RE: Nipple Extenders
United Brass makes a 1/2 by 1/2 male by female and a 3/4 x 3/4 male by female extender. These can be used to extend a drop that is cut too short. AFSA in the past had a BEST PRACTICE written about the use of these. There is some argument that these should not be used but they can be helpful. There is also a company that makes a cast iron version of the same thing and they are a little longer than the brass ones. I was always more comfortable using the brass extender nipples. You can contact AFSA or go on their website to see if you can find the article in the archives'. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wisneski Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Nipple Extenders Quick (I hope) question. I don't recall seeing this thread before. Are ½ x 1 male female nipple extenders allowed to be used at the sprinkler/reducer coupling interface when you have cut the drop a smidgen too short and can't get back above the hard ceiling to pull it out? Mike Wisneski 3898 Leeds Avenue North Charleston, SC 29405 Phone: 843-767-3080 Cell: 843-200-5710 Fax: 843-767-5596 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\User\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Sig natures\www.pyebarkerfiresafety.com www.pyebarkerfiresafety.com This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and /or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Return Bends
As I remember the return bend was to help insure that creeping crud and corrosion does not build up on the orifice inlet of the sprinkler and cause problems with the operation of the sprinkler. Or maybe I am just getting brain hiccups. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Return Bends I know it doesn't seem right. But is it achieving its intent? Return bends are used to prevent scale and other sediments being trapped at the head. To some extent, at least except from the individual branchline, won't this be achieved? Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth W. Warren Sent: May 8, 2008 5:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Return Bends what is being proposed to you is a line on a riser nipple off of the main NOT return bends. The return bend is there for a reason and what is being proposed to you does not serve the purpose. The suggestion should be rejected. Garth - Original Message - From: A.P.Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:08 PM Subject: Return Bends I have a situation, dry system running in heated space below the attic in part of the building. In other parts, within the attic space. Where it is running in the heated area, sprinklers are pendent type. So the need for dry pendents or return bends. The contractor doesn't want to install individual return bends for each pendent head (for cost reasons). Instead he is proposing to make the entire branchline as the return bend. The branchline to have a riser at the connection to the main. Then from the branchline drop down directly to each pendent head. Any problems? Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines to follow in these situations. I do not care if they say calculate the room to light hazard as long as they put it in writing. But the way it is now, it is just what ever the contractor or engineer (designer) can get the AHJ to go along with. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matsuda, Richard Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve them. I remembered a similar discussion saying something about not allowing them to build something that you can't protect...I think it was a boat storage rack or something about ESFR sprinklers. The problem with these houses is that the architect, builder, and home owner have conspired to build them and now we have to figure out how to protect them. I guess I could tell them to rip it all out and make a smooth flat ceiling, but I don't think that would be acceptable to our administration. So what do we do? My simplistic answer is that if it looks like an over-kill design with 10 heads in a 20 x 20-foot room, then it probably is a waste of money. If one head can protect the room with a smooth flat ceiling, then maybe four or five heads should be reasonable with beam pockets. Depends on the size and occupancy of the room, beam locations, depth, ceiling height, type of sprinklers used, and other variables...but there is a reasonable answer to it. The difficulty is deciding what's reasonable...and no single solution will fit all situations. rick matsuda city of dallas, bldg insp dept -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken up by beam pockets. These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the beams being 6 deep. Concealed residential sprinklers are being used. In one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers. This averages out to 17 sf per head. Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers. This averages at 37.5 per head. In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in every pocket? Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be acceptable? Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like this? Any and all suggestions will help. Thanks, Bob Knight, CET (208) 318-3057 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.firebyknight.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
