0.60 density whereas Col. E wants 0.70. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: May-20-19 2:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Dewayne Martinez Subject: NFPA 13 (2013ed) figure 15.2.2 Group A plastics, 5-12ft of storage, 15 to 20ft ceiling Figure 15.2.2 / table 15.2.6(a) Why is Group A, Expanded, Cartoned, Stable (Column E) less of a hazard then Group A, nonexpanded, stable, cartoned (Column C)? One would think that since the expanded has a higher heat release rate so it would be higher density. Can anyone help me understand this? Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Fire Protection Design Manager TOTAL Mechanical Building Integrity W234 N2830 Paul Rd. Pewaukee, WI 53072 dmarti...@total-mechanical.com<mailto:dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> Ph: 262-522-7110 Cell: 414-406-5208 http://www.total-mechanical.com/ [cid:image003.png@01D4F47B.AA7F2100] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: definition of "bulk"
Section 22.37 is extracted from NFPA 400. NFPA 400 has a definition for “Bulk Solid Storage” – The storage of more than 6000 lb (2722 kg) in a single container. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: May-13-19 10:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: definition of "bulk" I believe that when 13 does not define something you are to go to a recognized dictionary. So try Webster’s online. No, the Urban Dictionary doesn’t count. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET 480-505-9271 MFP Design, LLC www.mfpdesign,com<http://www.mfpdesign,com> Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Zachary Siegrist mailto:zachary.siegr...@gmail.com>> wrote: I am inquiring to see if anyone can provide clarification to the term "bulk" as it relates to the storage of solid oxidizers in Table 22.37.1.4.1 (2013 ed.). I don't see the term defined in Chapter 3. Zach Siegrist ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: EC HSW Under Garage Doors
Hi Skyler: I think you are putting too much thought into the matter. You had it covered when you read NFPA 13-2013, Section 8.9.5.3.2: “Sprinklers shall be installed under fixed obstructions over 4 ft (1.2 m) wide, such as ducts, decks, open grate flooring, cutting tables, and overhead doors.” Since Section 8.9 is for Extended Coverage Sidewall Spray Sprinklers, there is really no question – they are okay to use there. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Skyler Bilbo Sent: April-05-19 2:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: EC HSW Under Garage Doors Thanks! I need to buy the 2019 version... I feel like one of those old guys, from when I started in the industry, that quotes older versions because those are the ones I'm most familiar with... I'm not looking forward to learning the new rearranged chapters but I also don't want to be "that guy" who needs to get with the times. Times are definitely changing when a millennial starts having old person dilemmas, haha. Skyler Bilbo On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:35 PM Mike B Morey mailto:mmo...@shambaugh.com>> wrote: NFPA 2013 2019 - 11.3.2 (8) Extended coverage sprinklers installed to protect areas below a single overhead door(s) that should cover you 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<mailto:mmo...@shambaugh.com> [cid:image001.jpg@01D4EBCC.9325F0E0] From:Skyler Bilbo mailto:sbi...@wenteplumbing.com>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Date:04/05/2019 02:31 PM Subject:EC HSW Under Garage Doors Sent by:"Sprinklerforum" mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. Is anyone installing EC HSW heads under garage doors? I keep running into 16 ft wide doors (queue jokes: "just open the door"). It would be cheaper to install one EC head rather than a standard spray HSW on each side. I'm looking in the 2013 version of NFPA 13, and I see in 8.4.2 where it allows standard sidewall spray sprinklers under garage doors, which isn't mentioned for the similar section regarding extended coverage sidewall sprinklers. It is mentioned in the EC HSW section: 8.9.5.3.2 that sprinklers are required under obstructions over 4 ft wide such as overhead doors. I'm thinking this is just saying sprinklers are required under the garage door due to the obstruction, but not implying that EC HSW can be used. It seems to me that NFPA is already being "nice" to us by letting us use the Light Hazard spacing for these HSW heads under garage doors and spacing the heads out farther with EC heads is pretty liberal if you are worried about this head ever actually going off in a fire. I would be interested to know if there has been any testing on this. Thanks, Skyler Bilbo___ 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=DwICAg=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg=JfddSnRHvASLscCAQ7fPAc_hWOQTMOTCFlULHkBP3wY=MCa_hXG8oPD-5QoSupXxx745eXtTyBzVQhCP6FRC0z8= 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<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Table Confusion
Oops!Sorry! I was mistakenly looking at Table 16.2.1.3.3.1 when I references Curves A & B. In Table 16.2.1.3.3.2 both conditions use Curves C & D, but for encapsulated you increase the density by 1.5. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis Sent: March-21-19 9:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Table Confusion How do we arrive at A and B in the Table? R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP Design Manager /3-D Specialist Rapid Fire Protection Inc.<http://rapidfireinc.com/> 1530 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Direct Line-605.593.5063 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 [cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00] From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Table Confusion You also must also look at other lines of Table 16.2.1.3.3.2. For nonencapsulated you need 1 level of in-rack sprinklers and you pick your density and design area based on Curves C or D. For encapsulated you need 1 level of in-rack sprinklers and you pick your density and design area based on Curves A or B and then you increase the density by a factor of 1.5. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis Sent: March-20-19 7:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Table Confusion NFPA 13 - 2016. Class IV Encapsulated- 18'-0" Table 16.2.1.3.3.2 tells me to go to Figure 16.2.1.3.2(d). The Figure description says "Class IV Nonencapsulated". But the table has "Yes" for encapsulated. Is this a typo, or is it just too late in the day? R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP Design Manager /3-D Specialist Rapid Fire Protection Inc.<http://rapidfireinc.com/> 1530 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Direct Line-605.593.5063 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 [cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Table Confusion
You also must also look at other lines of Table 16.2.1.3.3.2. For nonencapsulated you need 1 level of in-rack sprinklers and you pick your density and design area based on Curves C or D. For encapsulated you need 1 level of in-rack sprinklers and you pick your density and design area based on Curves A or B and then you increase the density by a factor of 1.5. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis Sent: March-20-19 7:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Table Confusion NFPA 13 - 2016. Class IV Encapsulated- 18'-0" Table 16.2.1.3.3.2 tells me to go to Figure 16.2.1.3.2(d). The Figure description says "Class IV Nonencapsulated". But the table has "Yes" for encapsulated. Is this a typo, or is it just too late in the day? R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP Design Manager /3-D Specialist Rapid Fire Protection Inc.<http://rapidfireinc.com/> 1530 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Direct Line-605.593.5063 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 [cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems
I wouldn’t agree that it isn’t a real-world issue. Years ago, I had a deluge system in an air craft hanger bend the hangers/supports on the risers during the trip testing. Bracing against the impact forces is strongly recommended. I’ve even seen wet pipe systems mains that shifted out of position, due to the client wheeling open control valves and filling them to quickly. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Skyler Bilbo Sent: March-12-19 10:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems Craig, I have run into a very similar scenario. I had a real concern with so much water hitting every change in direction and dead end with a lot of force. All of the deluge valves that I know of go from being closed to open full bore, as quickly as the clapper can open (fast). Also, it is important to realize that the water will not move through at the designed minimum flow rate, but probably much faster. In our case, we installed seismic bracing at every elbow and near any dead ends. This wasn't engineered, as I'm not aware of any guidelines or requirements for designing this bracing. It seems to me that this is a similar concept to thrust block design for underground piping (where the forces in a 6" elbow can easily exceed 5,000 lbs and substantially higher than this in larger sizes), but there are definitely some differences. If nothing else, the braces provided me with some peace of mind. I felt it was important to make sure that the braces were installed and oriented correctly. I also made sure that no one entered the area when we did the startup testing, and everything went well. The bracing definitely helped. Thinking about this more - hopefully someone will chime in... The total pressure (velocity pressure + normal pressure) should never exceed your initial static pressure. If you design braces to handle this full initial static pressure times the area of whatever size pipe you have (pi * r^2), I would think this would be a safe calculation. Again, I hope someone chimes in on this. I have been wrong more than once, so don't just take my word for it. I just read Roland's response. It's good to know it hasn't been a real world issue. I know that I was pretty nervous about it when my name was attached to it. The cost of the braces was worth it to me. - Skyler On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:59 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>> wrote: So, I’ve got an FPE and ME questioning about water hammer in a deluge system. We have a unique installation where we have two levels of hose connections (one array at 12 ft AFF and one at 60 ft AFF) for manual firefighting in an unconditioned assembly building which is 145 ft high. Due to the non-heated condition, one proposed concept for a semi-automatic system is to use an electric release deluge valve to charge the system from manual pull stations. Flow rate will be 1,000 gpm at somewhere near 150ish psi though 600-800 ft of pipe inside the bldg. The FPE and ME are concerned with water hammer in the piping when the deluge valve opens based on how fast the valve opens. Has anyone dealt with or had to provide calcs for this? NFPA 13, 14, etc. are fairly silent on the issue. Is it even an issue? I’ve never had this brought up before on an interior system. Anyone have any data on how fast a solenoid operated deluge valve opens? Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | craig.pr...@jacobs.com<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com<http://www.jacobs.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<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Floor Control Drain Pipe SIze
That requirement was first added into the standard for the 1991 edition. The substantiation was: “… By requiring the size to be one pipe size larger than the largest size drain connection tying into it, two floors could be drained simultaneously if necessary, without causing an excessive delay in draining time.” Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Joe Burtell Sent: February-21-19 4:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Floor Control Drain Pipe SIze Can some tell me why NFPA decided to upsize the drain pipe size for floor control situations? 16.10.4.8 Where drain connections for floor control valves are tied into a common drain riser, the drain riser shall be one pipe size larger downstream of each size drain connection tying into it. To further this discussion, if I have a riser room with 10 riser and the drains are all tied together, there is no requirement to upsize that drain pipe that I can see. So why one and not the other? 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<http://www.burtellfire.com/> “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. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Radiant Heater spacing
As per Table 9.2.4.5(a), Part 2 Unit Heater and radiant heater, Item b, Vertical downward discharge, high temperature sprinklers are called for any sprinklers within a 7 ft radius cylinder extending 7 ft above and 2 ft below the heater. Intermediate rated sprinklers are needed above the 7 ft distance. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Dane Long Sent: January-11-19 10:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Radiant Heater spacing I noticed theirs not a lot of guidance in NFPA 13 (19 Edition) regarding radiant heaters. The only information given is table 9.4.2.5(a) and it states that anything within 7ft has to be a 286 degree sprinkler. Is this still the case even when the heater is less then 7ft from the roof deck and the deflector on the heater is directing the heat down? Thanks, Dane Long Design Tech | Bamford Fire Sprinkler P: 785-825-7710 F: 785-825-0667 A: 1383 W. North St. Salina, Ks 67401 From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 4:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: PRV By-pass Wait, are you planning to use the ZW4004 as the control valve, with the hose valve downstream and no system control valve or check valve? I’m not sure if you could do that, because then it’s like the hose valve is coming off the sprinkler system. I don’t see it as a problem from a practical standpoint, but you could get hung up in a technicality. When we did it, we had a little manifold with the capped-bonnet ZW4004 then a tee to a standard hose valve (non-PRV) then a butterfly valve and check valve for the system. Maybe you don’t need the extra check valve and/or butterfly valve. What say the peanut gallery? From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: PRV By-pass This is a legit way to do it. You can get that valve with a capped bonnet if you don’t want to have an extra unnecessary control valve. Travis is thinking of a pilot-operated pressure reducing valve (pressure regulating valve?) which is also legitimate, and gives you more residual pressure to work with, but costs like 4 or 5 times as much. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 9:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Cc: Dewayne Martinez mailto:dmarti...@total-mechanical.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: PRV By-pass I have never done this before but we were just tossing ideas around to save some cash on projects. We use the 2 ½” Wilkins ZW4004 globe model which is good up to 500 gpm. I would calculate the valve for 250gpm flow and use these numbers for both the system and fire hose valve. What is the PReIV/PRedV? Dewayne Martinez Fire Protection Design Manager TOTAL Mechanical Building Integrity W234 N2830 Paul Rd. Pewaukee, WI 53072 dmarti...@total-mechanical.com<mailto:dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> Ph: 262-522-7110 Cell: 414-406-5208 http://www.total-mechanical.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.total-2Dmechanical.com_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=NLaBHhNMlhuwjmHtIwrNKnRXUE6bCAJQ0QJ6fXzzR7U=GIutsxVg2AyCSFwc37VXHwk3wPK2czDtVqaGadAaRWI=> [A close up of a sign Description generated with high confidence] From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 10:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: PRV By-pass Do you have the room for that? It sounds acceptable, but will be a large assembly, presumably in a stair. Are you selecting a PRedV that works at lower flows of a single sprinkler and at the higher flows of the standpipe or sprinkler design area? I believe the Tyco PRV-1 allows for flows from 0 – xxx. That would work for you. Also, make sure you get the properly sized PRelV installed downstream of the PRedV. Check the PRedV data sheet for size of PRelV. [MFP_logo_F] Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET MFP Design, LLC 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> http://www.mfpdesign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.mfpdesign.com-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77-257C14e5
RE: Indoor Trampoline Park
I’m not sure how this thread started discussing ESFR sprinklers. As I understand it, the sprinklers are 286°F temperature rated and as far as I know, ESFRs do not come so rated. Last May sometime, I believe the NFPA Xchange had a Q & A about “The Emerging Hazard of Indoor Athletic Facilities and Trampoline Parks” with Matt Klaus. I didn’t take part that session, but it looks from the title that the hazard classification for such facilities is now being seriously considered. With this, I suggest that a query to the NFPA might be in order, to see what the current thinking on the subject now is. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: January-04-19 11:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Indoor Trampoline Park Joe, I believe it's worth mentioning that in the scenario you've described, that of a design of an ESFR system in a warehouse when the space is not used for high piled storage or is converted to light or ordinary hazard occupancy, that 23.1.1 of the '19 edition (12.6.7.1 in the '16) notes that if the ESFR system were designed to meet the criteria in the ESFR chapter that it "shall be permitted" to protectLH, OH, storage protected by OH1, OH2, EH1, or EH2. There standard give clear guidance that replacing the ESFR system in such a circumstance isn't necessary. It basically agrees with your concept. sincerely, Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone 760-745-6181 Visit the website<http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> On 01/03/2019 2:01 PM, Joe Burtell wrote: There is nothing that says you cannot overdesign a system. Case in point is ESFR sprinkler systems. We install them in lease warehouses all the time even though the current tenant may only be storing class 1 product to 12'-0. Is it overkill, yes, but it gives them flexibility for future tenants. Same is true in your case. What about the next tenant, maybe OH 2 is more appropriate for the next guy. So we should replace systems like we change underwear, well maybe for some of us. I may question the temperature of the sprinklers but beyond that, just calc it with a boatload of safety if that's what he wants. Best regards, Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS *PLEASE NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBER* [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<http://www.burtellfire.com/> “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, Jan 3, 2019 at 2:52 PM John Irwin mailto:jir...@quickresponsefl.com>> wrote: Exposed roof at about 25ft. 286 sprinklers are existing. We have no information on the padding used for the park. John Irwin West Coast Branch Manager Quick Response Fire Protection 727-282-9243 Typed on tiny keys, just for you. Please forgive spelling errors, typographical transgressions and grammatical gaffs. From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> on behalf of Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 4:48:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Indoor Trampoline Park Is there a ceiling or exposed construction overhead? What is the ceiling/roof height? Do any of the foam, vinyl, foam rubber, plastics, etc. have any special ratings making them non-combustible or self-extinguishing? Smoke and Flame spread ratings matter with respect to occupant evacuation. Is there space below the trampolines? What is being done there to prevent debris accumulation? How would a fire be addressed below the trampoline? No, you as the sprinkler contractor have nothing to do with the fire alarm system and how it functions. Remember, as the AHJ, they typically cover a mul
RE: Hydrostatic Testing
My guess is that you are looking for it in Chapter 28. However, you’ll find it in Section 29.7. Chapter 29 covers Existing System Modifications. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Joe Burtell Sent: December-12-18 11:04 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Hydrostatic Testing Can anyone tell me why this section is missing from the 2019 of NFPA 13? 25.2.1.4 Modifications to existing piping systems shall require testing at system working pressure. 25.2.1.4.1 Where modification is made to an existing system affecting more than 20 sprinklers, the new portion shall be isolated and tested at not less than 200 psi (13.8 bar) for 2 hours. 25.2.1.4.2 Modifications that cannot be isolated, such as relocated drops, shall require testing at system working pressure. Best regards, Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS *PLEASE NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBER* [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<http://www.burtellfire.com/> “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. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Mixed rack storage
Whoa there! The Chapter 13 only covers plastic to storage to 5 ft in dedicated storage facilities or Miscellaneous Storage of Plastics to 12 ft. My understanding is that the area in question is designated for storage (ie. it is a 4600 sq ft warehouse area), so for plastics to 12 ft on racks you need to go to Chapter 17. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of John Irwin Sent: November-29-18 10:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed rack storage I agree with this, except it calls for one level of in-racks. John Irwin Quick Response Fire Protection From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of cw bamford Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Mixed rack storage Calc seperate areas. group A plastics on racks UNDER 12’ using 2013 edition of NFPA 2013 Table 13.2.1 Exposed -- Unexpanded -- Rack >10' to 12' OH2 Please check my work. onto Ceramic Floor Tiles It's not just the commodity, It's how they are stored and moved on the racks ? in cardboard ? with some Styrofoam? Encapsulated? solid shelves Chuck Bamford SET On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:05 AM John Irwin mailto:jir...@quickresponsefl.com>> wrote: I am working on a flooring retail building that has a 4,600 sqft warehouse. Roof is at 30’ and they want to store to 20’. They will have vinyl flowing and rolls of rug and carpet, as well as ceramic and porcelain tile. I believe I have determined that the vinyl and rolls of rug equate to Group A, non-expanded plastics. My question is this … is it permissible for the client to storage all their group A plastics on racks UNDER 12’ and their ceramic floor tiles on the racks OVER 12’ and to then calculate the roof system for the lesser, ceramic tile storage? John Irwin ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Pallet storage above overhead doors
I'm out of touch with the FM data sheets these days, but from an NFPA 13-2013 perspective, I think Sections 12.1.3.3 and 12.12.3.3 would come into play: 12.1.3.3 The sprinkler system design shall be based on the storage height and clearance to ceiling that routinely or periodically exist in the building and create the greatest water demand. Where storage is placed above doors, the storage height shall be calculated from the base of storage above the door. 12.12.3.3 Where idle pallet storage is above a door, the idle pallet storage height and ceiling height shall be calculated from the base of storage above the door using the applicable protection criteria referenced in Section 12.12. >From this, I would conclude that the sprinkler protection for 6 ft of idle >wood pallets from Tables Table 12.12.1.2 (a) (b) or (c) would be called for. >For idle plastic pallets, compliance with Section 12.12 would be needed. It should be recognized that the above is just my personal opinion, 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 NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of James Crawford Sent: November-13-18 3:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Pallet storage above overhead doors We are working on a project where the tenant wants to store pallets above the overhead loading doors to a height of 6'-0" in the loading dock area.. The project will be using Factory Mutual data sheets, so I went to DS8-24 Idle Pallet Storage and because they are on racks it send me to DS8-9 and 8-9 tells me to use rack storage for Un-cartoned, un-expanded Group "A" plastics Table 10. Based on the height of the building (40'-0") I would need ESFR K25 operating at 60psi to protect 6'-0" of wooden pallets, this seems a little excessive. So if we add a level of in-racks sprinkler heads and use Table 13 we would have 5' to 10' storage above the sprinkler and 10' to 20' clearance above the top of the pallets. So this tells me to use the 15' storage from Table 10 or ESFR K25 @ 25psi plus 1 level of in-racks. Still seems a little excessive. Am I reading this right? Thank you James Crawford Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. Phone 604-888-0318 Fax 604-888-4732 Cel 604-790-0938 Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca<mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca> Web www.phaserfire.ca<http://www.phaserfire.ca> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: corridors and residential sprinklers
Take a look at NFPA 13, Figure A.11.3.1.1(a), Examples of Design Area for Dwelling Units. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of NSFD Sent: October-29-18 8:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: corridors and residential sprinklers I would go w/ the four sprinklers. Section 8.4.5.1 permits residential sprinklers for dwelling units "and their adjoining corridors" and I think that's the key to get you into 11.3.1 for calculations. (2013 edition references). On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:09 PM MFP Design, LLC mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>> wrote: For a project that is a “typical” apartment building protected by NFPA 13 using residential sprinklers, how many sprinklers do you calculate in a corridor. In the NFPA 13 handbook, it says that when doing room design method, you can consider the corridor a room and calculate 5. However, the handbook goes on to state that you can’t use room design for residential sprinklers and you must calculate 4 sprinklers. This may require going to adjacent rooms if necessary. So, since we can’t use room design for the corridor and residential sprinklers, it would seem that you would only calculate 4. To eliminate the 75’ max argument, let’s say the sprinklers are spaced at 16’ on center. So, do we calculate 4 or 5 residential sprinklers in a corridor? This came up in a discussion today. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> http://www.mfpdesign.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D=0> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D=0> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.” ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Ball drip valve
I am afraid I don’t entirely understand your last message. If water is leaking past the ball drip, it means there is a problem at the air or water seats. As per my previous message, that needs to be corrected. Getting the ball valve to seat to stop the leakage is not a solution to the problem. Larry From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks Sent: October-05-18 12:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Ball drip valve Thanks Larry. I have installed ball drip valves, with and without the push rod. I have used a pen to push the ball back on those ball valves without the push rod. I found that usually stops the the leaks From: Larry Keeping<mailto:lkeep...@plcfire.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 5:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Ball drip valve If I understand you correctly, the ball drip that is installed is the automatic type, which is not right for the trim on a dry pipe valve. The valve should be of the mechanical type with a plunger that can be pushed to unseat the valve. Normally the valve should be unseated with no pressure behind it to cause it to seat. The valve is part of the the alarm line drain configuration. After an activation/valve trip, the water pressure in the alarm line would force the ball onto the seat. To drain it, as part of resetting the DPV, the plunger is pushed and held until the alarm line is fully drained. After resetting the DPV, the plunger is pushed again, to make sure there is no water in the line. If there is, that means that there is a leak at the clapper gasket/air seat, which must be rectified. I hope this helps with your problem. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks Sent: October-01-18 12:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Ball drip valve I have a dry system that we change the 1/2”ball drip valve about every 6 months. There is no spring in the valve, it is straight through. Normally, if I have a problem with the valve resetting, I put my finger at the outlet and the ball is moved against the seat, and the ball seats. Any hints on how to get the ball to seat? Douglas Hicks General Fire Eq of Eastern Oregon, Inc ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Ball drip valve
If I understand you correctly, the ball drip that is installed is the automatic type, which is not right for the trim on a dry pipe valve. The valve should be of the mechanical type with a plunger that can be pushed to unseat the valve. Normally the valve should be unseated with no pressure behind it to cause it to seat. The valve is part of the the alarm line drain configuration. After an activation/valve trip, the water pressure in the alarm line would force the ball onto the seat. To drain it, as part of resetting the DPV, the plunger is pushed and held until the alarm line is fully drained. After resetting the DPV, the plunger is pushed again, to make sure there is no water in the line. If there is, that means that there is a leak at the clapper gasket/air seat, which must be rectified. I hope this helps with your problem. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks Sent: October-01-18 12:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Ball drip valve I have a dry system that we change the 1/2”ball drip valve about every 6 months. There is no spring in the valve, it is straight through. Normally, if I have a problem with the valve resetting, I put my finger at the outlet and the ball is moved against the seat, and the ball seats. Any hints on how to get the ball to seat? Douglas Hicks General Fire Eq of Eastern Oregon, Inc ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 13R Test and Drain Question
We can always agree to disagree. From my perspective: * 6.10.2 says: The test connection pipe shall be at least 1 in. (25 mm) nominal diameter and terminate in an orifice equal to or smaller than the same size as the smallest sprinkler installed in the system. * 6.10.3 says: A valve shall be installed in the test connection piping. And then: * 6.10.4 says: When the drain required in 6.9.1 is arranged as a test connection (ie. as per the above), a separate test connection isn’t required. When I read what is in the standard, I don’t see anything about a test port being taken off the drain line. So, as I see, it if you configure your drain in accordance with 6.10.2 & 6.10.3, the assembly can serve as both the drain and the test pipe. Just my personal opinion. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: September-20-18 11:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 13R Test and Drain Question Larry, I’d disagree with that interpretation as the minimum drain size is 1 inch. I believe that “connection” is the key word here asboth drains and test piers are not part of the system but attached to it. I think what’s being said is you can take the test port off of the drain line if properly configured rather than need a separate connection to the system. On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:41 AM Larry Keeping mailto:lkeep...@plcfire.com>> wrote: I would say that test pipe would do the job, based on what it says in 6.10.4: 6.10.4 When the drain required in 6.9.1 is arranged as a test connection, a separate test connection shall not be required. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of James Litvak Sent: September-20-18 11:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: 13R Test and Drain Question On a 13R system, 6.9.2 specifies that the drain piping must be at least 1" nominal size. If a residential system riser has a 1" drain pipe to outside that has either a test valve with a 1/2" orifice or terminates at a broken sprinkler with a 1/2" orifice, does that drain piping still meet the requirements of 6.9.2? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Sent from Gmail Mobile ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 13R Test and Drain Question
I would say that test pipe would do the job, based on what it says in 6.10.4: 6.10.4 When the drain required in 6.9.1 is arranged as a test connection, a separate test connection shall not be required. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of James Litvak Sent: September-20-18 11:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: 13R Test and Drain Question On a 13R system, 6.9.2 specifies that the drain piping must be at least 1" nominal size. If a residential system riser has a 1" drain pipe to outside that has either a test valve with a 1/2" orifice or terminates at a broken sprinkler with a 1/2" orifice, does that drain piping still meet the requirements of 6.9.2? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Sprinkler heads popping off randomly
Good morning: I was late getting to the office this morning, so I am joining in a little late. If I remember correctly though, Reliable did have a problem with some of their sprinklers back in the mid 60’s, where the links had a fault, such that they would pull apart. After being in place for 50 years +/- it likely isn’t that though. The company I used to work for started having problems with them in the late 60’s & early 70’s, but I think the suggestion to contact Reliable is good advice. Something that could be done is a visual examination of as many of the sprinklers there as is practical, to look for possible defects. Again, after being there for 50 years +/- the most effective solution may just be to replace sprinklers. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of å... Sent: September-14-18 3:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler heads popping off randomly Larry: You are getting the best guesses from some of the best and most experienced minds in the business. On a question with a large uncertainty such as this one, this forum (crowdsourcing) is the state-of-the-art strategy for vetting answers. No single answer seems to be obvious...though Fpdc nicely packaged the options into 4 categories. Since state of the art guessing is better with discussion and full participation, I throw my guess into the hat. * random mechanical damage inflicted by installers at various points as they completed the job * if all unwanted activations happened at night, it might be that slight contraction of the metal upon cooling (versus elongation during a relatively hotter day) allows just enough wiggle room to promote a release. This theory would not be supported if any of the releases occurred during winter months, however. I would be SLOWW to replace an entire warehouse's inventory of sprinklers. Statistically, what Larry is experiencing is VEYYY rare. We in the business have heard FM Global claim something like 1 in x million chance of just this type of event occuring. Sprinklers stastically take a kicking and keep on ticking, for 60, 80, a 100 years. There have been exceptions however, and that is what drives the interest in this thread. Scot Deal Excelsior Risk & Fire gms: +420 606 872 129 (GMT + 2) On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:54 AM Fpdcdesign mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote: If sprinklers are activating without a fire situation, there are pretty much 4 options, over pressurization, overheating, mechanical defect or mechanical damage. You have to start with one and go through each to find out what is going on (problem solving 101). Start with the PRV. That could eliminate one issue and is required on all new grid systems anyway. If you suspect overheating, you can do recording thermometers at the ceiling. Mode mechanical damage, You have to look at what is in the are that can cause an issue. (I had a client who was having accidental discharges at one particular sprinkler in a freezer. When we put an air deflector from the coping unit, it stopped the problem. I’ve crystals from the defrost cycle). If all else fails I am assuming that you have multiple systems within each building and problems with each of them. On Sep 13, 2018 at 9:02 PM, mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com>> wrote: Band-Aid and conceivably a waste of money. Sprinklers are tested at very high pressures, surges aren’t going to randomly operate sprinklers. Should the system have a pressure relief valve, probably yes. Is that the solution here, most likely, no. Scott Office: (763) 425-1001 x2 Cell: (612) 759-5556 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Fpdcdesign Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:57 PM To: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> Subject: Re: Sprinkler heads popping off randomly Contact the sprinkler contractor that services you systems. That should be able to steer you in the right direction. They can be added at the riser and will prevent over pressurization On Sep 13, 2018 at 8:48 PM, mailto:larry.stew...@earthlink.net>> wrote: Is the relief valve like a overgrown plumbing PRV? Stupid by nature but effective at preventing a calamity? … and starts dripping for no reason? ☺ From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fpdcdesign Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 5:31 PM To: Sprinklerforum Subject: Re: Sprinkler heads popping off randomly A relief vale would be a good place to start. That could tell you if it is a pressure or temperature problem. On Sep 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM, mailto:larry.stew...@earthlink.net>> wrote: Blown heads have been located at branch ends, some near a riser, most in the middle somewhere. Not sure about “lower water usage has dimensioned
RE: No Jockey Pump
NFPA 20 has never mandated jockey pumps. Back in the cycle for the development of the 1999 edition, in response to Proposal 20-36, the Committee Statement confirmed that "A pressure maintenance pump is not required by the standard. ..." For the 2016 edition, some text was added, for the first time, to clarify that pressure maintenance is required for pressure-actuated fire pumps, but a jockey pump is not necessarily required to accomplish the task. Section 4.26.1 (c) allows "Another approved means that is not the main fire pump". And again, the Committee Statement confirmed "... a pressure maintenance pump may not necessarily be required and that other forms of pressure maintenance may be used. ...". Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Thomas Reinhardt Sent: August-29-18 5:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: No Jockey Pump Hi group, Found a 50 yr. old fire pump at a business that didn't have a jockey pump. Am I missing something. Thanks Tom Reinhardt Fire Inspector/Plan Reviewer Skokie Fire Department 7424 Niles Center Road Skokie, IL 60077 Office: 847-982-5342 thomas.reinha...@skokie.org<mailto:thomas.reinha...@skokie.org> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: maximum sprinkler system sizes
You might be interested to know that the NFPA 13 Installation TC considered a proposal 13-122 for larger system sizes in the ROP meeting for the development of NFPA 13-2010. The TC rejected that proposal and issued a committee statement: “System size limits have a long and successful history that the committee is reluctant to change. The potential for much larger systems to be out of service during testing, inspections and maintenance events speaks against increasing system sizes.” Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: August-14-18 5:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: maximum sprinkler system sizes I was recently discussing the max system size issue with a building official. In this specific application we are requesting that the AHJ allow us to use a 60,000 square foot maximum size for ESFR systems in a big box warehouse. I have commentary directly from FM (in addition to FM2-0) that says “The size of the sprinkler system is not expected to affect the effectiveness of the sprinkler system as long as the system is designed properly for the occupancy.” The AHJ’s response was: “The system will work as well when the system is in operation, but when you turn it off for maintenance, there is a greater risk of fire since there is more area out of service.” I had assumed that the greater system sizes result in equal system effectiveness on the whole – in the sense that there is no evidence that the greater system area causes more fire losses even when maintenance downtime is factored into the equation. I had even thought that perhaps system performance on the whole would be improved since there are fewer control valves in the building that could be left closed (when they should be open). But, I have heard that “assuming” things can have negative consequences… On that note, I wanted to reach out and see what insight anyone might offer on system performance related to system size. Do large sprinkler systems perform equally only when they are operating properly – or do they operate properly (and perform equally) just as well, historically, as smaller systems? Has larger system size ever been faulted as the cause of a loss? Any insight/research/documentation would be great! Thanks, Matt ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Grooved Flange Adapters
I agree, the dimensions don’t work, but also, while it doesn’t say why, the Vic-Flange Adapter Notes in Vic. data sheet 10.04 says “FireLock Flange adapter should not be used on FireLock fittings.” Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Kenneth Berman Sent: July-10-18 11:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Grooved Flange Adapters there's not enough clearance for two on the same 90, and the adapter / coupling combo must use a 009 (slip in) coupling. On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Brad Casterline mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>> wrote: Do 6” Grooved Flange Adapters work on both ends of 6” Firelok 90s? Thanks, Brad ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Ceiling Grids and Flex Drops
Just a bit of history, if I may. The current requirements covered by 9.2.3.4.4.1, 9.2.3.4.4.4 and 9.2.3.5.2.2 originally went into the 1987 edition of NFPA 13 based on testing and a proposal from NFSA. Here is the substantiation for TCR 13-97: SUBSTANTIATION: Tests conducted by the National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA) show that, in certain instances, pendent sprinklers operating at higher pressures create a thrust which can lift the branch line piping. At the end sprinkler, the amount of thrust is sufficient to lift a pendent sprinkler out of the ceiling tile and up into the concealed space. (See test data). The unsupported lengths proposed to be permitted within 3-15.5.5.2 and 3-15.5.5.3 are intended to limit upward movement of the sprinkler within the ceiling to approximately 1/8 inch. The NFSA is continuing to study this subject and may present additional recommendations during the public comment period. NOTE: Supporting material available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: May-31-18 7:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Mitchell, Scott Subject: Re: Ceiling Grids and Flex Drops Scott, I agree completely. Thanks for sharing that video, and it does identify quite clearly that when they're installed properly the Flex Heads supplying sprinklers will resist the resulting forces and remain in the installed position. Pretty decent proof of their response. This does make me think over the provisions in §9.2.3.4.4.1, §9.2.3.4.4.4, §9.2.3.5.2.2, and §9.2.5.4.2 with respect to upward motion or thrust that were placed in the standard, probably by some stodgy old TC members who need to be voted out. There is some provision in the standard in §9.2.1.3.3.3 which requires any flexible drop fitting longer than 6' is provided with a hanger. For such a stodgy old TC member my memory of that discussion was that it was quite "energetic" and was a frank exchange of contrary ideas at high decibel levels. just my memories, Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone 760-745-6181 Visit the website<http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> On 05/31/2018 2:45 PM, Mitchell, Scott wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5fJ1lCVE98 Looks like a decent kick to me. Scott ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Misc Rack Storage
Just a word of caution. When you are using 23.4.4.1.1.4, you also have to have additional flow added in, as per the corresponding 23.4.4.1.1.5 (see A.23.4.4.1.1.4). Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Irwin Sent: May-17-18 11:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Misc Rack Storage Thanks everyone. John Irwin DynaFire Inc. – “Same Day – Next Day” From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Misc Rack Storage What Craig and Travis said. From a performance perspective, I always liked the “double density” approach where you prove the required density for the hazard that mostly characterizes the use and then a smaller hot spot for the more hazardous aberration. So EH2 per Chapter 11, and also a .6/900 sq. ft. or something like that. SL From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Misc Rack Storage When you have mixed criteria areas, you need to extend the higher density into the lower density area for 15’. Reference NFPA 13: 12.3 for that requirement. Also, don’t forget the issue of complying with 23.4.4.1.1.4. [MFP_logo_F] Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> http://www.mfpdesign.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D=0> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D=0> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.” From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of John Irwin Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Misc Rack Storage Regardless of the trailers, do I need to provide .6/2000 for the racks? If so, do I need to do that for the entire 5,000 sqft area? Seems excessive. John Irwin DynaFire Inc. – “Same Day – Next Day” From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Misc Rack Storage I tend to agree – trailers potentially shielding fire load within from sprinklers above (5.4.2). SL From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fpdcdesign Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 7:06 AM To: Sprinklerforum Subject: Re: Misc Rack Storage Wouldn’t the trailer storage bring it up to EH2? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-553-3553 (fax) 860-608-4559 (cell) On May 17, 2018 at 9:47 AM, mailto:john.ir...@dynafire.com>> wrote: Here’s the situation … I have a 5,000 sqft, (currently) ordinary hazard mixed use space. The new tenant intends to store two emergency disaster management trailers in this space. However, along two walls, they want to put a 3-teir rack with storage up to 20’ in height. TOS in the center of the unit is 23-9. The racks will contain a mix of group A plastic, emergency supplies in plastic totes, with lids, on no
RE: Grounding Electrical Wire to Sprinkler System
NFPA 13 - 2016: Section 8.18 & Section 10.5. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: May-10-18 2:28 PM To: Sprinkler Forum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Grounding Electrical Wire to Sprinkler System Where in NFPA 13 does it say that the sprinkler system can not be used to ground the electrical system? Thanks, Mike ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Concrete Pan Construction
The 1” to 6” with the maximum of 22” requirements have been with us since they introduced the obstructed construction concept in the 1991 edition of NFPA 13. Prior to that, the requirement for beam and girder construction was for sprinklers under beams to be 1” to 4” with a maximum of 20”. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET Sent: April-27-18 12:48 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Concrete Pan Construction I have existing sprinklers under concrete pan (obstructed) construction that are located 22” below the deck. My concern is that the “beams” are 10” deep. That means the deflectors are not within 1-6” of the bottom of the structural member. Am I not applying the correct arrangement from NFPA 13, 2013 ed. 8.6.4.1.2? I believe (1) is the only arrangement that works for this scenario. Was the 1-6” below the bottom of the structural member added in recent years? Thank you. Reed Roisum Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Church Worship Platform Concealed Space
This is just my opinion, but NFPA 13-02013, Section 8.16.6.2 requires that "(a) The space is inaccessible ..." and "(c) The floor ... is tight construction" in order to not provide sprinklers With the introduction of those hatches, both of these conditions are violated, so I think that sprinklers in the platform are required, unless one of the other concealed space exceptions under 8.15.1.2, (such as having less than 6" between the floor and the U/S of the joist) can be met. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: March-29-18 10:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Church Worship Platform Concealed Space You might be able to apply section 8.15.6 (2013 edition).If so, be aware of section 11.2.3.1.4(3). Ed Kramer Bamford Fire -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of P & P Sprinklers Ltd Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Church Worship Platform Concealed Space We have a church that has a platform 16" High wood construction. They will be adding hatches for access just to run AV cabling. Will not be used for storage. the platform is roughly 1600 sq ft. Would sprinkler be required even with just a few hatched to access the cabling? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 30% increase for Sloped ceilings