The NFPA 13D Committee in their wisdom (or as some people have suggested lack thereof) put in the 2007 Edition Paragraph 8.1.3.1.2 Where construction features or other special conditions exist that are outside the scope of sprinkler listings, listed sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed beyond their listing limitations. I hope that you and the AHJ have good insurance or a lot of money. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions Bob: We run into this all the time. First question are the beams structural? If the beams are decorative only drill the beams use your concealed heads and space as normal. While the beam rules for TYCO are ok, they have a lot of situations where you would have to tell the Arch. how to layout the beams before hand.(Like that's ever going to happen!) If you read the white paper for slope Beam ceilings exceeding 8/12 you'll see that the concealed sprinklers responded slightly better when in the beams than in the pockets. If this is true on a steep slope ceiling it should be reasonable to apply it to flat beam ceilings. (With heads in the beams less than 12 below the actual flat ceiling, we usually use the flows for 8/12 slope to offset any delay for the lower position of the heads,) All our AHJ's are OK with this. If your beams are structural, good luck getting the Arch. or Structural Eng. to let you put a 21/2 hole vertically thru a structural member. Then we usually end up with heads in every pocket, because you can't center a head and still get far enough away from the beams to spray under them. Good Luck! Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - From: Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:51 AM Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken up by beam pockets. These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the beams being 6 deep. Concealed residential sprinklers are being used. In one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers. This averages out to 17 sf per head. Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers. This averages at 37.5 per head. In rooms of this size do I really need a sprinkler in every pocket? Can a sprinkler be placed in every other pocket and be acceptable? Has anyone else found a better way to protect rooms like this? Any and all suggestions will help. Thanks, Bob Knight, CET (208) 318-3057 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.firebyknight.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: What is a Bucket Test?
Actually, in several counties around Atlanta, the test was also required for garden style apartments up to four stories. You would be surprised that, at least in the beginning, a number of projects that had full blown hydraulic calculations failed when the bucket test showed them to be incorrect. Many times the main culprit was a water test supplied by the water company that was faulty or not up to date. Which brings me to my point that I have made over the years, the design of sprinkler systems really involves four major decisions by the design engineer and the rest is mostly a layout of a system within the rules of the codes. First Engineering Decision: What is the hazard and what densities are required. The project must be classified as per the fire risk. What are you protecting and how much water will it require to achieve the fire protection objective. Second Engineering Decision: What is the water supply and has there been a detailed analysis and testing of the water supply? Generally, engineers and others rely on water tests provide by others and sometimes incorrect and out of date. Often very little time is devoted by the engineer to insure that an adequate water supply at the needed pressure is available. This does not mean just throwing in a large fire pump just to be safe. Third Engineering Decision: Where is the remote area? It is easy to just let the designer decide but the selection of the remote area can change the hydraulics dramatically. Fourth Engineering Decision: Coordination and review of the plans. The shop drawings and calculations may be checked and the coordination with the other trades on the project. Often, the engineer just passes these functions to a trainee or someone else within the engineering firm. In other cases the issue is just ignored. Too often these decisions are not given the time and effort that they deserve. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 8:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? Bucket test, IMHO, was to prove the shortcut calcs allowed under 13D worked. 13R calcs are done to the same level of care as #13 calcs, so no bucket test was needed. In #13D done with shortcut calcs, makes sense and isn't a big deal- especially when you consider the downside (fire death in sprinklered house). But flowing 20 heads in a 13 system? Be careful what you ask for is right. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: What is a Bucket Test? Chris, This silly test tells you nothing that other tests don't already tell you. It certainly doesn't tell you if your system will work or not because it presumes that conditions at the moment of the bucket test reflect the moment of the water availability test. Main drain tests will tell you if pipe is collapsed or valves are shut. What needs to be done (and I know this won't happen) is to get the water purveyors to quit handing out old crap and calling it good today. Thanks for setting me up for this mini-rant. Ron Greenman ...at home ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: engineering decisions