The rule for increasing the design area by 30% for sloped ceilings (greater than 2 on 12, was first appeared as Section 5-2.3.2.5 of the 1996 edition. The Tech Committee added it in via ROP Proposal 13-130. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of cw bamford Sent: March-27-18 5:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 30% increase for Sloped ceilings NFPA 13 1994 5.2.3.2.3 has it... On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Reed A. Roisum, SET <raroi...@kfi-eng.com<mailto:raroi...@kfi-eng.com>> wrote: It is in 1996. 5-2.3.2.5 Can’t find it in 1989. I don’t have a 1994 or 1991. Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903<tel:(701)%20552-9903> | mobile: 701.388.1352<tel:(701)%20388-1352> | KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Fpdcdesign Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 3:46 PM To: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> Subject: Re: 30% increase for Sloped ceilings I think 1996. It’s in 1999 and wasn’t marked new but not in the 1994 edition. (1996 is missing from my collection) Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080<tel:(860)%20535-2080> (ofc) 860-553-3553<tel:(860)%20553-3553> (fax) 860-608-4559<tel:(860)%20608-4559> (cell) On Mar 27, 2018 at 4:39 PM, mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>> wrote: What year did the 30% increase for sloped ceilings come into NFPA 13? I’m trying to do keyword search but no luck at this time. [MFP_logo_F] Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271<tel:(480)%20505-9271> fax: 866-430-6107<tel:(866)%20430-6107> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> http://www.mfpdesign.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D=0> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D=0> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.” ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Supporting pipe in bottom of pre-cast trench
It is different from when you hang with a rod and ring from the top/ceiling. Hangers are tested and listed for conditions of tension, with the weight/load being applied downwards. However, you were proposing to use a riser clamp rodded upwards from the trench floor, which is outside of the listing parameters for the riser clamp and putting the rods under a compression/bending load. Perhaps if the rods are short enough or if you stiffen them somehow they can support the NFPA 13 design loading requirements, but the applicable part of the standard for this is still 9.1.1.2 (Eng. Cert.) On the subject of Section 9.2.6, I would advise getting an okay from the AHJ before proceeding without the Eng. Cert. The 2016 edition isn't referenced in your Building Codes yet is it? The 2010 and earlier editions say that pipe stands have to be approved, so that means the AHJ's acceptance is needed. Most AHJ's will accept a P.E. design, but without that ... Best regards, Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: March-15-18 7:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Supporting pipe in bottom of pre-cast trench Good point. Based on John's reference to 9.2.6 in the 2016 edition, and specifically 9.2.6.3.2 for short pipe stands, I'm thinking I should be OK without a PE certification as long as I meet all the general requirements of 9.2.6. So we may just need to go back to a very short traditional pipe stand with the U-bolt for restraint. Larry, for the riser clamp idea, I get what you're saying, but I'm wondering how this would be any different (or worse) than supporting the pipe from a regular ring hanger and a single piece of ATR, which we would normally do if we could support this from the top of the box. We've done this before with smaller pipe in subfloor spaces for pre-action systems, but never for this large a pipe. Our plan was also to use 3/4 or 1" pipe sleeves over the ATR to help reinforce them as well. Benjamin Young On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Larry Keeping <lkeep...@plcfire.com> wrote: > All of the suggestions I've seen in this thread (Fig. 103, Unistrut > clamps, etc.) are good offerings, but don't forget, those things are > not listed, so to use them legitimately they need an engineer's > certification, as per Section 9.1.1.2 of NFPA 13-2013. > > Unless you can get an Eng. Cert. for it, I would avoid the riser clamp > idea. A deluge system will develop some healthy thrust forces up and > down the length of the main, which could bend the vertical support rods. > > Larry Keeping > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler. > org] On Behalf Of Mike B Morey > Sent: March-14-18 2:49 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Supporting pipe in bottom of pre-cast trench > > You might also look at the Anvil 103 depending on space available. > > > > 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 > > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180315/fc5849e0/attachment.html> ___ 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: Supporting pipe in bottom of pre-cast trench
All of the suggestions I've seen in this thread (Fig. 103, Unistrut clamps, etc.) are good offerings, but don't forget, those things are not listed, so to use them legitimately they need an engineer's certification, as per Section 9.1.1.2 of NFPA 13-2013. Unless you can get an Eng. Cert. for it, I would avoid the riser clamp idea. A deluge system will develop some healthy thrust forces up and down the length of the main, which could bend the vertical support rods. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike B Morey Sent: March-14-18 2:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Supporting pipe in bottom of pre-cast trench You might also look at the Anvil 103 depending on space available. 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA Technical Question Response [ ref:_00D5077Vx._5005013DQXS:ref ]
I agree with the NFPA response, but one thing I question is, why did the contractor assume 20 sq. ft. of coverage area for the sprinklers in that pocket? By the S x L rule, from NFPA 13-2016, Section 8.5.2, using the dimensions that you've reported: - S = 11'-5½", which is the distance between the sprinklers along the line ; and - L = 4'-0", which is two times the 2'-0" distance of the line from the wall (which is greater than the distance of 1'-2" from the beam). So by my math, A = S x L = 11.46 ft x 4.0 ft = 45.84 sq. ft. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Born Sent: March-13-18 11:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Fwd: NFPA Technical Question Response [ ref:_00D5077Vx._5005013DQXS:ref ] Here is the response I received from NFPA concerning my “area of coverage” question last week. Subsequent conversation confirmed other replies on the forum to this question that if the sprinkler can’t spray past the obstruction you only have to measure to the obstruction. Sent from my iPad Christopher H. Born, P.E. Director, Fire Protection Engineering|Principal Clark Nexsen 4525 Main Street, Suite 1400 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 455-5800 (757) 961-7933 (direct) (757) 644-8581(mobile) Begin forwarded message: > From: NFPA Systems <techquessyst...@nfpa.org> > Date: March 13, 2018 at 9:18:17 AM EDT > To: "fireph...@cox.net" <fireph...@cox.net> > Subject: NFPA Technical Question Response[ > ref:_00D5077Vx._5005013DQXS:ref ] > > > > I apologize I’m not sure I fully understand your question but if you are > asking do you space your sprinkler coverage between beams when sprinklering > beam pockets vs trying to use the obstruction rules to spray past the beams > then the answer is yes you space to the beams as if they were walls. > > Important Notice: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued > pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion > of the author and does not necessarily represent the official position of the > NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither > intended, nor should it be relied upon, to provide professional consultation > or services. > > Regards, > > Chad Duffy, PE > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > NFPA > > If you have a follow-up question directly related to this inquiry, please > reply to this email. If you have another question on either a separate topic > or different document please return to the document information pages and > submit your new question by clicking on the “Technical Questions” tab. > > -- > - > Create Date: 3/9/2018 > Contact: Christopher Born > > Subject: Protection area of coverage when spacing is impacted by > obstructions > > Question for NFPA: We have a building with exposed structure and some of > these beams are deep enough to be obstructions. For both spacing along and > between branch lines, the standard states to measure the distance between > sprinklers (or to wall or obstruction in the case of the last sprinkler or > branch line). The reference to "last sprinkler" in the reference to measuring > to an obstruction seems incorrect for both of these sections. Please confirm > that the intent is that if there is an obstruction, regardless of location, > it is acceptable to use twice the distance to the obstruction for determining > the coverage area for a particular sprinkler. > > We have two review comments from the insurer, one regarding the sprinkler > area used in hydraulic calculations and the other concerning the maximum > allowable coverage area. In the case of the hydraulic calculation comment, > two sprinklers are located within a beam pocket, 11'-5.5" apart, less than 2' > from a wall and approximately 1'-2" from a 27" deep beam. The contractor has > assumed 20 square feet of coverage area. > > In the other case, branch lines are located on either side of a 36" deep > beam. Sprinklers are spaced a maximum of 12' apart on a line that is 3'-10" > from the beam. The other line is 7'-5.5" from the beam and sprinklers are > spaced 8' apart. > > In both of these cases, we believe that the intent of NFPA 13 is to determine > area of coverage by measuring to the obstruction and not the next line. > Please confirm our interpretation. > > > > ref:_00D5077Vx._5005013DQXS:ref -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkle
RE: Lumberyard fire flows
My bad. There was a typo in my original message. I was trying to refer to A.31.3.3.2.2, but I dropped the first "3". Here is what A.31.3.3.2.2 from the 2018 edition says: A.31.3.3.2.2 It is recognized that retail and wholesale lumber storage yards are normally located within municipal system boundaries, where the system should be capable of supplying not less than four 21⁄2 in. (65 mm) hose streams simultaneously [1000 gpm (4000 L/min)]. Where large-scale firefighting operations can be expected, larger water supplies are needed. Where protection from municipal water supplies and hydrant systems is not provided or is not considered adequate by the AHJ, a yard fire hydrant system should be provided and installed in accordance with NFPA 24. Larry -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: February-23-18 10:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Lumberyard fire flows I'm sorry Larry, not following. Those section numbers not found in the Annex of 2015 edition either. SL -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 7:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Lumberyard fire flows [This message was identified as a phishing scam. Learn about phishing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutPhishing] I was citing the NFPA 1 - 2015 edition. Larry -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: February-22-18 5:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Lumberyard fire flows Which edition are you citing? 2018 doesn't have those Annex sections. SL -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Lumberyard fire flows [This message was identified as a phishing scam. Learn about phishing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutPhishing] NFPA 1 in A.1.3.3.2.2 and A.3.4.3.1 provides some guidance regarding flow and hydrant spacing for outside storage such as you are dealing with. Best regards, Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: February-22-18 1:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Lumberyard fire flows This isn't a sprinkler question specifically, but FP-related: Has anyone ever worked on design of a private fire main for a lumberyard? Huge outdoor piles of stored wood products, engineered members mostly, some smaller amounts of dimensional lumber. We're trying to establish a fire flow for hydrants but there are no buildings of any size to benchmark and tables in the fire code are not of much use because they're based on building area and construction type. The fire load here is not in buildings ... [Steve Signature (3)] -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180222/e44a9d59/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 23565 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180222/e44a9d59/attachment.png> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Lumberyard fire flows
I was citing the NFPA 1 - 2015 edition. Larry -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: February-22-18 5:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Lumberyard fire flows Which edition are you citing? 2018 doesn't have those Annex sections. SL -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Lumberyard fire flows [This message was identified as a phishing scam. Learn about phishing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutPhishing] NFPA 1 in A.1.3.3.2.2 and A.3.4.3.1 provides some guidance regarding flow and hydrant spacing for outside storage such as you are dealing with. Best regards, Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: February-22-18 1:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Lumberyard fire flows This isn't a sprinkler question specifically, but FP-related: Has anyone ever worked on design of a private fire main for a lumberyard? Huge outdoor piles of stored wood products, engineered members mostly, some smaller amounts of dimensional lumber. We're trying to establish a fire flow for hydrants but there are no buildings of any size to benchmark and tables in the fire code are not of much use because they're based on building area and construction type. The fire load here is not in buildings ... [Steve Signature (3)] -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180222/e44a9d59/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 23565 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180222/e44a9d59/attachment.png> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Lumberyard fire flows
NFPA 1 in A.1.3.3.2.2 and A.3.4.3.1 provides some guidance regarding flow and hydrant spacing for outside storage such as you are dealing with. Best regards, Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: February-22-18 1:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Lumberyard fire flows This isn't a sprinkler question specifically, but FP-related: Has anyone ever worked on design of a private fire main for a lumberyard? Huge outdoor piles of stored wood products, engineered members mostly, some smaller amounts of dimensional lumber. We're trying to establish a fire flow for hydrants but there are no buildings of any size to benchmark and tables in the fire code are not of much use because they're based on building area and construction type. The fire load here is not in buildings ... [Steve Signature (3)] -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180222/e44a9d59/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 23565 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180222/e44a9d59/attachment.png> ___ 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: Help Finding ESFR upright greater than K17
Just to clarify, in case anyone wasn't aware, the referenced EC storage sprinklers, Tyco TY9128 and the Viking V595, are not ESFR sprinklers. They are CMDA / CMSA standard response. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Nicky Marshall Sent: February-12-18 2:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Help Finding ESFR upright greater than K17 Most of the responses do not seem to have answered your question if you are specifically looking for an upright ESFR sprinkler. To my knowledge, the K17 Tyco TY7126 is the biggest upright ESFR unless you go Extended Coverage K25: TY9128 and Viking VK595. If you can go standard response (CMSA) then there are more choices. K17: TY7153, TY7151, VK580 and Reliable RA1124. Then K25 VK598 and Victaulic V4603. Nicky Marshall Southern Regional Manager PROTECH DESIGN LIMITED Specialist Fire Protection Consultants Phone: +64 (0)3 579 5577 extn 2 Mobile: +64 (0)21 433 488 Email: ni...@protechdesign.co.nz<mailto:ni...@protechdesign.co.nz> Skype: nicky-marshall Web :www.protechdesign.co.nz Address:105A Alabama Rd, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201, NZ Postal: PO Box 4022, Redwood Village, Blenheim 7242, NZ "I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. Then I realised I was somebody" Lily Tomlin From: Jeff Polke [mailto:jpo...@gcioutdoor.com] Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 5:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Help Finding ESFR upright greater than K17 Good morning all. I am looking for an expert in ESFR sprinkler heads to help me find a ESFR upright head with at least a K factor 17(not 16.8). There does not seem to be other companies that make these ESFR other Tyco. Please let me know. Thanks. Jeffrey Polke Co-President jpo...@gcioutdoor.com<mailto:jpo...@gcioutdoor.com> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: FDC & Pump
The requirement is from NFPA 13, not from NFPA 20. Here is the text from NFPA 13-2013: 8.17.2.4.8 Fire department connections shall not be connected on the suction side of fire pumps. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: January-31-18 4:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC & Pump I have always installed FDC's on the discharge side of fire pumps. Looking through 2013 NFPA 20, I don't see anything precluding the instillation on the supply side. Is the FDC allowed to be installed on the supply? I have a contractor that has installed the FDC on the supply run-in, instead of stubing up a secondary line from the remote FDC. Thanks, Jamie ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Exhaust Air - Paint Booth
I just took a look at what NFPA 33 says about fire protection and ventilation: 9.2 Ventilation Systems. Air make-up systems and spray area exhaust systems shall remain functioning during any fire condition. 9.2.1* Where air exhausted from spray areas is recirculated, an interlock shall shut down the recirculation of air during any fire condition unless it can be demonstrated that shutdown creates a greater hazard. 9.2.2 Air make-up systems, spray area recirculation systems, and spray area exhaust systems shall be permitted to be shut down and dampers shall be permitted to close where the automatic fire protection system type requires that ventilation be discontinued. Does that should answer the question? Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom Heller Sent: January-12-18 1:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Exhaust Air - Paint Booth As an AHJ, in my jurisdiction, we would want the exhaust air to remain on (removal of products of combustion in the event of a fire) while the make up air would be discontinued. Thom From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of JD Gamble Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 9:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Exhaust Air - Paint Booth Bruce, Could you expand on "why" you would want the air to keep running? Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> on behalf of Bruce Verhei <bver...@comcast.net<mailto:bver...@comcast.net>> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 10:25:17 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Exhaust Air - Paint Booth Are paint spray operations at this booth supplied by drum or IBC-quantity containers located outside the booth? By that I mean as opposed to the more common small containers on integral to the hand held spray gun or small inline pot. It's common to use a flow switch to drop power to pump connected to drum on waterflow. Without this fire can attack hose in booth. Pump sees this pressure drop as demand for product, and pumps remainder of drum or IBC (intermediate bulk container) into booth. Result from a sprinkler design point of view can be operation of dozens of heads outside booth. From occupants point of view they're now in a fast occurring, if not fast spreading, fire producing dark smoke. I assume fully sprinklered building. I'd ask AHJ what they prefer. Total flood dry chem systems require fan shut down. But sprinklers do not. But some AHJ's might require fan shut down. From a compliance point of view the AHJ and architect are trying to find a way not to count the entire quantity of liquid as being in Use. As an Alternative Material and Method ruling design, the AHJ has considerable sway. Two questions to resolve early are switch testing and retard setting. 5 seconds seems to be adequate to prevent unwanted alarms in my experience. For the record I would have preferred to leave the fan running. But you should call the fire plan reviewer for this project. Best. Bruce Verhei On Jan 12, 2018, at 08:20, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: I would say "probably" but a detection is faster and certainly more conventional. I would actually defer to the electrician or EE who's overseeing design/installation of building controls and ask them. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of JD Gamble Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 8:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Exhaust Air - Paint Booth Sorry. Yes , spray booth. Flow switch specific to booth. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> on behalf of Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 9:14:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Exhaust Air - Paint Booth I assume you mean a spray booth? Is the flow switch peculiar to sprinklers in the booth or will it signal upon flow of any sprinkler in the building in which the booth is located? Steve L. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of JD Gamble Sent:
RE: S & L Rule
Who said they wouldn't obstruct heat flow? Because they are more than 7.5 ft apart it can be considered to be "unobstructed" construction. But of course they are obstructions. With unobstructed construction the deflector distance has to be 1" to 12" below the ceiling. You can't space the lines as if the beams don't exist. That is why the spacing is across the width of the bays. Since the lines are spaced 1/2 L off either side of them, you have sprinklers on either side of them as per 8.6.5.1.2 (2). Therefore you don't have to worry about the "Beam Rule (Table 8.6.5.1.2, and Figure 8.6.5.1.2(a)). All I'm saying is that you can space to the beams, bay per bay. You can be 5 ft off in the 20 ft bay and 7.5 ft off in the 30 ft bay and under those conditions it doesn't matter whether the sprinklers can spray under the beams or not. Larry -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com Sent: December-21-17 8:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: S & L Rule But Larry, if the beams are not an obstruction to heat flow OR spray pattern, it's like they don't exist, no? Brad. Quoting Larry Keeping <lkeep...@plcfire.com>: > You don't need to do anything special with the deflector distance. > As per 8.5.2.1.1 (2), the line spacing is to a wall or obstruction: > > (2) Between branch lines as follows: > (a) Determine perpendicular distance to the sprinkler on the adjacent > branch line (or to a wall or obstruction in the case of the last > branch line) on each side of the branch line on which the subject > sprinkler is positioned > (b) Choose the larger of either twice the distance to the wall or > obstruction or the distance to the next sprinkler > (c) Define dimension as L > > The is no argument that the beams that delineate the bays are > obstructions. Even if the spray can throw under it, that doesn't > change that consideration. > > Larry Keeping > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com > Sent: December-21-17 5:53 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: S & L Rule > > I recently learned that the beam only acts like a wall if you can't > throw under it, so get those deflectors way up there! > (Crow and Thunderbird rocks) > > Merry Christmas Forum, > > Brad. > > Quoting Bob <b...@firebyknight.com>: > >> The beam is an obstruction that acts like a wall. You’re covering >> floor space, so as long as each sprinkler covers the correct area (30 >> sf), then the spacing that you are describing sounds in compliance >> with NFPA 13 spacing rules. >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> Bob Knight, CET III >> >> 208-318-3057 >> >> >> >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] >> On Behalf Of James Crawford >> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 3:00 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: S & L Rule >> >> >> >> We have been having a discussion in the office about the S rule for >> spacing of sprinkler heads. We received a sprinkler drawing with some >> spacing that we do not agree with, see below, but can find no >> specific direction in NFPA #13 (2013) that says it is wrong. >> >> >> >> Basic situation we have a small building with a 20’ bay and a 30’ bay. >> Ordinary hazard spacing. >> >> >> >> For the 20’ wide bay, we have2 lines spaced at 10’ apart , so we have 5’ >> off the wall then 10’ between the next line and 5’ to the beam line, >> the heads are spaced at 13’ along these lines. >> >> >> >> Then we have a 30’ bay where we have 2 lines spaced 15’ apart, 7’6 >> off the beam then 15’ between the heads then 7’6 to the wall, heads >> are spaced at 8’ >> along the line >> >> >> >> So our discussion is the sprinkler lines along the beam line which >> would be 5’-0” plus 7’-6” for 12’-6” between the line. The sprinkler >> heads in the 20’ >> bay are spaced at 13’-0”, so if we use the S rule these heads are >> spaced at 12’-6” x 13’-0” or 162.6 ft². Is this correct? >> >> >> >> And yes I know we could space the 30’ bay with 3 lines at 10’ apart >> and that is what I would do but it is not our design. >> >> >> >> Comments >> >> >> >> Thank you >> >> >> >> >
RE: S & L Rule
You don't need to do anything special with the deflector distance. As per 8.5.2.1.1 (2), the line spacing is to a wall or obstruction: (2) Between branch lines as follows: (a) Determine perpendicular distance to the sprinkler on the adjacent branch line (or to a wall or obstruction in the case of the last branch line) on each side of the branch line on which the subject sprinkler is positioned (b) Choose the larger of either twice the distance to the wall or obstruction or the distance to the next sprinkler (c) Define dimension as L The is no argument that the beams that delineate the bays are obstructions. Even if the spray can throw under it, that doesn't change that consideration. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com Sent: December-21-17 5:53 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: S & L Rule I recently learned that the beam only acts like a wall if you can't throw under it, so get those deflectors way up there! (Crow and Thunderbird rocks) Merry Christmas Forum, Brad. Quoting Bob <b...@firebyknight.com>: > The beam is an obstruction that acts like a wall. You’re covering > floor space, so as long as each sprinkler covers the correct area (30 > sf), then the spacing that you are describing sounds in compliance > with NFPA 13 spacing rules. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Bob Knight, CET III > > 208-318-3057 > > > > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of James Crawford > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 3:00 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: S & L Rule > > > > We have been having a discussion in the office about the S rule for > spacing of sprinkler heads. We received a sprinkler drawing with some > spacing that we do not agree with, see below, but can find no specific > direction in NFPA #13 (2013) that says it is wrong. > > > > Basic situation we have a small building with a 20’ bay and a 30’ bay. > Ordinary hazard spacing. > > > > For the 20’ wide bay, we have2 lines spaced at 10’ apart , so we have 5’ > off the wall then 10’ between the next line and 5’ to the beam line, > the heads are spaced at 13’ along these lines. > > > > Then we have a 30’ bay where we have 2 lines spaced 15’ apart, 7’6 > off the beam then 15’ between the heads then 7’6 to the wall, heads are > spaced at 8’ > along the line > > > > So our discussion is the sprinkler lines along the beam line which > would be 5’-0” plus 7’-6” for 12’-6” between the line. The sprinkler heads in > the 20’ > bay are spaced at 13’-0”, so if we use the S rule these heads are > spaced at 12’-6” x 13’-0” or 162.6 ft². Is this correct? > > > > And yes I know we could space the 30’ bay with 3 lines at 10’ apart > and that is what I would do but it is not our design. > > > > Comments > > > > Thank you > > > > > > James Crawford > > Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. > > Phone 604-888-0318 > > Fax 604-888-4732 > > Cel 604-790-0938 > > Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca > > Web www.phaserfire.ca ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Saw-Tooth Ceilings
With all this talk about spacing, I think maybe the text within NFPA 13 has been forgotten. Here's what the standard says on the subject of saw-tooth ceilings: 8.6.4.1.3.2* Under saw-toothed roofs, sprinklers at the highest elevation shall not exceed a distance of 36 in. (900 mm) measured down the slope from the peak. A.8.6.4.1.3.2 Saw-toothed roofs have regularly spaced monitors of saw tooth shape, with the nearly vertical side glazed and usually arranged for venting. Sprinkler placement is limited to a maximum of 3 ft (900 mm) down the slope from the peak because of the effect of venting on sprinkler sensitivity. My advice would be to move the sprinkler to a point 3 ft from the peak. That way it will be about 5 ft from the low edge instead of 7 ft, which should alleviate the spray/obstruction/spacing problem somewhat. This is my opinion only and is not intended to represent the NFPA 13 Technical Committee, nor serve as an interpretation of the standard. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com Sent: November-30-17 6:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Saw-Tooth Ceilings I mean, after all, if we can't figure 'half a pattern', how do sidewalls work? I'm out, because... i, I mean Roland and that face, I mean... Oh nevermind - - brad.. Quoting bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com: > Sorry John, wrong side of history on this one. > Brad. > > Quoting John Paulsen <j...@crwnfire.com>: > >> I've been watching this thread all afternoon and what I perceived >> to be a straight forward question has been complicated beyond >> anything I would have thought possible considering the original >> question. For me the bottom line here is that if you submit this >> layout and hydraulic calculations as anything other than the 14' >> dimension on the sloped ceiling, you are going to have to defend it >> to the AHJ. Any plan reviewer worth his salt is going to conclude >> that the vertical portion of the saw-tooth creates an obstruction >> to the spray pattern. That will demand the 7' distance be >> considered half the distance the head has to throw to obtain the >> correct spacing and design density. If this is OH as previously >> stated, in my mind, you are limited to 9' head spacing along the >> line. >> >> However, >> >> If you can get the AHJ and engineer to approve moving the >> sprinklers to the middle of the slope and keep the deflector above >> 12" from the highest point of the ceiling and in conformance with >> Table 8.6.5.1.2 distances from the obstruction, well then you might >> have a shot at the 15' head spacing along the line. >> >> John Paulsen – SET >> Crown Fire System Design >> 6282 Seeds Rd. >> Grove City, OH 43123 >> P – 614-782-2438 >> F – 614-782-2374 >> C – 614-348-8206 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf >> Of Michael Hill >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:26 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: RE: Saw-Tooth Ceilings >> >> So you are saying that this is a series of 15 sloped ceilings one >> after the other, not a single obstructed saw tooth ceiling. >> >> I am not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to convince myself >> that what I am being told to do is correct. >> >> Mike Hill >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf >> Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:02 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: Re: Saw-Tooth Ceilings >> >> 23.4.4.6 Deisign Densities >> 23.4.4.6.2, and for backup- >> 23.4.4.6.5. >> You don't have walls Michael, you have a sloped ceiling. >> The down-slope 'half' of the pattern is obstructed, be it sawtooth >> or not :). >> Brad. >> >> Quoting Michael Hill <mi...@phoenixfp.net>: >> >>> That section explains what to do once the maximum area of protection >>> is determined. I am still not convinced. >>> I agree that plenty of water is going to get to the fire, if needed. >>> More so as this is a UFC project, HC-2 occupancy, dry system, >>> 0.20/3500. >>> >>> Suppose there were walls that extended down to the floor at each end >>> of the ceiling that created a compartment (which is how I am viewi
RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Looking for specific sprinkler code on tenant spaces
I’ve been following this thread and so far no one has asked if this would be a 13 or a 13R application. I don’t know if it applies, but don’t forget Section 4.5 from NFPA 13R: 4.5 System Arrangement. In townhouse-style buildings protected in accordance with this standard, each dwelling unit shall have its own dedicated sprinkler system or the control valve for the sprinkler system in the building shall be located outside the dwelling units or in a common area. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark.Phelps Sent: November-28-17 8:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Looking for specific sprinkler code on tenant spaces In medical vernacular some surgeons are referred to as having the "God syndrome." If the shoe fits. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPhone On Nov 28, 2017, at 6:02 PM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: I was actually taught that term by several fire officials; had never heard it in the trade. SML From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Looking for specific sprinkler code on tenant spaces I’ve always called it the “Badge Clause.” But I like “God Clause” more as some that try to apply it this way feel they are God. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone On Nov 28, 2017, at 4:54 PM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: I don’t think anybody’s saying it’s a bad idea – I’m certainly in favor of it. The question was, is such a requirement in the code (or standard) and the answer is no. So, if an AHJ pulls one out of you-know-where and is asked to cite the applicable section, too often they will often cite the section that allows local modification by ordinance or regulation, which essentially empowers building and fire officials to restrict (or relax) the adopted building and fire code. Its intent is to facilitate local actions, which are supposed to be undertaken officially and documented. It is most assuredly NOT the intent of the local modification allowance that an individual gets to just make stuff up and force it on us across the counter, but that’s usually how it plays when such undocumented requirements are applied. The response that “I’m the fire official and I get to do as I please” has become known derisively as the God clause here – don’t know if that’s a universal term or not. Signed, Left Coaster From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:48 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Looking for specific sprinkler code on tenant spaces God clause? I think it has more to do with trying to keep products of combustion from impairing ability to exit the building. How do they handle near constant T/I’s in malls without tenant shut offs? Still assuming a mall. Best. Bruce On Nov 28, 2017, at 15:38, Bruce Verhei <bver...@comcast.net<mailto:bver...@comcast.net>> wrote: Does it meet code definition for a mall? First, is it >50,000 sf.? A designed active smoke control system may be required. To initiate the smoke removal system either smoke detection, zoned by tenant space, or sprinkler system water flow, again, zoned by space are allowed. Of course with addressable detectors smoke detection is in reality a virtual zone. This is not the cross zoned system sprinkler folks often run up against. Smoke removal system is required to be designed by a PE. I would expect their activation matrix to include a clear specification as to choice of detection method. I’d also expect a method of testing flow switch. Provision: I do not have current IFC in front of me. Opinion. Sprinkler water flow is the way to go. Many fewer unwanted alarms. Evacuate the building once for 30 minutes on day after Thanksgiving and they’ll never make up any few dollars saved at construction. Best. Bruce Verhei On Nov 28, 2017, at 15:21, Timothy Goins <tgo...@rgv.rr.com<mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com>> wrote: I don't know where I read it, but somewhere you must provide at least a common room/closet to access the valve and alarm system.. Just in case of an emergency or for service. This room must be accessible via outside for the fire Department and service personnel. Ore at least that's three plan down here.. And I will give them one
RE: ESFR Temperature
You are correct, there is nothing in the current edition that references radiant heaters. For the next (2019) edition though, the TC agreed with Public Input No. 555 and opted to add "and radiant heater" beside Item (2) Unit heater in the table for Temperature Ratings of Sprinklers Based on Distance from Heat Sources (ie Table 8.3.2.5(a) of the 2016 edition). In the new standard, with the proposed chapter restricting/reformatting this will be Table 9.4.2.5(a). Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken Sent: November-08-17 6:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR Temperature I have a project with Group A plastic storage, We are installing ESFR sprinkler to protect the storage per Table 17.2.3.1 (2013). I just found out a bunch of radiant heats are going to be installed in the area, and I might need to up the temp of the ESFR. Is there a temp. requirement for the ESFR similar to the curves in chapter 16-2.1.3.2? I've gone through chapter 17 and can't find it, so I wanted to confirm I didn't miss it. Thanks 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: 5 year obstruction testing
I can certainly see the advantage of a camera for obstruction investigations, which you would perform if the 5 year assessment of the internal condition of piping reveals a problem. However, for the 5 year assessment itself, all that’s required is to remove 1 flushing connection cap and 1 branch line fitting and look to see if there is any sufficient foreign organic or inorganic material. A camera isn’t needed for that, all that’s needed to look inside the pipe ends. Reference NFPA 25, A.14.2.1 (1) (a). Similarly for the FDC, during normal inspection, all that needed is a look through the snoots to see if there is any obstruction in the connection itself. A camera shouldn’t be needed for that either. Reference A.13.8.1 (9). Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei Sent: October-18-17 4:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 5 year obstruction testing The Rigid one is handy for FDC connections. Best Bruce Verhei On Oct 18, 2017, at 13:16, Rocci Cetani 3 <roc...@norcalfire.com<mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>> wrote: http://aitproducts.com/mincord.html ($3,700) ryobi tek 4 also makes one but the camera cord is only a few feet long ($100) rigid also makes one called the see snake ($3,500) there are a bunch out there, just need to google internal pipe cameras Rocci Cetani III, CET Senior Designer Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc. 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A Morgan Hill, CA 93037 P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111 F-(408) 776-1590 roc...@norcalfire.com<mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com> www.norcalfire.com<http://www.norcalfire.com/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Lemon Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: 5 year obstruction testing Has anyone heard or seen a camera that is used for the 5 year sprinkler obstruction testing? Suppose to cut your time in half according to one of my field guys. I’ve looked everywhere and haven’t seen what they would be referring to. Thanks Bill Lemon Absolute Fire Control, Inc. 215 Lawton Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28216 (704) 309-5962 Mobile ble...@absolutefirecontrol.com<mailto:ble...@absolutefirecontrol.com> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Clean Room Sprinkler Options
I’m no expert on clean rooms or concealed sprinkler’s etc. and while I think the dry sprinkler with the boot is an interesting concept, but I don’t think it is meant for that type of application. The brochure for the boot says it is intended predominantly for use with clearance holes through freezer ceiling structures. I would advise against using any concealed (or recessed) type sprinklers in a clean room, because they are all vented. I understand this is because the heat from the fire is supposed to flow through the vents up into the ceiling space. Concealed sprinklers have that gap for the cover plate as part of the venting configuration. Even the Reliable “sealing” concealed sprinkler, which seals off the cover plate gap is not allowed in ceilings which have positive pressure. I’ve been told that the reason FM doesn’t sanction Q/R concealed sprinklers is because their testing has found that a Q/R concealed sprinkler’s sensitivity is roughly equal to a standard response sprinkler installed 12 inches below the ceiling. With this, if you interfere with sprinkler’s ability to vent up into the ceiling space, as with a boot tight to the cup (ie. with no clearance hole) or with insulation all around the sprinkler, you must be even more seriously degrading the sensitivity. If it was up to me I’d use a standard pendant sprinkler in clean room applications. Way-back-when, I did some work at Litton systems and they had a special custom fitting/escutcheon with a gasket to make a tight connection to the ceiling, so nothing could transfer from the concealed space into the clean room. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL Sent: October-17-17 4:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Clean Room Sprinkler Options If you have a LH or OH criteria where the concealed heads can be used, one method that was approved by one of the big insurers for a similar installation used the TYCO DSB-2 dry sprinkler boot on the sprinkler drop. The boot was placed over the drop and sealed against the upper side of the celling panel. The concealed sprinkler used the gasket option on the room side of the sprinkler. This method according to the underwriter had been proven to stop any infiltration into the occupied space from the ceiling cavity. But if you have an EH occupancy, then that’s another story. I would highly recommend contacting the owner’s Risk Consultant or Insurance Underwriter or EOR for input or approval on any method proposed. Since this could be a “H” occupancy I do certainly hope there is a qualified engineer involved in the project. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larrimer, Peter A Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Clean Room Sprinkler Options [EXTERNAL] Can anyone please assist with a recommendation for a “clean room” sprinkler where the clean rooms are designed to be negative pressure (for compounding dangerous drugs). The concealed sprinkler cut sheets that I’ve looked at online generally say that the concealed heads cannot be used in negative pressure rooms (positive pressure plenums) and this is the type of room design that we require. The FlexHead cleanroom ceiling sprinkler connection doesn’t appear to be easy to clean after installation. What type of quick response sprinkler could be used in a negative pressure room that is readily and easily cleanable? Users wanted to used concealed sprinklers as they thought that the concealed sprinklers would be easy to wipe down when necessary, but we don’t want to violate the installation instructions on the cut sheets that state that the concealed sprinklers can’t be used with positive pressure plenums (negative pressure rooms). Thanks in advance. Pete Larrimer VA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: take off before pump
Feeding the lower level off municipal pressure was a common practice here in the Toronto area, years ago. It was kind of mandatory, since the dry pipe valves in the parking garage were only rated for 175 psi, as were the sprinklers. In this day and age though with higher working pressure ratings available, another option is to use high pressure sprinklers. Some are rated for pressures up to 300 psi. Naturally system components have to match. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: June-22-17 10:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: take off before pump I am looking at a high-rise project that has a fire pump feeding automatic standpipes. The AHJ does not want any pressure regulators on the standpipes (they want all the pressure they can get) – so the lower floors will be much higher than 175 psi. The city pressure is pretty good also. We were considering feeding the lower floors of the sprinkler system with a supply taken off BEFORE the fire pump. That way we can feed the lower floors on city pressure, and by the time we run out of city pressure, the standpipe pressure will be under 175. That would allow us to supply the whole building without using any Pressure Regulators. Is there any reason not to do it this way? I have not found any code issues with it, but I also don’t hear about this approach very often. Any concerns – code or otherwise? Matt ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Combined Sprinkler/Standpipe Riser Size
I’ve always thought it odd that the standards were rewritten so that there would be no exceptions and then so many sections start by saying “Except as provided by …”. In this particular instance, I think 7.6.3 is definitely an “exception” to 7.6.2. Here is the text from the 2000 edition of NFPA 14, before the deletion of the exceptions: 5-6.1 Class I and Class III standpipes shall be at least 4 in. (102 mm) in size. 5-6.2 Standpipes that are part of a combined system shall be at least 6 in. (152 mm) in size. Exception: In fully sprinklered buildings having a combined standpipe system that is hydraulically calculated, the minimum standpipe size is 4 in. (102 mm). Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: May-25-17 10:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Combined Sprinkler/Standpipe Riser Size The standard is re-written so there are no "exceptions." Combo standpipes can be 4" when combined with a system per 13 or 13R. I hope you are not fighting the same AHJ I did with this. Because 7.6.3 is not called an exception, he requires all combo standpipes to be 6". I even had AFSA provide an informal interpretation stating this. I had an answer from NFPA technical questions stating 4" is acceptable. I had a committee member confirm 4" is acceptable. The particular AHJ would not budge and said those interps were just opinions and he felt they were wrong opinions. Good luck with this one if you are battling that same AHJ. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> http://www.mfpdesign.com https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack On 5/25/2017 7:10 AM, Bob wrote: 7.6.3 is not an exception so much as it’s a criteria to be followed. When the building is fully sprinklered per NFPA 13 and the system is hydraulically calculated the combined standpipe can be 4”. Thank you, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of James Litvak Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Combined Sprinkler/Standpipe Riser Size NFPA 14 7.6.2 clearly states that a combined system standpipe rider shall be minimum 6". Is 7.6.3 intended to be an exception to 7.6.2? I interpret it to be an exception, since otherwise 7.6.3 isn't saying anything different than 7.6.1. However, there's no language specifying it as an exception. James ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Flammable & Combustible storage
For a 1200 ft² warehouse area, I'd be surprized if the Class II and Class IIIB liquids are stored in separate piles. If there is a mix of commodities in a pile, Section 12.6.2.3(1) says that the quantity per pile and the max. storage height must be the smallest value. With this that would limit the pile height to 10 ft for the metal drums and if the totes are mixed into the piles too, that would limit things to just 7 ft. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of James Crawford Sent: May-23-17 7:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Flammable & Combustible storage NFPA #30 (2008 ed) We have a client that has a Liquid warehouse (1,200 ft²) that did not require sprinkler protection by code, but did require sprinkler protection by the AHJ to get a building permit. The system is an Ordinary hazard group 2 dry system. They store class II and IIIB liquids in steel drums and Plastic IBC, originally storage was on the floor to 4'-0" one drum or tote high. But as with all thing the company grows and they want to store higher. Table 12.6.2.2 Quantity Limitations for unprotected Liquid Warehouses will allow 10'-0" of class II and 15'-0" of class IIIB So my understanding is that unprotected is defined as not protected to NFPA #30, so based on Table 12.6.2.2 they can store these products to the heights noted even thou the area is sprinkled to NFPA #13 Ordinary hazard group 2. Am I missing something? Thank you James Crawford Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. Phone 604-888-0318 Fax 604-888-4732 Cel 604-790-0938 Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca<mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca> Web www.phaserfire.ca<http://www.phaserfire.ca> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Water curtain for wall opening
You might want to look at FM Data Sheet 1-23. They have scheme for protection of wall openings via water spray nozzles protecting both sides of the wall, using separate deluge systems. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Micah Davis, SET Sent: May-18-17 8:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Water curtain for wall opening Todd I ran into a similar situation at a large food packaging plant. The protection we finally decided on was a small deluge system with heat detectors on both sides of the wall. The heat detectors could be mounted at the ceiling where the heat would gather. Micah Davis www.dynamicfiredesigns.com<http://www.dynamicfiredesigns.com> From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> on behalf of fpdcdes...@gmail.com<mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com> <fpdcdes...@gmail.com<mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:53 AM To: Sprinkler Forum Subject: Water curtain for wall opening I have been asked to look at a situation in an industrial occupancy where there are two garage -door size horizontal openings in a wall. The openings cannot realistically be closed, so they are asking about a water curtain. I have a couple of questions: First, NFPA 13 discusses water curtains around vertical openings but not horizontal, from what i found. Am i missing something? Second, the ceiling is approximately 12 ft above the top of the openings. The sprinklers need to be 12" from the deck max. Will that vertical distance create an issue with the water curtain performance. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-553-3553 (fax) 860-608-4559 (cell) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 20 4.7.7.2