Roland This will get you going---As usual the engineer does not want to do anything but get paid. Just write in the spec: [Sprinkler System as per NFPA 13 and all materials and design shall meet UL and FM Approvals. Contractor shall meet all state and local codes. Contractor shall determine the water supply and all drawings are schematic and the co-ordination and/or anything else required is to be the responsibility of the contractor.] Have a good day! Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: engineering decisions Mike: You need to update (that is reduce) your list. First expand item 2 to identify the engineer needs to determine IF The water supply is adequate. I've never understood how an AE team can provide room for a pump and it's associated infrastructure if they don't know one is needed until a subcontractor tells them. Now break out the chain saw. The Third item is definitely to be thrown out. How can the EOR identify where the remote area is unless they are drawing lines and circles? Keep cutting and throw out item 4. The AHJ blesses the plans and do you really want a third party slowing you down for coordination? Although the engineering job assurance plan has this one listed, it is a contractual thing can implement IF the owner wants it but not a valid requirement. The exception to this statement are when BUILDINGS are designed on a performance basis that requires specific sprinkler criteria (that can exceed 13). Roland On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:15 AM, Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) wrote: Actually, in several counties around Atlanta, the test was also required for garden style apartments up to four stories. You would be surprised that, at least in the beginning, a number of projects that had full blown hydraulic calculations failed when the bucket test showed them to be incorrect. Many times the main culprit was a water test supplied by the water company that was faulty or not up to date. Which brings me to my point that I have made over the years, the design of sprinkler systems really involves four major decisions by the design engineer and the rest is mostly a layout of a system within the rules of the codes. First Engineering Decision: What is the hazard and what densities are required. The project must be classified as per the fire risk. What are you protecting and how much water will it require to achieve the fire protection objective. Second Engineering Decision: What is the water supply and has there been a detailed analysis and testing of the water supply? Generally, engineers and others rely on water tests provide by others and sometimes incorrect and out of date. Often very little time is devoted by the engineer to insure that an adequate water supply at the needed pressure is available. This does not mean just throwing in a large fire pump just to be safe. Third Engineering Decision: Where is the remote area? It is easy to just let the designer decide but the selection of the remote area can change the hydraulics dramatically. Fourth Engineering Decision: Coordination and review of the plans. The shop drawings and calculations may be checked and the coordination with the other trades on the project. Often, the engineer just passes these functions to a trainee or someone else within the engineering firm. In other cases the issue is just ignored. Too often these decisions are not given the time and effort that they deserve. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: engineering decisions
Joe I realize that but I have seen hundreds of specifications where the engineer specs it that way requiring both UL and FM Approval. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: engineering decisions Just remember, it's not possible to meet all FM requirements without FM being involved. It can't be done with just a copy of FM Data Sheets. Joe Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) wrote: Roland This will get you going---As usual the engineer does not want to do anything but get paid. Just write in the spec: [Sprinkler System as per NFPA 13 and all materials and design shall meet UL and FM Approvals. Contractor shall meet all state and local codes. Contractor shall determine the water supply and all drawings are schematic and the co-ordination and/or anything else required is to be the responsibility of the contractor.] Have a good day! Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: engineering decisions Mike: You need to update (that is reduce) your list. First expand item 2 to identify the engineer needs to determine IF The water supply is adequate. I've never understood how an AE team can provide room for a pump and it's associated infrastructure if they don't know one is needed until a subcontractor tells them. Now break out the chain saw. The Third item is definitely to be thrown out. How can the EOR identify where the remote area is unless they are drawing lines and circles? Keep cutting and throw out item 4. The AHJ blesses the plans and do you really want a third party slowing you down for coordination? Although the engineering job assurance plan has this one listed, it is a contractual thing can implement IF the owner wants it but not a valid requirement. The exception to this statement are when BUILDINGS are designed on a performance basis that requires specific sprinkler criteria (that can exceed 13). Roland On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:15 AM, Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) wrote: Actually, in several counties around Atlanta, the test was also required for garden style apartments up to four stories. You would be surprised that, at least in the beginning, a number of projects that had full blown hydraulic calculations failed when the bucket test showed them to be incorrect. Many times the main culprit was a