I believe that K-25.2 ESFR sprinkler is listed with a 175 psi max. working pressure. With a 50 psi pressure, you are most likely dealing with 30 to 35 ft storage in a 40 ft high building, so the sprinkler would be at a max. elevation of about 39 ft and the highest churn pressure you could ever be allowed would be: 175 psi + 39 ft x 0.433 psi/ft = 191.9 psi. If there are any sprinklers at lower elevations, under obstructions, etc. then even lower max. pressures would be allowed. Therefore you are not allowed to sustain the 211 psi static under any circumstances. My suggestion is to increase the pipe sizing and decrease the pump pressure rating. Also, there is no rule against it in the standard, but I've always felt it to be a poor practice to push towards the 150% of pump flow rating. If the flow demand goes past the 120% +/- range, I recommend going to the next available rating. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Colin Carew (Cambridge) Sent: April-06-17 4:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 20 4.7.7.2 140 is the pump rating , we sitting at 211 static . I understand the premise , 4.7.7.2 says I am not allowed to do it . but the biggest challenge is that my system design is 12 heads at 50 psi , K25.2 . I am just squeaking under Demand . I am not sure what other option I have . From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL Sent: April-06-17 4:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: NFPA 20 4.7.7.2 Is the 140 psi total pressure or pump rating? The pressure relief valve comes into play if the combination of supply pressure and pump pressure exceeds the allowable system pressure, which for most cases is 175 psi. So if you had fluctuating supply pressures, during a higher than normal pressure event, the system could relieve and not damage your downstream, 175 psi rated system. Is this a diesel or electric? How much pressure do you need at these heads? Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Colin Carew (Cambridge) Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: NFPA 20 4.7.7.2 [EXTERNAL] Hi Forum , Could someone shed some light on the requirements for 4.7.7.2 . I have a project where the quoted fire pump comes with a Pressure relief valve and waste cone . City pressure is 58/56/1586 , we are using a 1500gpm pump at 140 psi to get the flow and pressure we need to supply a freezer using LP-46 heads . I find many references to the use of Pressure relief valves being Used but 4.7.7.2 is causing me to scratch my head . Colin ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 430
Go to NFPA 400. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of fpdcdes...@gmail.com Sent: March-31-17 11:35 AM To: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: NFPA 430 I am looking at a location with CLass 3 oxidizers (pool chemicals). According to the NFPA subscription service, the latest version of NFPA 430, which deals with this, is 2004. Is there anything more current or has this been merged with another document? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-553-3553 (fax) 860-608-4559 (cell) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Call plates
I’m sorry, I made a typo concerning the referenced section number. It was actually Section 3053 of NFPA 13-1986: 3053 … The installer shall properly identify a hydraulically designed automatic sprinkler system by a permanent placard, or sign under glass, indicating the location, number of sprinklers in the hydraulically designed section, and the basis of design (discharge density over design area of discharge, including gpm and residual pressure demand at base of riser). Such signs should generally be placed at the controlling alarm valve or dry pipe valve, for the system containing the hydraulically designed layout. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: March-23-17 11:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Call plates The following text was first added to the 1968 edition of NFPA 13: 3038 … The installer shall properly identify a hydraulically designed automatic sprinkler system by a permanent placard, or sign under glass, indicating the location, number of sprinklers in the hydraulically designed section, and the basis of design (discharge density over design area of discharge, including gpm and residual pressure demand at base of riser). Such signs should generally be placed at the controlling alarm valve or dry pipe valve, for the system containing the hydraulically designed layout. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET Sent: March-23-17 5:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Call plates Did you mean calc plates or Hydraulic Design Information Sign? Found in 1996 ed. 8-5 Hydraulic Design Information Sign but can’t see it in 1989 ed. I don’t have anything in between. Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Call plates Anybody know what edition of 13 first required call plates. -- Sent from Gmail Mobile __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Call plates
The following text was first added to the 1968 edition of NFPA 13: 3038 … The installer shall properly identify a hydraulically designed automatic sprinkler system by a permanent placard, or sign under glass, indicating the location, number of sprinklers in the hydraulically designed section, and the basis of design (discharge density over design area of discharge, including gpm and residual pressure demand at base of riser). Such signs should generally be placed at the controlling alarm valve or dry pipe valve, for the system containing the hydraulically designed layout. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET Sent: March-23-17 5:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Call plates Did you mean calc plates or Hydraulic Design Information Sign? Found in 1996 ed. 8-5 Hydraulic Design Information Sign but can’t see it in 1989 ed. I don’t have anything in between. Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Call plates Anybody know what edition of 13 first required call plates. -- Sent from Gmail Mobile __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: different k-factors in same area
As per 8.15.23.3 and 8.15.23.3.1, the sprinklers are to be extended above the office ceiling a for distance equal to 0.6 times the square root of the design area, but a minimum of 24 ft. To my way of thinking, this means that the density out in the warehouse is to be extended over the office that far, which means that the k-factor should be the same as that of the warehouse sprinklers. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: March-02-17 2:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: different k-factors in same area Ok, so I go back to my previous post. If it's just a suspended ceiling and there no combustibles above, no platforms, etc., you should be good with extending the whse roof sprinklers 15 ft beyond the half wall into the ceiling space above the office as noted in the NFPA excerpt I quoted earlier. FYI, this is predicated upon the space above the office not being able to be used in any way for storage or any fuel fired equipment platforms. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Easter Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: different k-factors in same area [EXTERNAL] What is the height of the warehouse roof/ceiling? 40' What is the height of the half wall? 28' What is the height of the office ceiling? 14' Is the space above the office ceiling walled off from the warehouse? no Tim Easter, PE W.W. Gay Fire & Integrated Systems, Inc. 522 Stockton Street Jacksonville, FL 32204 Phone: (904) 387-7973 Cell: (904) 476-4325 Fax: (904) 394-7261 This electronic message contains information from W. W. Gay Fire Protection, Inc., which may be confidential or privileged. The information is for use of the individual or the entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 1-904-387-7973. From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> [mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com] Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 9:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: different k-factors in same area Another case of where more info helps drive the answers. What is the height of the warehouse roof/ceiling? What is the height of the half wall? What is the height of the office ceiling? Is the space above the office ceiling walled off from the warehouse? Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Easter Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 8:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: different k-factors in same area [EXTERNAL] I have a half-wall that separates an office area from a warehouse area. The design is for K factors of 8.0 inside warehouse area, and 5.6 inside office area. But since the halfwall doesn't reach the deck the area above the office area protected from the ceiling must have same k-factor as warehouse correct? Can anyone point that out in NFPA 13 as a code reference? Tim Easter, PE [Description: Description: Description: http://www.wwgfp.com/MailLogo.gif]<http://www.wwgfp.com/Brochere.jpg> 522 Stockton Street Jacksonville, FL 32204 Office: (904) 387-7973 Cell: (904) 476-4325 Fax: (904) 394-7261 This electronic message contains information from W. W. Gay Fire Protection, Inc., which may be confidential or privileged. The information is for use of the individual or the entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 1-904-387-7973. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: RE: Single hydrant flow tests.
Way-back-when, here in Canada the Insurance Advisory Organization published a booklet about flow testing. It is the only place I’ve ever seen that discussed single hydrant flow testing and it advised that one hydrant testing could be used as a check on the other tests or as a test method when less than 750 gpm is required or anticipated, but warned that it is not accurate. Because of this, I’ve always avoided single hydrant tests and only did them when the demand would be less than 750 and where there were no other options, due to there being only one hydrant available and no other outlets that I could use to record static and residual pressures. Please note, the industry standard is 2 hydrant testing, as per the methodology laid out in NFPA 291. Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of fpdcdes...@gmail.com Sent: March-03-17 10:36 AM To: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: RE: Single hydrant flow tests. Matt, I always like to witness the flow test whenever I can. I want to make sure they are doing it right. We have one company that charges $600 for a test and I end up doing it because they have no clue. My point is that I get hydrant information from contractors a lot of times as part of the bid package. I wonder if anyone uses info from the water company verifies what they do. On Mar 3, 2017 at 8:28 AM, mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>> wrote: Many of the water companies around here will set a time and allow you to come out and watch – is it close enough that you can supervise? Matt From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of fpdcdes...@gmail.com<mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 7:08 AM To: Sprinklerforum Subject: Single hydrant flow tests. I recently found a local water company does their flow tests using only single hydrants (flow and pressure on the same hydrant). Fortunately I have not done very much work there. Who verifies the methodology with a water purveyor when they get test results? Obviously not many people in my area as they had to look up how to do a 2 hydrant test before we did the new one. ___ Sprinklerforum mailin ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage
If the building is a dedicated warehousing facility, I would disagree. Per the definition (3.9.1.18) for Miscellaneous storage: -Storage height doesn't exceed 12 ft; -Is incidental to another occupancy use group (ie. manufacturing or assembly); -Doesn't exceed more than 10 percent of the building area or 4000 ft² (372 m²) of the sprinklered area; -Doesn't exceed 1000 ft² in one pile or area; and -Is separated from other storage areas by at least 25 ft. If your truck parts supplier conforms to all of those points, sure Chapter 13 applies. Otherwise I think you need to go to Chapter 15. Larry From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Paulsen Sent: December-08-16 2:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage Right. Metal truck parts in these plastic bin containers. Miscellaneous Storage still applies. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 2:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage When I read your 1st e-mail/question, I thought the subject was relative to a truck parts supplier/warehousing operation. If that is correct and the facility is dedicated to storage, and the Group A plastics are being stored at a height greater than 5 feet, I don't think you should be using the Miscellaneous Storage design criteria from Chapter 13. Shouldn't you be looking at Chapter 15? Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Paulsen Sent: December-08-16 1:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage Thanks Craig: These bins are 48" square "folding pallet containers" stacked by two's. There is no shelving or racking involved, so as a percentage, there is far less plastic than metal. My thinking is to apply 13.2.1 Group A Plastics - "unexpanded/Expanded" - >5' <10' = EH2 (.4 over 2,500) The existing overhead system will provide .6/2,500 with a 40% safety margin. Thoughts - Arguments? Thanks, John Paulsen - SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P - 614-782-2438 F - 614-782-2374 C - 614-348-8206 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 12:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage Their concern is whether or not the plastic bins are being considered, not just the stored Class I (metal parts) commodity and it's a valid point if there are a considerable amount of bins. If it's one or two short shelves maybe it's not a big issue with a .6 density, but that would be an AHJ and Insurer call. HDPE falls into the Group A plastics category. The metal parts are irrelevant to the case. You have shelves full of plastic bins. If the bins were empty how would you classify the storage? If you look at NFPA 13 (2013) Table 15.2.6(a), for storage >5ft but ≤12ft, Roof/Ceiling height at >20 to 32ft (you said system pipe was at 25 ft), the density shown is 0.7 gpm/sf for Nonexpanded, stable, exposed. If in fact your final analysis of the design criteria does show a requirement of .7 gpm/sf, I'd calculate the existing systems as-is and see if it can meet that criteria. You might not need to change anything other than prove it works as-is. Then you'd also need to be sure the water supply is adequate for the increased flow demand. The other thing to consider is the NFPA 13 criteria only requires calculating of a 2,500 sq. ft. hyd. area, the 3,000 sf area sounds like an insurer requirement so you may have some wiggle room there hydraulically if you compare the 0.6@3000<mailto:0.6@3000> to 0.7@2500<mailto:0.7@2500> but you won't know for sure until you run the calc. I would be looking at the plastics, not the metal parts. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Paulsen Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 11:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage [EXTERNAL] Jeff: I appreciate your "caution" on this and perhaps I am overreaching here. But in my view, I'm just trying to correctly interpret the commo
RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage
When I read your 1st e-mail/question, I thought the subject was relative to a truck parts supplier/warehousing operation. If that is correct and the facility is dedicated to storage, and the Group A plastics are being stored at a height greater than 5 feet, I don't think you should be using the Miscellaneous Storage design criteria from Chapter 13. Shouldn't you be looking at Chapter 15? Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Paulsen Sent: December-08-16 1:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage Thanks Craig: These bins are 48" square "folding pallet containers" stacked by two's. There is no shelving or racking involved, so as a percentage, there is far less plastic than metal. My thinking is to apply 13.2.1 Group A Plastics - "unexpanded/Expanded" - >5' <10' = EH2 (.4 over 2,500) The existing overhead system will provide .6/2,500 with a 40% safety margin. Thoughts - Arguments? Thanks, John Paulsen - SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P - 614-782-2438 F - 614-782-2374 C - 614-348-8206 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 12:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage Their concern is whether or not the plastic bins are being considered, not just the stored Class I (metal parts) commodity and it's a valid point if there are a considerable amount of bins. If it's one or two short shelves maybe it's not a big issue with a .6 density, but that would be an AHJ and Insurer call. HDPE falls into the Group A plastics category. The metal parts are irrelevant to the case. You have shelves full of plastic bins. If the bins were empty how would you classify the storage? If you look at NFPA 13 (2013) Table 15.2.6(a), for storage >5ft but ≤12ft, Roof/Ceiling height at >20 to 32ft (you said system pipe was at 25 ft), the density shown is 0.7 gpm/sf for Nonexpanded, stable, exposed. If in fact your final analysis of the design criteria does show a requirement of .7 gpm/sf, I'd calculate the existing systems as-is and see if it can meet that criteria. You might not need to change anything other than prove it works as-is. Then you'd also need to be sure the water supply is adequate for the increased flow demand. The other thing to consider is the NFPA 13 criteria only requires calculating of a 2,500 sq. ft. hyd. area, the 3,000 sf area sounds like an insurer requirement so you may have some wiggle room there hydraulically if you compare the 0.6@3000<mailto:0.6@3000> to 0.7@2500<mailto:0.7@2500> but you won't know for sure until you run the calc. I would be looking at the plastics, not the metal parts. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 craig.pr...@ch2m.com<mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Paulsen Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 11:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage [EXTERNAL] Jeff: I appreciate your "caution" on this and perhaps I am overreaching here. But in my view, I'm just trying to correctly interpret the commodity classification and arrangement as it relates to the storage provisions of NFPA-13, which should fall under my practice. In fact, I am working with a specifying engineer on this who is just as baffled by the insurance underwriter's concerns as I am. The problem is, this arrangement is not "specifically" addressed in 13. Is this bin box storage, (it's not cardboard or corrugated) or open container storage? From everything that I can tell, if it meet the OHII curve, that should be the governing requirement. Thanks, John Paulsen - SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P - 614-782-2438 F - 614-782-2374 C - 614-348-8206 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 11:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HDPE Plastic Bin Box Storage John, I'm writing off on the forum because I don't want to stir up a hornets nest. Isn't this an engineering decision, not a NICET SET decision? I'm just saying, why would you want to take that liability as a NICET SET, and also potentially violate your NICET Certification by practicing engineering. Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, PM.SFPE Corporate
RE: College Lab Classrooms
I’m surprized no one participating in this thread has mentioned NFPA 45 or its extracted text in Section 22.8 of NFPA 13-2016. If there are chemicals used in the lab in question, the amount needs to be determined to enable classification of the space as a Class A, B, C or D type lab. Then Class A or B are designated as OH2 occupancies and Class C or D are considered OH1. If there are no chemicals, then you could classify the lab occupancy based on the Occupancy definitions. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of wmens...@comcast.net Sent: December-05-16 10:55 AM To: sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: College Lab Classrooms Surely you jest. From: "Brad Casterline" <bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com<mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>> To: "sprinklerforum" <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 10:47:57 AM Subject: RE: College Lab Classrooms that's easy to answer! From NFPA 13 (most editions for years): 5.2* Light Hazard Occupancies. Light hazard occupancies shall be defined as occupancies or portions of other occupancies where the quantity and/or combustibility of contents is low and fires with relatively low rates of heat release are expected. 5.3* Ordinary Hazard Occupancies. 5.3.1* Ordinary Hazard (Group 1). 5.3.1.1 Ordinary hazard (Group 1) occupancies shall be defined as occupancies or portions of other occupancies where combustibility is low, quantity of combustibles is moderate, stockpiles of combustibles do not exceed 8 ft (2.4 m), and fires with moderate rates of heat release are expected. 5.3.1.2 Dedicated and miscellaneous storage shall be protected in accordance with Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 as applicable. 5.3.2* Ordinary Hazard (Group 2). 5.3.2.1 Ordinary hazard (Group 2) occupancies shall be defined as occupancies or portions of other occupancies where the quantity and combustibility of contents are moderate to high, stockpiles of contents with moderate rates of heat release do not exceed 12 ft (3.66 m), and stockpiles of contents with high rates of heat release do not exceed 8 ft (2.4 m). 5.3.2.2 Dedicated and miscellaneous storage shall be protected in accordance with Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 as applicable. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of wmens...@comcast.net<mailto:wmens...@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 9:36 AM To: sprinklerforum Subject: College Lab Classrooms Quick question. College Lab classrooms. Light or Ordinary hazard? Bill Menster WFM Consulting Inc. 2416 Malaya Ct. Punta Gorda, FL 33983 ph. 941-421-9786 fax 941-391-6133 wmens...@comcast.net<mailto:wmens...@comcast.net> www.wfmconsultinginc.com<http://www.wfmconsultinginc.com> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Excessive air leak rate
Hi Mike: I didn't give a reply before, because I thought it best that the "hands on" guys give you their input rather than my more theoretical ideas. Anyway, since you came up dry with your first query, my answer to the options that you presented is that all of them would be examples of excessive air leakage. Of course it depends on the start / stop pressures, but to my mind if the compressor comes on more than once a day, there is too much leakage. It depends on the type of system too. A low pressure system can't afford as much leakage as one with a 40 psi pressure and a 5 or 6 to 1 water/air ratio. The reason the requirement changed from the NFPA 25 - 2002 edition text of 10 psi per week to what is in the standard today is because that leak rate (less than 1.5 psi per day) is hard to detect during an inspection. I don't think the idea is to be totally satisfied with a pressure loss as large as 36 psi per day, but the test is just for something detectable during an annual ITM site visit - 3 psi in 2 hours, which the inspector can measure fairly easily during his time on site, in conjunction with the annual trip test, etc. Anything less would prove difficult to determine. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Henke Sent: December-02-16 3:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Excessive air leak rate Since I only received one response, I'll try this one last time. What do you consider to be an excessive air leak for dry or preaction systems or at what point do you go searching for the cause of the leak? How do you know that you have an excessive air leak? When someone complains about the compressor running all the time? When the compressor burns out? When/if you conduct a 3 year leak rate test? When you go to investigate low air supervisory signals? Something else? Would it help if you were notified that the air leak rate is increasing or approaching the maximum allowable rate? Feel free to email me off line. Kind Regards, mike Mike Henke CET Sprinkler Product Manager ___ [http://www.pottersignal.com/signatures/graphics/logo.jpg] Potter Electric Signal Company, LLC 1609 Park 370 Place, St. Louis, MO 63042 phone: 800-325-3936 | direct: 314-595-6740 mi...@pottersignal.com<mailto:mi...@pottersignal.com> | www.pottersignal.com<http://www.pottersignal.com/> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Henke Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 1:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Excessive air leak rate What would you consider to be an excessive air leak rate for dry or preaction systems? How many psi per day? An acceptance test for a new system requires less than 1.5 psi in 24 hours. That's pretty tight. NFPA 25 allows 36 psi in 24 hours for the 3 year test. That seems pretty loose. It looks like NFPA 25 changed it in 2008 from 10 psi per week, which is 1.5 psi per day, to 36 psi per day. That's a pretty drastic change. Would it help if you were notified that the air leak rate is increasing or approaching the maximum allowable rate? How do you know that you have an excessive air leak? When someone complains about the compressor running all the time? When the compressor burns out? When/if you conduct a 3 year leak rate test? When you go to investigate low air supervisory signals? Kind Regards, mike Mike Henke CET Sprinkler Product Manager ___ [http://www.pottersignal.com/signatures/graphics/logo.jpg] Potter Electric Signal Company, LLC 1609 Park 370 Place, St. Louis, MO 63042 phone: 800-325-3936 | direct: 314-595-6740 mi...@pottersignal.com<mailto:mi...@pottersignal.com> | www.pottersignal.com<http://www.pottersignal.com/> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Sprikler obstruction.