water test supplied by the water company that was faulty or not up to date. Which brings me to my point that I have made over the years, the design of sprinkler systems really involves four major decisions by the design engineer and the rest is mostly a layout of a system within the rules of the codes. First Engineering Decision: What is the hazard and what densities are required. The project must be classified as per the fire risk. What are you protecting and how much water will it require to achieve the fire protection objective. Second Engineering Decision: What is the water supply and has there been a detailed analysis and testing of the water supply? Generally, engineers and others rely on water tests provide by others and sometimes incorrect and out of date. Often very little time is devoted by the engineer to insure that an adequate water supply at the needed pressure is available. This does not mean just throwing in a large fire pump just to be safe. Third Engineering Decision: Where is the remote area? It is easy to just let the designer decide but the selection of the remote area can change the hydraulics dramatically. Fourth Engineering Decision: Coordination and review of the plans. The shop drawings and calculations may be checked and the coordination with the other trades on the project. Often, the engineer just passes these functions to a trainee or someone else within the engineering firm. In other cases the issue is just ignored. Too often these decisions are not given the time and effort that they deserve. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field
RE: What is a Bucket Test? (TIA Needed)
John You start with a set of approved plans with the hydraulic calculations and a permit. There would be various stages of inspection depending on the local fire marshal and the Bucket test would be before cover up of the pipe and fittings. If there have been changes made to the piping,they should show up on an as-built drawing (as-built drawings are difficult to get correct even with commercial systems). The bucket test would at least insure that the remote sprinklers flow the minimum water as per the hydraulic calculations. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? (TIA Needed) Mike, In addition to revised plans and hydraulic calculations where the job wasn't installed to the original plan ? John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 3:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? (TIA Needed) I agree with Thom in that, as we are getting closer to mandated fire sprinklers in single family homes, the potential for a large number of new contractors, plumbers, and assorted others (some of whom may well be trunk slammers) will be jumping on the bandwagon. As I remember when we were getting a licensing law in Georgia, we had to exempt single family homes in order to get any kind of law. In some states there is still no law at all. (New York State for example has no licensing law.) This influx of new sprinkler installers may not be well versed sprinkler installation. A Put the Water in the Bucket test might well be a good control measure to protect the potential home owner as well as protecting the image of our industry. I would think that a test like this might be included in the next edition of NFPA 13D. At least, when I see some of the questions that I get from some sprinkler contractors and a lot of engineers, a field test like this could give us some degree of quality control. That would be a good thing. Something to consider. Michael L. Brown, P.L.L. (Peon Low Life) Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: What is a Bucket Test? (TIA Needed) This TEST was a conditional method when 13D was new. I have not seen a bucket test that failed, when required, in the last 15 years. AHJ's are more savvy, Contractors are more cautious, and know that the field guys will be adding ells. Some just add extra ells in the calc's and others don't use the full residual pressure as allowed in 13D. Maybe the bucket test would be ok if hydraulic calc's are not required, but is a waste of time and money for Qualified Designers and layout Tech's, Installers, and AHJ's. Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? (TIA Needed) Perhaps it is time to incorporate a bucket test requirement and test method into 13D prior to the widespread installation of these systems based on an ICC code change. If failures are widespread I think this is important enough for a TIA if there's any chance the ICC will reference a current edition of 13D. The implications are huge if large numbers of 13D systems are expected to fail after being engineered and installed by qualified plumbers/sprinkler companies. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 410-544-3620 Phone 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell Original Message Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? From: Tom Duross [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, April 14, 2008 11:05 am To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Back in the late eighties and early nineties, virtually every D and R system we did or designed got a bucket test. I still have my graduated buckets and pendent tubes we used. There's a couple of towns here in MA that still require them. I don't remember being waived on an R multi-family system back when they were all following what the Cobb Cty. Chief advised. I seem to remember every one of these systems were being bucket tested. We never failed a single one but I know some did. Tom Duross Go Red Sox :) I
RE: What is a Bucket Test?