From the 1984 Technical Committee Reports for Proposal 13-401: “SUBSTANTIATION Guidance is needed for the placement of standard sprinklers (ie non sidewall heads) in relation to their horizontal proximity to walls. Dead air spaces in corners can effect a sprinkler’s operation time. The minimum clearance for sidewall was used (NFPA 13 4-5.4). A recent installation in a 300 ft long by 9 ft wide corridor caused this concern when the sprinklers were located only 1 in off the wall.” Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: October-20-16 9:42 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprikler obstruction. What is the reasoning for the 4” minimum space to a wall or duct? It isn’t activation or spray pattern since sidewall sprinklers operate in a recessed escutcheon. Art at ATCO Fire From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 5:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Sprikler obstruction. For standard spray sprinklers: 4" from the duct unless a sidewall (you could use a vertical type) and no closer the 6' from the next closest sprinkler. The rules are pretty clear. Unless you can find a sprinkler who's listing negates these rules you're stuck. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Art Tiroly <atir...@atcofirepro.com<mailto:atir...@atcofirepro.com>> wrote: 12x16” Duct is tight to ceiling. Up right Sprinkler is about 6” from ceiling on exposed pipe. Fire Marshall’s issue is that the sprinkler is about 2.5” from the face of the duct. Adjacent sprinkler is about 6’-0 away. Art From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Cesar Lira Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Sprikler obstruction. What size is the duct and what is the distance between the sprinkler and the top of duct. De: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] En nombre de IPA Enviado el: miércoles, 19 de octubre de 2016 02:02 p. m. Para: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Asunto: Re: Sprikler obstruction. Is the duct below the sprinkler deflector? On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Art Tiroly <atir...@atcofirepro.com<mailto:atir...@atcofirepro.com>> wrote: Does an upright sprinkler have to be moved when a new duct was added less than 4” away from the existing sprinkler. I understand when a new sprinkler is installed it shall be 4” away from a wall. I have adequate coverage from the adjacent sprinkler in this basement meeting room space. Art Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 cell [Imagen quitada por el remitente. Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org [Image removed by sender. Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Ron Greenman 4110 Olson Dr., NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 rongreen...@gmail.com<mailto: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-) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Non-Aspirating Sprinklers listed with specific foam?
NFPA 16 has the following text from the middle portion of A.5.3.1.2: … In addition to chemical compatibility, one should consider effects on proportioning and discharge hardware (many listings and approvals are very specific with regard to operating pressures, flow ranges, and materials of construction of hardware components). … Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dan Arbel Sent: September-26-16 4:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Non-Aspirating Sprinklers listed with specific foam? Dear Frank Good Explanation. However, it does not explain sprinklers should be listed together with Specific foam. You need to purchase the sprinkler and the foam from the same company whist normally you would purchase the sprinkler from a company that produce sprinkler and foam from foam producer. This put the Foam Producer that is not associated with sprinkler manufacturer at disadvantage. The listing requirement for sprinkler and foam together is mentioned only in NFPA409 . As I noted I did not find such a requirement in the more specific NFPA 11 and 15 (Except for Proportioner and Foam) .FMglobal is implicit that it is not required. Best Regard Dan Arbel Risk Engineering T: 972-4-8243337 F: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-6611337 Mail: d...@riskmanage.com<mailto:d...@riskmanage.com> W: www.riskmanage.com<http://www.riskmanage.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Frans Stoop Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Non-Aspirating Sprinklers listed with specific foam? Hello Dan, Aspirating sprinklers aspirate air and mix it with the incoming premix to create foam. Aspirating sprinklers can create low upto medium expansion foam. Non-aspirating sprinklers cannot aspirate air and thus cannot mix air with premix, but thanks to the film forming property of AFFF and ARFF there is still another mechanism that creates foam. The premix droplets that leave the sprinkler become small sheets of film while beiing thrown away from the sprinkler. The droplets loose their initial shape because the surface tension of the premix is about zero. However the droplets do not desintegrate because the cohesion of the film forming component in AFFF and ARFF concentrate keeps the molecules together in a thin film. While slung through the air these small film sheets each catch some air in it and become bubbles. The result is that a lot of the discharged premix reaches the floor as low expansion foam. Obviously this works only with film forming agents, hence the listing for specific types of foam. Kind regards, ir. Frans Stoop Sr. Fire Protection Consultant [riskonet_V2] Singel 540, NL-1017AZ Amsterdam The Netherlands +316 542 37 642 www.riskonet.com<http://www.riskonet.com/> At 15:36 26-9-2016, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0029_01D21814.19C948C0" Content-Language: en-us Hello Russell Thanks for your posting. Aspirating Sprinkler is listed for Foam Brand? If not why should non-aspirating sprinkler that is designed and listed as a sprinkler, either wet or where the ampule is removed, or dry be listed for any foam? Did you locate any such demand is either NFPA 11 or 15? Dan Dan Arbel Risk Engineering T: 972-4-8243337 F: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-6611337 Mail: d...@riskmanage.com<mailto:d...@riskmanage.com> W: www.riskmanage.com<http://www.riskmanage.com/> From: Sprinklerforum [ mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Russell & Carol Gregory Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Non-Aspirating Sprinklers listed with specific foam? The listing requirement is for the TYPE of Foam NOT the BRAND, so s long as it is listed for use with AFFF or ARFF then the Brand shouldn’t matter. This is where Mil Spec foams were used so brand wasn’t an issue. Russell Gregory Christchurch New Zealand From: Sprinklerforum [ mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dan Arbel Sent: Monday, 26 September 2016 12:42 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Cc: Ofer Halamish Subject: Non-Aspirating Sprinklers listed with specific foam? Dear All, Should Non-Aspirating Sprinkler be listed with a specific foam? This is what is required by NFPA 409: 6.2.2 Deluge Foam-Water Sprinkler System Design and Performance. 6.2.2.10 The discharge devices shall have a minimum nominal 6.4 mm (1∕4 in.) orifice and shall be listed for use with the particular type of foam concentrate to be used in the system. However, such approval is not required by FM
RE: Noncombustible concealed space
I would offer two points for your consideration: 1. There was an old formal interpretation that advised that deletion of sprinklers above a duct was a question for the AHJ, who could access all of the circumstances. 2. Sprinklers above open grid ceilings need to be in compliance with Section 8.15.14. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Stone Sent: September-14-16 10:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Noncombustible concealed space I have an interesting situation. Steel and concrete School building. A Corridor runs down the middle on each floor about 8' wide, W12 steel I-Beams forming the side at the floor deck above, (About 12'-0 Floor to Bottom of deck). There is a large duct running the length of the Corridor about 7'-6 wide x 24" tall. This leaves a gap of about 3" on each side between duct and sheetrock partitions. The top of the duct is about 11" below the steel Q-Deck above. An open metal grid ceiling system is installed 12" - 16" below the duct. We are installing upright heads 1"-4" below the duct allowing the water to spray down through the open grid ceiling. The question is, do I need to install heads above the duct? There will be no way to service or replace these heads and if installed between the duct and the wall, the head will not meet the minimum 4" off the wall. Referencing 2010 ed. 8.15.1.2.1, concealed spaces, I believe I am following the intent. 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 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net<mailto:tston...@comcast.net> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Paint spray application
Back to the original question, the only sidewall extra hazard sprinkler that I’m aware of is the Reliable Model MBEC-14 Extended Coverage Ordinary & Extra Hazard Horizontal Sidewall Sprinklers for Metal Building Applications. It is a specialty sprinkler, but a spray booth is a type of metal building/structure. I believe FM doesn’t like it for flammable and combustible liquids, so that agency wouldn’t accept it in a spray booth, but I think a case could be made for using it per NFPA 13 and NFPA 33. I’d run it past the tech. reps at Reliable though, before I went too far down the road with it. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: August-08-16 9:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Paint spray application A large paint booth. American’s first 787-8 in the paint booth [Inline image 1] Paine Field, Everett, WA On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Travis Mack, SET <tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>> wrote: I think the point they have all been making is that not everything fits into your areas of experience. Yes, I have seen paint booths in excess of 2000 sq ft. So, the design area per EH2 (.4/2000 with reduction based on use of high temp sprinklers) would not encompass the entire area of the paint booth. Therefore, your idea of using sprinklers outside of their listing and the prescriptives of NFPA 13 could be quite bad judgment. It could also ruin a person financially if it went real bad, not counting other possible scenarios that could play out. This forum is a great educational tool as well as a great way to bounce ideas between colleagues. We have to remember that there are some people new in the industry that may see posts by a frequent poster and think he knows more and has more experience than he actually does. They may then take this as the correct approach, when it is quite obviously not the correct approach. By sticking to the guidelines of NFPA 13 where they are very clearly black and white, we are best able to defend our actions. NFPA 13 is not a perfect document. But, it does provide us with definite guidelines and legislated criteria we can follow. If you want to get into performance based design and become the responsible engineer of record on the projects you are involved in, then more power to you. However, as most of this board is comprised of those at the technician level - including yourself - we do not have that luxury. As such, we do our best to follow the published standards and best practices of the industry. Back to the original question, I have frequently seen these installed as pendent sprinklers in the horizontal position. I also frequently see them on flex hose assemblies to aid in the inspection process. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> http://www.mfpdesign.com https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack On 8/8/2016 6:25 PM, Brad Casterline wrote: I don't know Ron. The closest I have come to that is the foam pop-up nozzles for protecting the B2 Stealths at Whitman AFB a couple hours drive from where I grew up. It was pretty harry but the normal stuff surrounding it all was fairly standard. On Aug 8, 2016 8:14 PM, "rongreenman ." <rongreen...@gmail.com<mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com>> wrote: How about the spray booth for a 747 Brad? Or a B-52? On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Brad Casterline <bcasterli...@gmail.com<mailto:bcasterli...@gmail.com>> wrote: Show me a spray booth with forty sprinklers Steve On Aug 8, 2016 7:36 PM, "Steve Leyton" <st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: Sure. And fires that can be spread by running fuel such as plastics and FCL’s (not to mention BLEVE’s) can set off 40 standard response sprinklers in a minute. I can only imagine the sheer volume of responding sprinklers and skipping that could occur based on how smooth or bumpy the roof/ceiling assembly is if you started wantonly plugging QR control-mode sprinklers into EH fires. (On paper) MDD = .80ADD = .275 My opinion only, Steve L. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 5:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Paint spray application Shakey ground is all i have ever known Ken. I am no more a professional than you are. THINK MAN! small spaces with fast fires need the fastest acting sprinklers w
RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING
Great! Now what safety factor is to be applied? What type of joint? What corrosion allowance? Are those values for CW, ERW or seamless? etc. etc. I find it interesting that the old handbook gave you one value and the Wheatland info. gave another. I wouldn’t advise going beyond NFPA prescriptive methods without having a good engineering solution (ie. calculations) tucked away in your files. Larry From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: August-04-16 4:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING I have an old Grinnell Pipe Handbook. 1” Sch. 40 ASTM A53 Grade B, up to 650 degrees has a pressure rating of 2,847psi, 6” Sch. 40 , 1,143psi. David Autry Meininger Fire Protection 2521 West L Street, Suite 5 Lincoln, NE 68522 402.466.2616 402.466.2617 fax da...@mfp-inc.com<mailto:da...@mfp-inc.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 2:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING The 300 psi limit comes from 4.2.3 and 4.24 of NFPA 14-2013 (and has a parallel in NFPA 13). 4.2.3 Where steel pipe specified in Table 4.2.1 is used and joined by welding as specified in Section 4.4 or by roll-grooved pipe and fittings as specified in Section 4.4, the minimum nominal wall thickness for pressures up to 300 psi (20.7 bar) shall be in accordance with Schedule 10 for pipe sizes up to 5 in. (127 mm), 0.134 in. (3.40 mm) for 6 in. (150 mm) pipe, and 0.188 in. (4.78 mm) for 8 in. and 10 in. (203 mm and 254 mm) pipe. 4.2.3.1 … 4.2.4 Where steel pipe specified in Table 4.2.1 is joined by threaded fittings as specified in Section 4.4 or by fittings used with pipe having cut grooves, the minimum wall thickness shall be in accordance with Schedule 30 [sizes 8 in. (203 mm) and larger] or Schedule 40 [sizes less than 8 in. (203 mm)] pipe for pressures up to 300 psi (20.7 bar). So basically, it layouts what wall thickness you can use for up to 300 psi and as I said previously, after that it becomes an engineering effort. If you have a pressure zone up to 350 psi or an express riser with even greater pressure, you’ve moved beyond the prescriptive allowances. Larry From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: August-04-16 3:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING The specifications from ASTM don’t offer those pressures but testing per accepted methods, such as ASME B31.1 do. There’s a data sheet on Wheatland’s website showing working pressures for Schedule 40 and 80 ASTM A53 Grades F and B: http://www.wheatland.com/images/standard-steel-pipe/Working_Pressure_Ratings_081114.pdf For Grade B, pressures range from 750-650 for 4-8” Sch. 40 and from 1350-1200 for Sch. 80. I am curious about the basis for your opinion regarding 300 PSI as some sort of a benchmark. NFPA 14 prescribes a MWP in standpipes of 350 PSI and there is no limit for express mains, except that for which the components are rated (note “rated” and not “listed” – this was intentional).The trend in tactical firefighting is toward higher pressures – apparatus is for sale right now with pumps that produce from 300-1,200 PSI and hose/nozzle combinations that will make a multitude of patterns at different flow rates, all the way to true fog at ultra-high pressures. The archaic “comfort zone” approach may not be what the design or local responding agency are calling for. Steve From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 8:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING I don’t think the various pipe specifications such as ASTM A53 or ASTM A795 will give you design pressures. In my opinion, when you move beyond the 300 psi limit, you’ve moved out of the prescriptive areas of NFPA 13 & NFPA 14, so selection of the type of pipe and the corresponding pipe wall thickness now becomes an engineering effort. The usual way to engineer this would be to perform calculations as per ASME B31.1 or ASME B31.3, to prove that the material chosen can safely retain the pressures. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Don Casey Sent: August-04-16 10:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING Search for pipe spec’d to A795 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bou
RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING
The 300 psi limit comes from 4.2.3 and 4.24 of NFPA 14-2013 (and has a parallel in NFPA 13). 4.2.3 Where steel pipe specified in Table 4.2.1 is used and joined by welding as specified in Section 4.4 or by roll-grooved pipe and fittings as specified in Section 4.4, the minimum nominal wall thickness for pressures up to 300 psi (20.7 bar) shall be in accordance with Schedule 10 for pipe sizes up to 5 in. (127 mm), 0.134 in. (3.40 mm) for 6 in. (150 mm) pipe, and 0.188 in. (4.78 mm) for 8 in. and 10 in. (203 mm and 254 mm) pipe. 4.2.3.1 … 4.2.4 Where steel pipe specified in Table 4.2.1 is joined by threaded fittings as specified in Section 4.4 or by fittings used with pipe having cut grooves, the minimum wall thickness shall be in accordance with Schedule 30 [sizes 8 in. (203 mm) and larger] or Schedule 40 [sizes less than 8 in. (203 mm)] pipe for pressures up to 300 psi (20.7 bar). So basically, it layouts what wall thickness you can use for up to 300 psi and as I said previously, after that it becomes an engineering effort. If you have a pressure zone up to 350 psi or an express riser with even greater pressure, you’ve moved beyond the prescriptive allowances. Larry From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: August-04-16 3:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING The specifications from ASTM don’t offer those pressures but testing per accepted methods, such as ASME B31.1 do. There’s a data sheet on Wheatland’s website showing working pressures for Schedule 40 and 80 ASTM A53 Grades F and B: http://www.wheatland.com/images/standard-steel-pipe/Working_Pressure_Ratings_081114.pdf For Grade B, pressures range from 750-650 for 4-8” Sch. 40 and from 1350-1200 for Sch. 80. I am curious about the basis for your opinion regarding 300 PSI as some sort of a benchmark. NFPA 14 prescribes a MWP in standpipes of 350 PSI and there is no limit for express mains, except that for which the components are rated (note “rated” and not “listed” – this was intentional).The trend in tactical firefighting is toward higher pressures – apparatus is for sale right now with pumps that produce from 300-1,200 PSI and hose/nozzle combinations that will make a multitude of patterns at different flow rates, all the way to true fog at ultra-high pressures. The archaic “comfort zone” approach may not be what the design or local responding agency are calling for. Steve From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 8:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING I don’t think the various pipe specifications such as ASTM A53 or ASTM A795 will give you design pressures. In my opinion, when you move beyond the 300 psi limit, you’ve moved out of the prescriptive areas of NFPA 13 & NFPA 14, so selection of the type of pipe and the corresponding pipe wall thickness now becomes an engineering effort. The usual way to engineer this would be to perform calculations as per ASME B31.1 or ASME B31.3, to prove that the material chosen can safely retain the pressures. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Don Casey Sent: August-04-16 10:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING Search for pipe spec’d to A795 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: 2016/08/04 9:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING Thanks Steve, So if I need to exceed 300PSI, all my valves/fittings…ect before the PRV must be listed for the higher pressures. The sprinkler pipe does not have to be listed but it must have a working pressure higher than my system pressure. It looks like it has to be ASTM 53B Sch 40 but the piping can be grooved. I could not find any working system pressure charts for Sch 10 Everything sound correct? Thanks, Dewayne From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING For a standpipe system, show them Table 4.2.1. SL From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 5:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: HIGH RISE BUILDING So when
RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING
I don’t think the various pipe specifications such as ASTM A53 or ASTM A795 will give you design pressures. In my opinion, when you move beyond the 300 psi limit, you’ve moved out of the prescriptive areas of NFPA 13 & NFPA 14, so selection of the type of pipe and the corresponding pipe wall thickness now becomes an engineering effort. The usual way to engineer this would be to perform calculations as per ASME B31.1 or ASME B31.3, to prove that the material chosen can safely retain the pressures. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Don Casey Sent: August-04-16 10:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING Search for pipe spec’d to A795 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: 2016/08/04 9:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING Thanks Steve, So if I need to exceed 300PSI, all my valves/fittings…ect before the PRV must be listed for the higher pressures. The sprinkler pipe does not have to be listed but it must have a working pressure higher than my system pressure. It looks like it has to be ASTM 53B Sch 40 but the piping can be grooved. I could not find any working system pressure charts for Sch 10 Everything sound correct? Thanks, Dewayne From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING For a standpipe system, show them Table 4.2.1. SL From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 5:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: HIGH RISE BUILDING So when it says "sprinkler pipe maximum working pressure" I can ignore it? How do I get this past the reviewer? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2016, at 7:25 PM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: Okay, time to go outside the box -schedule 10 and 40 piping isn’t required to be listed … ASTM A53B black steel schedule 40 has is rated for working pressures of 430 PSI (4”) and 696 PSI (6”). And those are with welded joints. Vic has what … 700 PSI working pressure for the Style 77 (or something like that)? Far and away the hardest equipment to find is valves that act directly on the maximum discharge pressure. SL From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 5:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: HIGH RISE BUILDING Thanks for the information. What did you do for the 300psi limit on pipe? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: We made 360 total head at churn if I recall correctly. Everything downstream UL (USA) listed for fire – had to hunt down check and butterfly valves from Victaulic rated for 365. Here in CA all high-rises have tanks, so PSH of about 7’ + pump rating at max churn. Big pump yes, but not a monster as it was only a 750. We had three or four stairs in the basement and podium levels, so designed to a couple of points on the curve. We’ve done foam underwing systems for Navy and Marine Corp hangars with .17/15,000 flowing concurrently at the roof with total demand of 4,500-5,000 GPM. Now THOSE are big pumps. SL From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 4:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING Must have been one hell of a pump. There is no height limit in latest editions of NFPA 14. Standpipes that directly supply hose connections are limited to 350 PSI (stay tuned for 2019 cycle on that one) but there is no height or pressure limit on express mains that serve upper zones. Our firm designed a 545’ single zone system for a tower here in San Diego. The foregoing is my opinion only and is not intended to represent the NFPA 14 Technical Committee, nor serve as an interpretation of the standard. Steve L. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