I am sure if you contact the Cobb County Georgia Fire Department they will tell you about a lot of failures particularly when they first started. The local contractors know about the test and check it themselves before they call for an inspection. You guys are very diligent about your calculations etc. but there is a big world of contractors and engineers that are not part of this group who are not as versed in design as you may be. It is a very simple test and it empirically proves that the system design is correct. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? I've only had one that failed. It turned out that the plumber had installed a 1 line into the building from the meter (2 thru the slab) when we needed a 2 line from the meter. That is the reason for the bucket test, make sure the calc's work. We could all argue quite correctly that it's not necessary but I am very comfortable with doing these test. It just verifies that the whole system (at least the remote area) was installed correctly and will perform as intended. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? Now that we have some what and where how about the why? Brian's problem would have been discovered by looking at the gauge or main drain, a bucket test wasn't really necessary. Is there some problem with hydraulic calcs? How many actually fail? Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? Quite a few in the North Carolina and Georgia area. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 2:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? This is the first time I've heard it being done for 13R. 13D, yes. But not 13R. Are there other jurisdictions requiring a bucket test for 13R? Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: April 9, 2008 12:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? A bucket test / barrel test is when you remove a head(s) in the remote area and fill up a bucket/barrel to see if it is flowing the gpm the is called for in the calc's. In our case with the density and heads we are using that would be 20 gpm, we are getting around 15 gpm. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: What is a Bucket Test? Perhaps a dumb question, but what is a bucket test and is it conducted the same way in every jurisdiction? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 410-544-3620 Phone 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell Original Message Subject: Failed Bucket Test From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, April 07, 2008 2:30 pm To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Fellow forum people: I have a situation where we have designed and installed a 13R system, it is completely finished and wham-o we fail the bucket test! Our system was designed based on the flow test provided by the city fire dept., turns out that a test taken now with the failed test shows a 25% drop in static residual pressures, hence the failed test. Of course the owner is looking to us to pull a magic rabbit out of our #$% , err I mean hat, we have tried a few different things but with that big of a pressure loss there's really not much we can do. I don't feel it's our liability at this point since we went off the city's water flow test and per the calc's we were good, any thoughts? Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) Database version: 5.09560 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the
RE: What is a Bucket Test?
You use the orifice size of the sprinklers that you are testing. You install full port ball valve in a drain pipe from each of the sprinklers you are testing with the correct orifice. If you contact Cobb County, GA you can get their procedures if you are interested. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IPA Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: What is a Bucket Test? What kind of variance in calcs from actual bucket test results are considered acceptable? I'm just curious since taking out the head and flowing straight from a 1/2 threaded outlet vs. flowing a 7/16 orifice (like a 4.2k sprinkler w/ element removed) could possibly work in your favor to a small degree but could also work against you depending on what k-factor of sprinkler you used. In a 13R bucket test do you actually remove more than one sprinkler and flow up to four? Or is it always just one? Seems like a source calc w/ one sprinkler flowing would make more sense if you're only required to bucket test one sprinkler... -B- On 4/9/08, Todd Williams - FPDC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a really bad water supply, instead of a pitot you use a 5-gallon bucket and a stop watch. 8-) At 02:19 PM 4/9/2008, you wrote: This is the first time I've heard it being done for 13R. 13D, yes. But not 13R. Are there other jurisdictions requiring a bucket test for 13R? Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: April 9, 2008 12:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: What is a Bucket Test? A bucket test / barrel test is when you remove a head(s) in the remote area and fill up a bucket/barrel to see if it is flowing the gpm the is called for in the calc's. In our case with the density and heads we are using that would be 20 gpm, we are getting around 15 gpm. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: What is a Bucket Test? Perhaps a dumb question, but what is a bucket test and is it conducted the same way in every jurisdiction? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 410-544-3620 Phone 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell Original Message Subject: Failed Bucket Test From: Brian Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, April 07, 2008 2:30 pm To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Fellow forum people: I have a situation where we have designed and installed a 13R system, it is completely finished and wham-o we fail the bucket test! Our system was designed based on the flow test provided by the city fire dept., turns out that a test taken now with the failed test shows a 25% drop in static residual pressures, hence the failed test. Of course the owner is looking to us to pull a magic rabbit out of our #$% , err I mean hat, we have tried a few different things but with that big of a pressure loss there's really not much we can do. I don't feel it's our liability at this point since we went off the city's water flow test and per the calc's we were good, any thoughts? Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) Database version: 5.09560 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) Database version: 5.09590 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) Database version: 5.09590 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject
RE: U.S. Fire Administration Policy on Residential Sprinklers
I guess I have stirred up enough discussion today but I am concerned about the use of control and suppression when residential sprinklers are not designed or tested to either control or suppress the fire. In our desire to promote residential sprinklers some folks have in my opinion have over sold the capabilities of residential sprinklers in this area. Sure there are a lot of cases where if it catches the fire early it can control and suppress it but that is just a bonsus. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: U.S. Fire Administration Policy on Residential Sprinklers Hi Mike, I was referring to smoke alarms which are required in all residential dwellings pursuant to the building residential codes and interestingly by NFPA-13D (2007 NFPA-13D 4.7) in accordance with NFPA-72, as opposed to sprinkler alarms and supervision which as you pointed out is not required on 13D's. Just wanted to make sure no confusion on that. John Drucker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: U.S. Fire Administration Policy on Residential Sprinklers Just a little further information. First alarms are not required on NFPA 13D systems but that is for another day. I have been in meetings with some of the advocates and installers where control and suppression are thrown around frequently. Additionally, one individual that was advocating PreAction systems in NFPA 13D systems stated as a reason the owner had ten million dollars of paintings in his home and was worried about water damage. Property Protection vs. Life Safety ?? Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: U.S. Fire Administration Policy on Residential Sprinklers It is infact as Mike says, then again the same can be said about installing local smoke alarms versus a system connected to a supervising station, the latter of which is not required by the building code. It's a matter of education and theres nothing stopping a homeowner from upgrading to NFPA-13 if property conservation is a concern. We need to make sure that the message is clear, life safety. John Drucker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: U.S. Fire Administration Policy on Residential Sprinklers Mike: You are absolutely right! We should never expect more or lead anyone else to expect more of a residential sprinkler system! But in point of fact the actual real world data, suggests that the residential sprinklers have performed beyond this design level in many many instances. This does not mean we should expect that in every installation, or condition. But it is a comfort to those of us that layout these systems on a regular basis, that they do often out perform our expectations. It's also the reason that many Fire Authorities require that the supply exceed the 10 min. and be required to meet their response time + 10 min. (The expect a structure to still be there when they finally arrive.) It will always be difficult to explain after the fire, that the sprinkler system did its job, especially if no one was home, and the owner hasn't felt the personal risk he avoided, when all he see's are his home and possessions in ashes. Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - From: Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:31 AM Subject: RE: U.S. Fire Administration Policy on Residential Sprinklers Just a note regarding residential sprinklers: I was in meetings of various groups when the residential concept was first introduced. The concept was life safety and the preservation of life. Residential sprinklers are designed and tested to give the occupants of the house or dwelling ten minutes to get out of the house. It was not intended that residential sprinkler save a house or structure. The objective was life safety. Often I hear the words control and suppress used to describe residential sprinklers which I believe to be incorrect. Residential sprinklers are life safety device that in many cases may control
RE: Sprinkler drop Tool
You can get one at Reliable. It is called a SureOff Tester. Contact your local Reliable representative. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allan Seidel Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler drop Tool Sounds like a hot tap tool and a strap on tapping saddle. For example: http://www.2lbin.com/ljr.htm and http://www.2lbin.com/ ts.htm Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Mar 26, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Q.P. wrote: I was just wondering if anyone had seen a tool that goes on a drop. It has a drill bit and a valve and guage.It is to make sure you have the right zone shut down.I had seen it once on webpage and can not find it again. It seems like a tool every fitter should have.I know my guys would each get one. Quentin Pahl / PahlFire Medicine Hat ,Alberta ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers/Last Thought