RE: High Rise Standpipe
This is just my 2 cents worth (in Canadian funds), but this is what NFPA 14-2013 says on the subject: 5.6.4* A test connection for testing the waterflow device shall be provided. A.5.6.4 It is acceptable to utilize a hose valve on the standpipe to test the waterflow device as long as the water is dispersed to an acceptable location. This could be done with a hose valve on the roof or by using a hose connected to a hose valve discharging to a suitable location. So, my reading of this is "a hose ... discharging to a suitable location". It doesn't say "fire hose", so I think a garden hose should suffice. Pete Schwab's substantiation when he proposed the new A.5.6.4 text was that "It should be allowed to use hose valves versus installing a test connection to test the waterflow device." Best regards, Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Versoi, Michael Sent: August-02-16 6:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: High Rise Standpipe The specific information regarding the systems was passed along via a phone conversation. I assumed the Standpipe(s) in question were Class III, and posed the question as such, but was told they were Class II. There could be misinformation provided or interpreted. The question is still the same. Is Quarterly/Annual waterflow testing through a garden hose to activate the device an acceptable means for Class II system or must the Hand Hose station be utilized? Any input would be appreciated. Best regards, Michael Versoi Fire Sprinkler General Foreman NICET III Siemens Industry, Inc. Building Technologies 22010 SE 51st Street Issaquah, WA 98029 425.507.4300 Office 1.866.674.2728 Fax 425.281.7313 Mobile 24 hr Dispatch: 800-952-6348 This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Thank you for your cooperation ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 14 / Remote FDC / Manual Stand-pipes
That being the case, my best suggestion is that you could use the latest editions of the standard as clarification of the intent for the requirement in the 2010 edition. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Irwin Sent: June-06-16 1:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 14 / Remote FDC / Manual Stand-pipes Unfortunately, I am under 2010 Code. John Irwin Sprinkler Construction Manager Critical System Solutions, LLC Cell: 813.618.2781 Email: jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com<mailto:jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: NFPA 14 / Remote FDC / Manual Stand-pipes I think the guidance you are looking for is in Section 5.9 of NFPA 24-2016: Section 5.9.1 General states that: "Where the AHJ requires a remote fire department connection for systems requiring one by another standard, fire department connection shall be provided as described in Section 5.9." Section 5.9.3.2.1 says: "Control valves shall be permitted in the system piping downstream of the fire department connection piping." In particular, you might want to look at Figure A.5.9(b), Figure 5.9.3.2.1(a), Figure 5.9.3.2.1(b) and Figure A.6.2.2.2. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Irwin Sent: June-06-16 11:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: NFPA 14 / Remote FDC / Manual Stand-pipes When using a remote FDC on the underground line or the backflow device, how do we get around NFPA 14 2010 6.4.1 "Except for the valve required by 6.3.2, shutoff valves shall not be installed between the FDC and the system"? I have done many yard FDCs on four story hotels over the years and have never had this question come up. NFPA 13 has an exception to allow for a remote FDC or an FDC tied in to a header, but 14 doesn't seem to have this same exception. I should note we have combination standpipes. Standpipes will be manual wet. John Irwin Sprinkler Construction Manager Critical System Solutions, LLC 2830 Scherer Drive, Suite 300 St. Petersburg, FL 33716 Office: 727.209.5122 Fax: 727.209.5126 Cell: 813.618.2781 Email: jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com<mailto:jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com> [CSS Logo] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 14 / Remote FDC / Manual Stand-pipes
I think the guidance you are looking for is in Section 5.9 of NFPA 24-2016: Section 5.9.1 General states that: "Where the AHJ requires a remote fire department connection for systems requiring one by another standard, fire department connection shall be provided as described in Section 5.9." Section 5.9.3.2.1 says: "Control valves shall be permitted in the system piping downstream of the fire department connection piping." In particular, you might want to look at Figure A.5.9(b), Figure 5.9.3.2.1(a), Figure 5.9.3.2.1(b) and Figure A.6.2.2.2. Larry Keeping From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Irwin Sent: June-06-16 11:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA 14 / Remote FDC / Manual Stand-pipes When using a remote FDC on the underground line or the backflow device, how do we get around NFPA 14 2010 6.4.1 "Except for the valve required by 6.3.2, shutoff valves shall not be installed between the FDC and the system"? I have done many yard FDCs on four story hotels over the years and have never had this question come up. NFPA 13 has an exception to allow for a remote FDC or an FDC tied in to a header, but 14 doesn't seem to have this same exception. I should note we have combination standpipes. Standpipes will be manual wet. John Irwin Sprinkler Construction Manager Critical System Solutions, LLC 2830 Scherer Drive, Suite 300 St. Petersburg, FL 33716 Office: 727.209.5122 Fax: 727.209.5126 Cell: 813.618.2781 Email: jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com<mailto:jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com> [CSS Logo] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 13 (2013) 8.6.4.1.2(5) - why the 3ft minimum?
It may be of help if you reference the 2016 edition of NFPA 13. There, in Section 8.6.4.1.2(5) the 3 ft limit has been deleted. The Committee Statement for that revision was that concrete tees are capable of withstanding the heat long enough for sprinklers to activate even when the tees are closer than 3 feet on centers. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com Sent: April-28-16 5:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA 13 (2013) 8.6.4.1.2(5) - why the 3ft minimum? Forum, We have concrete tee construction. Bottom of stems measured from the ceiling is 26" down. Centerline of stems are spaced apart in an every other fashion of 7', 2'8", 7', 2'8", etc. Ideally we would like to use NFPA 13 (2013) 8.6.4.1.2(5) to protect the area so we don't have to add additional sprinklers/piping. However it states this is only applicable for 3ft to 7.5ft stem spacing. Can someone tell me the purpose behind the 3ft minimum threshold? Even though we have some 2'8" sections, do you believe the intent of this code was for my situation? Or do you believe the intent is for concrete tee construction where every stem is 3ft or less? I can see people interpreting this passage either way as all stems are spaced away from another stem more than 3ft, yet all stems are spaced away from another stem less than 3ft. To me, it seems ridiculous that I can have stems with any depth (let's say 10ft) and spaced 3'1" apart and the deflector can be located 1" below the bottom of the stem (10'1") and branchlines can be spaced 15ft apart. Yet if the same depth stems are spaced 2'11" apart the deflector can't be lower than 22" below the ceiling and because they are now obstructed, they have to be in every pocket. I appreciate anyone's opinion on my situation and/or knowledge/history of this codes development. Note: As I allude to, I know there are other ways to design this system utilizing 22" and beam rule. I am more looking for the "Why's" or the "You missed this blurb" that agrees with your stance . Thanks, Sean VG ___ 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: PVC FOR INCOMING SERVICE SUPPLY
Just a bit of an update: Per NFPA24-2016 & NFPA 13-2016, Section 10.1.4.1 10.1.4.1 Underground piping shall be permitted to extend into the building through the slab or wall not more than 24 in. (600mm). A.10.1.4.1 Where nonmetallic underground piping is provided above grade or inside a building, the following should be considered: (1) Exposure from direct rays of sunlight (2) Compatibility with chemicals such as floor coatings and termiticides/insecticides (3) Support of piping and appurtenances attached thereto (e.g., sprinkler risers, backflow preventers) Per NFPA 13-2016, Section 24.1.6.1.2: 24.1.6.1.2 Where required due to specific mechanical or environmental conditions, the transition piece shall be protected against possible damage from corrosive agents, solvent attack, or mechanical damage. In other words, per the latest editions of the standards, it is now okay to run PVC into the building for 2 ft max. So now you shouldn't have worry about things such as providing barriers or encasing it in concrete, etc. except under special circumstances. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: March-24-16 2:24 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: PVC FOR INCOMING SERVICE SUPPLY The problem with PVC or any non-metallic pipe is that if they are not listed for above ground service you may need to transition from the plastic to a metallic pipe above the slab. Check the manufacturer's listing for installation restrictions. At fire temperatures the plastic could be structurally compromised. Also if there is the potential of a pool fire or exposure to certain chemicals, the material can be compromised so typically where we use PVC or HDPE for underground service we transition to ductile at the base of the riser and extend ductile to the mating flange at 1'-0" above the floor for the connection to the aboveground sprinkler system. NFPA makes some statements as to what is permissible and reasonable for this application. Your conditions may vary so you will need to make the call on what material is appropriate above the slab. >From NFPA 24 2013 Handbook Commentary A.10.1.1 An often overlooked materials issue is that most nonmetallic underground piping brought up through the floor of a building could be vulnerable to fire exposure or spills of corrosive liquids. Regardless of material type, a section of underground pipe is allowed to extend above the floor level up to a maximum of 24 in. (600 mm). (See 6.3.1.1.1 in NFPA 13.) The requirement in 24.1.6.1 of NFPA 13 provides additional guidance on the transition from underground to aboveground piping and the need to protect the transition piece from damage. Possible methods for protecting the exposed section of underground pipe are to encase it in concrete, provide curbing, or provide a barrier. NFPA 13 2013 Handbook 6.3.1.1.1* Underground pipe shall be permitted to extend into the building through the slab or wall not more than 24 in. (0.6 m). Commentary: This requirement was added in the 2013 edition to provide guidance for the specific length of underground piping that can extend into the building. This requirement addresses concerns that pipe, such as PVC, could be vulnerable to damage after penetration inside a building. However, transition from the underground piping system to the aboveground piping in the building is necessary, so an appropriate length was determined to be 24 in. (0.6 m). In instances where the pipe needs to be protected, such as where ultraviolet light or flammable liquids are present, the short length of PVC pipe is commonly protected by encasing the pipe with concrete. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: PVC FOR INCOMING SERVICE SUPPLY Cesar, If I read your inquiry correctly the data you need is most likely in FM Global Data Sheet 3-10, in Table 1. It looks as though they don't make a distinction in that data sheet based on the type of occupancy. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 03/23/2016 5:30 PM, Cesar Lira wrote: > Somebody know where can I found in any data sheet or FM section, if I > can use a PVC pipe until the incoming supply service for a plant?? Or > definitely I
RE: Attachment on a Sidewall Sprinkler
I think what you've got there is a Star sprinkler from the 70's or so, before the development of the first residential sprinklers and the fast response link. It was early attempt to make a quick response sprinkler. The linkage was a standard response but the thing beside it is a squib that (as I understand it) is supposed to send an hot electric arc to the link to cause it to melt out/actuate quickly. I only every saw them on one installation and I was once told that handling them should be like handling explosives, because an accident with that squib could do some harm. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott Holman Sent: March-02-16 11:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Attachment on a Sidewall Sprinkler Hello Forum, A coworker took a picture of a sidewall sprinkler with a funky attachment on it. I'm hoping someone knows what it is because we have been unable to find it online. http://i.imgur.com/ZqsFu39.jpg Thanks! Scott Holman Designer RLH Fire Protection 4300 Stine Road, Bldg 800 Bakersfield, CA 93313 661.410.1351 shol...@rlhfp.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: ESFR duration
I think you've latched on to an error. When the TC discussed moving the durations and the hose stream allowances from Chapter 18 to include them in Table 12.8.6, I don't remember any discussions about changing the durations. In the 2013 edition, the only ESFR requirement for a 3 hr. duration was for on-tread, on side, and laced tires in open portable steel racks or portable palletized racks. All of the other criteria only called for one hr. I think when the information was moved, an editing mistake was made. It looks to me like someone took the worst case. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dan Arbel Sent: February-22-16 1:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR duration Thank you Craig for your response. 1. The ESFR is supposed to operate early enough before the fire gets its hold within the tires. 2. FMGlobal did not make any changes. 3. I'm not aware of any fire testing justifying a triple duration. 4. The last significant test series done with ESFRs I know off is reported in http://www.lecaoutchouc.com/images/Partie_publique_ESS/Dossier_N1_Version_an glaise.pdf I am still looking for hard evidence Dan Dan Arbel Risk Engineering T: 972-4-8243337 F: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-6611337 Mail: d...@riskmanage.com W: www.riskmanage.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR duration Because 1-hour for a tire fire does nothing but get things wet. Water supplies for firefighting is one area where fire protection engineers miss the mark big time. Too many don't even know about Fire Flow out of the IFC. Had a warehouse storing rubber that burned, it was a 12 hour ground attack, municipal supply was woefully insufficient for such an event. FD had to draft from the harbor. What we often forget is that sprinklers may be the first responders but behind that will be humans who have to actually do the dangerous work of extinguishing a larger fire. When we neglect water supplies and only see what's required in NFPA 13, we do them and the owner a great disservice. Yes tanks and pumps cost money that may never be recouped, but a total loss is pretty hard to overcome as well. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dan Arbel Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Grinnell F991 Dear All, Anybody knows why NFPA 13- Edition 2016 increased the required duration of ESFR protection of rubber tires storage from 1 hour (Edition 13) to 3 hours? Regards Dan Arbel Risk Engineering T: 972-4-8243337 F: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-6611337 Mail: d...@riskmanage.com W: www.riskmanage.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 13, 2013; figure 8.6.5.1.2(c)
You have a good memory Roland. I submitted Public Input 289 for the "S" dimension off the wall to be corrected to be "½S" and for the "18 in. minimum (No Maximum)" to be revised to "No Maximum" and that was accepted by the Committee and published in the 1st Draft Report. Somehow though, when the 2nd Draft Report came out, those changes were lost and the original unrevised illustrations were back in there. I notified Matt at NFPA about this, but he wasn't able to get it fixed - procedural limitations I guess. I believe that in NFPA 13-2016 Figures 8.6.5.1.2(c) and 8.8.5.1.2(c) and 8.10.6.1.2(c) were meant to be similar to the new Figures 8.9.5.1.4(c) and 8.10.7.1.4(c). Maybe we can get it fixed during the next cycle. There should probably be a new figure for Section 8.7 as well. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: January-21-16 2:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13, 2013; figure 8.6.5.1.2(c) what confused the issue is that you attempted to start a new thread by replying to a thread on trailers within a warehouse. This is a goofy item that defies logic. There was something in the FR and/or SR reports on this where I thought the 18 inch minimum went away (which then is logical). Will look into AFTER I finish an overdue article (unless you beat me to it and tell us - lol) Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:47 AM, T. Silva <silva...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > Trying to understand the logic of this section. If the height from deflector > to bottom of obstruction is 18" or over it is not an obstruction, but if the > height is less than 18" then it is? > > This section is also in the 2016 edition. > > Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Drum Drip Valve Guard
I'm not sure where the serious aspects of this thread left off and the joking took over, but if someone tries to automatically drain condensate from a system, particularly if there is a QOD involved), the effort could very likely lead to a dry pipe valve actuation. My advice, drum drip or not, would be to never try to drain down a system while it is in service. That's just asking for trouble. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei Sent: December-16-15 5:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Drum Drip Valve Guard Edit of my previous response. I would imagine that 0.25 to 0.50 seconds, once daily would be adequate. Condensate is not draining so much as being expelled by 25-40 psig system air. B. > On Dec 16, 2015, at 5:53 AM, Fairchild, Jack <jfairch...@ballinger.com> wrote: > > I like it. Add some type of flow meter and do remote testing this way as > well? > > Jack Fairchild > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Bruce Verhei > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:34 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Drum Drip Valve Guard > > Why not drain the water as it collects, instead of when someone opens the > valve. > > NC solenoid driven valve. 24VDC. 1/8"? Drive off 24v auxiliary power circuit, > through NC relay contacts. > > Four wire cable pulled near, and past, all low point drains. > One wire pair is intelligent circuit, controlled by FACP. Other is the 24VDC > auxiliary power circuit, normally powered. Dropped at alarm. > > (Intelligent) relay control module connected to above four wire cable. > > Dry contacts on relay connected to solenoid. (If necessary add > capacitive sub-circuit to power initial current spike at solenoid > operation.) > > Provide programming option > to direct all relay contact modules, and by inference, valves, in sequence. > > Five seconds each round? > Five rounds/day? > Skew towards warmest time of day in coldest month. > > Orifice, frequency, duration arrived at by experimentation and experience, or > stronger powered engineering minds than mine. > > Orifice screened. > > Manual valve provided on horizontal connection on T. Use for initial gross > draining of dry system. > > Blow water out it builds up, drip by drip. Never have enough to freeze and > break fittings. Correct the problem instead of our colleague in Myrtle Beach > ordering 60 x 1" valves each fall. Take the plant maintenance person out of > the process. > > Best > > Bruce > >> On Dec 14, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Brad Casterline <bcasterli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Cut the problem in half by using half the valves, and none of those >> fighting a losing battle by being closed? >>> On Dec 14, 2015 4:21 PM, "Charles Thurston" <charl...@mbfsg.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Brad, >>> >>> We have enough trouble in this area getting the maint. guy to drain >>> the ones with 2 valves they can reach and a hand tight plug in the >>> bottom. IF we get 3 days below freezing and then a thaw, we will run >>> 40-60 freeze break calls on the thaw day. >>> >>> That reminds me I need to place our annual order of 60- 1" valves. >>> >>> Monday, December 14, 2015, 3:43:29 PM, you wrote: >>> >>>> I still say we don't need two 1" globe valvles OR any 2" pipe to >>>> make a Drum Drip. >>>> How about a 1" globe at 7' AFF, then 6' of 1" down to a 1x1/2 red. >>>> with >>> a >>>> 1/2" fairly easily removed plug? >>>> In this way, most would-be tamperers would need a ladder and >>>> wrench, and honest workers could use the one valve and one plug to >>>> acomplish the same thing the picture of drum drips in 13 do. >>> >>>> Brad >>>> On Dec 14, 2015 10:40 AM, "Jay Stough" <jaycs7...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> AGF has a nice setup. We recently installed one of their heated >>>>> drum >>> drips >>>>> where the installing contractor put the drum drip outside. Go to: >>>>> http://www.testandrain.com/documents/products.html#collectandrain >>> >>>>> *Jay Stough* >>>>> NICET IV LAYOUT >>>>> NICET III ITM >>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Gre
RE: working in Canada
Our National and Provincial building and fire codes are very different from yours. We have a CSA fire alarm installation standard and our own Electrical Safety Codes. We don't use NFPA 72 or NFPA 70. We do use NFPA 13 however, so things aren't too terribly different for sprinklers. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: November-05-15 12:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: working in Canada Has or does anyone do any design work in Canada? Is there anything unique or different than working here in the States? Licensing, design details, etc? Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: question of procedure
Something like that happened back when I used to work for a sprinkler contractor. We were told to leave the system off, but the owner started to put stock in his building and they had a bad fire. Luckily the project manager had issued a letter to say that we'd been instructed to leave the system off, so we weren't dragged into any law suits or insurance claims. The lesson from this is to ask what the owner wants and then confirm it in writing. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: November-04-15 12:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: question of procedure Say a fire sprinkler system is completed and the 200 psi test has been performed and passed. The building is fully sheet rocked and very near to turn over. Yet, the alarms are not in place. Do you leave the system with the control valves open or closed? Vandalism where some one opens a 2½" hose valve on the top story of a building can lead to a lot of water damage with no alarm to signify flow. Arson where the building burns because the system was left closed since no alarms in place can also lead to great damage. It seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't. Is there any code/standard backing for either situation? A customer is having to deal with one of these issues. -- Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com http://www.mfpdesign.com https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign ___ 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: Obstructions Against Walls
I haven't seen any rely to your question, so I'll take a stab. First, I'm not sure where the 30" obstruction width originated. As I understand it, if your obstruction is more than 30" wide you would need a sprinkler under it, unless there was at least 18" of clearance from the deflector to the top of the obstruction, as illustrated in Figure A.8.6.5.1.2, which only came into play in the 2010 edition of NFPA 13. Possibly, if the obstruction isn't too deep, you can omit the sprinkler below if you can comply with Table 8.6.5.1.2 and Figure 8.6.5.1.2(a). Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: October-21-15 3:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Obstructions Against Walls Where does the maximum 30" dimension come from in figure 8.6.5.1.2(b) (2007)? What if you have the exact same scenario that's shown there but the width is say 36"? Per code I need to then apply 8.6.5.1.2 & 8.6.5.1.2(a) up to a width of 48" correct? After that heads would have to be installed under the obstruction right? Just for giggles 8.6.5.1.2(2) comes in handy but where do you draw the line with regard to how far the deflector is above the obstruction when you apply it? Would you use the 36" limit from 8.6.4.1.1.3 or is there no limit if heads are on both sides of the obstruction? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.com<http://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: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the BFP which serves 5 units. Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit are served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own individual control valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up described as a 13D system. It looks like a 13R application to me. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California It appears that both the AHJ and contractor have made mistakes on this project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote: > > Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk management/loss > prevention analysis? Why not just call the AHJ or installing contractor and > ask for approved basis of design? > > SL > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com > Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California > > Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you > can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they > failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a > 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour construction. > My thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family dwelling, the > exception for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore tampers are > required. Am I correct? > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote: >> >> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the >> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers. NFPA offers multiple >> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves. Perhaps >> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision. >> >> Steve L. >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >> firs...@aol.com >> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California >> >> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be >> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family >> Dwellings, 13D. >> >> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA >> to a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour >> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit. >> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve). >> >> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings >> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting >> off the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring. >> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement >> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC. >> >> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on >> the DCVA would need tampers, correct? >> >> Owen Evans >> >> Sent from my iPad >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler >> .org >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: FDC on Fire Pump
The schematic that you are remembering might be Figure A.4.20.1.2(b) of NFPA 20-2013, which shows a FDC downstream of all of the control valves and check valves associated with the fire pump installation. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: September-25-15 9:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC on Fire Pump For some reason I thought I remembered seeing a schematic but apparently not. So as long as the FDC ties into the pump discharge downstream of the discharge check valve I'm good to go correct? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of etamb...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 9:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC on Fire Pump 13 (2013) 8.17.2.4.8 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 6:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC on Fire Pump Glad its Friday but I must be having a brain cramp. Where does it specify where the FDC ties into the pump discharge? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.com<http://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 ___ 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: FDC on Fire Pump
Okay, them take a look at Figure A.5.19.1.2(b) in NFPA 20-2007. Larry -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: September-25-15 11:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC on Fire Pump Sounds nice but I only have the 2007 edition. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 10:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC on Fire Pump The schematic that you are remembering might be Figure A.4.20.1.2(b) of NFPA 20-2013, which shows a FDC downstream of all of the control valves and check valves associated with the fire pump installation. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: September-25-15 9:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC on Fire Pump For some reason I thought I remembered seeing a schematic but apparently not. So as long as the FDC ties into the pump discharge downstream of the discharge check valve I'm good to go correct? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of etamb...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 9:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC on Fire Pump 13 (2013) 8.17.2.4.8 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 6:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC on Fire Pump Glad its Friday but I must be having a brain cramp. Where does it specify where the FDC ties into the pump discharge? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.com<http://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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Old valves
From NFPA 13 - 2013: 27.2* Inactive Sprinkler Systems Abandoned in Place. 27.2.1 Where all or part of an inactive sprinkler system is abandoned in place, components including sprinklers, hose valves and hoses, and alarm devices shall be removed. 27.2.2 Control valves abandoned in place shall have the operating mechanisms removed. 27.2.3 Sprinkler system piping and/or valves abandoned in place shall be uniquely identified to differentiate them from active system piping and valves. A.27.2 It is not intended that the entire system or all components be removed. Instead, components such as sprinklers, initiating devices, notification appliances, and standpipe hose should be removed to reduce the likelihood of relying on inoperable systems or features. Control valves and other components that are allowed to be abandoned in place should have operating mechanisms removed and be painted a unique color to indicate that they are no longer in service. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Vining Sent: September-22-15 2:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Old valves I think this is debatable. If these are non-required systems, the PA and DP valves were removed and the detection and alarms are operable or removed, one could make a case for the control valves looking like just any industrial valves. On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Tom Wellen <twel...@firesprinkler.org> wrote: > It may be in NFPA somewhere, but here is the wording in the 2012 > edition of the IFC: > > 901.4.5 Appearance of equipment. Any device that has the physical > appearance of life safety or fire protection equipment but that does > not perform that life safety or fire protection function shall be prohibited. > > Commentary: > All required or provided life safety or fire protection related > equipment must be continued in use and be maintained to meet the > requirements in effect at the time of the original installation. Non > required equipment that has been taken out of service or cannot > function as intended must be dismantled and removed to prevent > creating a false impression of protection. > > Simply because a nonrequired system does not meet the current > standards is neither cause to require its removal (see Section 901.4), > nor a reason to require the system to be upgraded. As long as the > system is maintained in the manner in which it was intended when > installed, it can be allowed to continue. > > > Tom Wellen > > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Jason Grant <jmg140c...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > I have a customer that had another contractor replace 2 system ( a 4" > dry and a 2 1/2" pre action ) during a building renovation. They left > the sprinkler valves in place and and just capped off the head side of > the valves and locked out the control valves. Is this a code violation? > > > > Jason > > > > ___ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > -- Ed Vining 4819 John Muir Rd Martinez CA 94553 925-228-8792 Cell 925-787-0465 ___ 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: Larger circular duct obstructions
You might be interested in some of the new provisions in NFPA 13-2016 that relate to this subject: Types of sprinklers below obstructions: 8.5.5.3.3 Sprinklers installed under obstructions shall be of the same type (spray, CMSA, ESFR, residential) as installed at the ceiling except as permitted by 8.5.5.3.3.1. 8.5.5.3.3.1 Spray sprinklers shall be permitted to be utilized under overhead doors. Sprinklers below round ducts: 8.6.5.3.7 Sprinklers installed under round ducts shall be of the intermediate level/rack storage type or otherwise shielded from the discharge of overhead sprinklers. Obstructions to ESFR Sprinklers: 8.12.5.3.3* For pipes, conduits, or groups of pipes and conduit to be considered individual, they must be separated from the closest adjacent pipe, conduit, cable tray, etc. by a minimum of three times the width of the obstruction. A.8.12.5.3.3 ... Otherwise the pipes and/or conduits would be considered as a group when applying the obstruction criteria of 8.12.5.3.1 Light Hazard Protection with ESFR Sprinklers: 12.6.7.1 ESFR sprinklers designed to meet any criteria in Chapter 12 or Chapter 14 through Chapter 20 shall be permitted to protect any of the following: (1) Light hazard occupancies (2) Ordinary hazard occupancies (3) Any storage arrangement in Chapter 13 referencing OH1, OH2, EH1, and EH2 design criteria Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Fontes Sent: September-03-15 11:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Larger circular duct obstructions Ken, So you would installed the ESFR sprinkler directly under the center point of the round duct. (i.e. the 84" diameter duct, the sprinkler would be at 42" from the edge at the listed distance below.) Would a round duct collect enough head to set this off??? Thanks, Gregg Fontes Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 209-334-9119 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 6:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Larger circular duct obstructions Greg, A couple of thoughts come to mind for me. First, I would regard the large circular duct as similar to unobstructed construction. The location of the deflector of the sprinklers below the duct would have to be as called out in 8.12.4.1. So, for those purposes the position below the duct would be driven by the k-factor you're using. Second, the use of an ESFR system to protect LH/OH occupancies is allowed by 12.6.7.1, provided that the original design was per the criteria in chapters 12 through 20. I don't think the manufacturers are going to stand behind designing ESFR's to meet obstruction rules for standard spray sprinklers. To my way of thinking the continuous obstruction rules of 8.12.5.3.1 would still be applicable. I don't agree that it would be possible to eliminate the concern over obstructions less than 48" wide, as items (3) and (4) of that section suggest 24" is the cutoff width. I don't know if that's correct, however those are my initial thoughts. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 09/02/2015 2:18 PM, Gregg Fontes wrote: > Looking at a building that has ESFR fire sprinkler protection. Half > is being used as open office area. They are installing circular ducts > from 32" to 84" diameter with the top of the duct approximately 36" > below the ESFR deflector (right below the roof trusses). In reading > 8.12.5.3 2013 edition, in most cases if not all, Table 8.12.5.1.1 > cannot be met, so sprinklers will need to be installed under the > ducts. With the duct being 32" to 84" diameter, where would the fire > sprinkler be placed? Per NFPA 13 is a flat barrier required to be > installed under the circular duct? FM give you a guideline, but 13 > does not. Owner does not want the ESFR sprinklers change out, so > again where would you place the sprinkler and/or is a flat barrier > required by NFPA 13? (With a flat obstruction you can either be under > it or within so many inches of the end, but a huge diameter > obstruction, is it the edge, center ,etc.?) > > Second thought, since this is no longer a storage application, can you > apply the standard spray sprinkler obstruction rules? (This still > does not state where to install the sprinkler below the obstruction, > but you could eliminate the obstruction less than 48".) > > Thanks, > Gregg Fonte
RE: Mixing EC sprinklers with Std coverage sprinklers
Just as a point of information, I thought I should relate to you the new text that will be entered into the forthcoming 2016 edition of NFPA 13: 8.3.3.2Where quick-response sprinklers are installed, all sprinklers within a compartment shall be quick- response unless otherwise permitted in 8.3.3.3 , 8.3.3.4 , or 8.3.3.5 . 8.3.3.3Where there are no listed quick-response sprinklers in the temperature range required, standard- response sprinklers shall be permitted to be used. 8.3.3.4The provisions of 8.3.3.2 shall not apply to in-rack sprinklers. 8.3.3.5Where a sprinkler carries a listing for both standard-response protection and quick-response protection at different coverage areas, that sprinkler shall be permitted to be installed within a compartment at the spacing for both the quick-response and standard-response listings without any separation between the areas so covered. 8.3.3.6When existing light hazard systems are converted to use quick-response or residential sprinklers, allsprinklers in a compartment shall be changed. I think that this will satisfy your concerns - at least in the future. Best regards Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fairchild, Jack Sent: July-07-15 1:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixing EC sprinklers with Std coverage sprinklers What Scot said, but the most conservative answer is once an EC head is installed with the small spacing it is by nature QR and all heads in the space would need to be QR. Jack Fairchild -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Mixing EC sprinklers with Std coverage sprinklers I lost the original question ...but I think that the AFSA has a recent informal interp related to this issue Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:07 AM, å... eurekaig...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting question. If the activation temperatures are close to the same value, then I would match the RTI of the standdard sprinklers with the imputed RTI of the EC. An obvious caveat is if the specifications or engineeering report stipulate the QR in this compartment. The NFPA 13 intent, I believe, is to prevent QR sprinklers from activating when they are further away from the fire, in the presence of SR sprinklers when these SR sprinklers are nearer to the fire. If the compartment is smaller than the design area,...then the case can be made that the hydraulic design will account for all sprinklers activating, regardless of their intended order of activation (1st ring, 2nd ring, etc.) as manipulated by the RTI of the sprinkler. Consider what is to be protected from fire by the different sprinklers and modify your judgment accordingly. Scot Deal Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Standpipe design pressure
Here in Canada our National Model Building Code follows NFPA 14 fairly closely and requires the 100 psi. However, the total water flow rate is held to just 500 gpm and in a fully sprinklered building, we are allowed to provide less than the 100 psi if the 65/500 can be provided via the FDC. In Ontario where I am, the Ontario Building Code only asks for 65 psi, again with 500 gpm maximum and if sprinklered the pressure is permitted to be less than 65 psi if the 65/500 can be provided via the FDC. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: June-08-15 10:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Standpipe design pressure I have a question for the forum at large, and specifically for the NFPA 14 Committee Members. For the forum community what is the minimum design pressure required for a new class I automatic wet standpipe in your location? I know what the un-amended code says, but it includes the catch-all qualification about the AHJ being consulted for specific needs. So what I'm looking for is, in your region/area; 1- Does the local fire code accept the NFPA14 requirement for 100 psi minimum operating pressure at the required flow rate? 2 - Does the local fire code amend the NFPA14 requirement from 100 psi to something higher or lower? 3 - Does the local Fire Code Official regulate the NFPA14 requirements without having amended the current fire code, ie, require a higher or lower pressure than the written code? Also, from the NFPA 14 committee, any comments on discussions leading up to the change from 65psi to 100 psi, and your thoughts on the matter will be appreciated. In addition, related comments from the Fire Fighters among us, on actual experience in the heat of the battle, are most welcome. And lastly, in respect of the Forum Traffic Control officials, please respond to me directly off forum at mphe...@aerofire.commailto:mphe...@aerofire.com. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPad ___ 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: CPVC listing grey area
You only mentioned the wood trusses. Will the sheathing/decking also be of fire-retardant treated wood? If not, then wouldn't you still have to sprinkler the space? Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Sean Lockyer Sent: May-20-15 11:38 AM To: 'sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org'; 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' Subject: CPVC listing grey area I have an interesting question to ask of everyone here. I am being asked to install an NFPA 13, non-residential sprinkler system in a small, new building that will be constructed with wood. However, the wood trusses will consist of fire rated lumber with a flamespread rating of less than 25, which will not require sprinkler protection since they would considered to then be non-combustible, or at the worst, limited combustible. With that being said, could you then install CPVC piping in these concealed areas without also having to use the specially listed concealed sprinklers (such as the CC1, CC2, HIP, BB1, etc.) heads that Tyco makes ? Remember, you can only install CPVC in an attic or a combustible concealed space if you also use those specially listed heads but if the area is technically not combustible I would say that you could use CPVC just like if you were using CPVC above an gyp board ceiling in an office for example - if you take the listing literally. What does everyone else think ? Sean Lockyer Project Designer 4617 Parkbreeze Court Cell 386-279-1197 Orlando, Florida 32808 slock...@aitlifesafety.com Phone: 407-816-9101 www.AITLifeSafety.com Fax: 407-816-9104 ___ 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: Residential design areas per NFPA 13 2007
If I read your message correctly, you are dealing with 2 compartments: a bedroom and a living room/kitchen area. For the bedroom take its area divided by the number of sprinklers within that one room. For the living room/kitchen, take its area divided by the sprinklers within it. Do not add the two areas together. Larry Keeping -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: April-29-15 5:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Residential design areas per NFPA 13 2007 I am looking at using 11.3.1.2 8.6.2.1.2 in NFPA 13 2007 for calculating my systems. I thought of a question while determining the coverage areas for the sprinklers. Under 11.3.1, we calculate the 4 adjacent sprinklers that create the greatest hydraulic demand. Due to pipe routing my design area consists of a bedroom, and living room/kitchen. I have 1 sprinkler in the bedroom, and 5 sprinklers in the living room/ kitchen area for a total of 6. The total sqft area of the areas are 612.86 sqft. Since I have 6 sprinklers in this area, this gives me 102 sqft/sprinkler which I default to the minimum required flow per the listing. Am I correct to divide the total square footage by the total number of heads, even though 3 are not flowing? It seems like I should have been using this provision for a while, since it produces lower flows than the SxL method. Thanks again forum! Jamie Seidl ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