In response the Omega/GB problem has not gone away since there are probably thousands that have not been changed out or replaced. If the industry is really serious about ensuring the residential systems work just mandate the Put the Water in the Bucket test and do an on the site test that the system delivers the correct water to the remote sprinklers. It is my understanding that Upnor does that with each system that is installed. When the Put the Water in the Bucket test was first introduced in Cobb County, GA there were quite a few systems installed by sprinkler contractors that did not pass the test. Residential systems should be field tested to insure that the installation will provide the water and pressure required. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Fire Systems and Plumbers/Last Thought I was going to add to Greg's submission that, theoretically (?), there should be an AHJ both reviewing 'shop' drawings/calc's AND doing a rough-in final inspection to check for 'compliance' whether sprinks or plumbers are doing the actual installation...That said, my biggest concern here in the State of New Mexico is that we currently have 10 -12 Fire Extinguisher/Hood System contractors that are (State) licensed to inspect, test, repair and INSTALL both residential and commercial fire sprinkler systems. These are contractors that somehow got into the sprinkler industry - for lack of a better term - through the back door. My point being, many of them have ZERO credentials - no NFSA/AFSA apprenticeship, no on-the-job training, no training classes, zilch. They are now installing home fire sprinkler systems in single-family dwellings in New Mexico. Pardon the 'pun', but (to me) some of the plumbers are suddenly looking better. Bottom line: We escaped the OMEGA/GB debacle with no loss of life (to my knowledge)...With untrained, unsklilled, unethical PEOPLE installing residential fire sprinkler systems, the loss of life - in sprinklered homes - is inevitable. You read it here first. Jerry D. Watts, SFPE ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd. Santa Fe/Albuquerque, NM Seattle, WA San Diego, CA Phoenix, AZ e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.accentfire.com (800) 503.1961 ** Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom000301) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Interesting, but of little consequence
You may be hanging out with the wrong crowd. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Interesting, but of little consequence Speaking of Omegas, I met a fitter this morning that had a tattoo of an Omega sprinkler on his bicep. At 11:47 AM 3/26/2008, you wrote: In response the Omega/GB problem has not gone away since there are probably thousands that have not been changed out or replaced. If the industry is really serious about ensuring the residential systems work just mandate the Put the Water in the Bucket test and do an on the site test that the system delivers the correct water to the remote sprinklers. It is my understanding that Upnor does that with each system that is installed. When the Put the Water in the Bucket test was first introduced in Cobb County, GA there were quite a few systems installed by sprinkler contractors that did not pass the test. Residential systems should be field tested to insure that the installation will provide the water and pressure required. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Dry Pipe Valve going wet
In the tripped mode the water would be flowing out the alarm line to the bell or pressure switch. The clapper would be in the latched position. If the clapper is not latched and is on the seat the water column probably would prevent it from operating. This could be a dangerous situation. In the south some plants like to take the clapper out and leave the system wet in the summer but I am not sure how they handled the alarm. In Europe they use wet/dry valve systems that are trimmed to allow the system to be alternated wet or dry depending on the season. Michael L. Brown Manager of Technical Services The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reliablesprinkler.com (864) 843-5228 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larrimer, Peter A Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 4:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Dry Pipe Valve going wet Forum Members: If a dry pipe valve trips and goes wet, is there any reason why you couldn't leave the system piping filled with water assuming that the weather is not cold enough to freeze it? I am assuming that the clappers have been reset externally and that the alarm connections remain dry since they don't seem to be having problems at this time. Why would they want to use an alarm valve in place in liew of just leaving the dry pipe valve? Thanks in advance. Peter Larrimer VA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pipe scheduled systems - head stagger
In years past staggered spacing was required in extra hazard applications. At that time you only had 1/2 (5.6K) and 3/4 (8.0K) sprinklers. You may also find some 3/4 pipe used on old pipe schedule systems. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pipe scheduled systems - head stagger I have a retrofit of a system put in in 1963 where the heads on the branch lines are staggered. What was the reasoning for this back then? Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Residential Upright
The Reliable F1 Res 49 is listed for an 8 inch deflector distance but the problem with all residential sprinklers is that they are not listed for obstructed construction which you may find in an attic. NFPA 13D addresses it by saying that you can install pendent residential basements where it is expected that a ceiling will be installed or something like that. To my knowledge there is no residential upright sprinkler made. In my opinion you are better off using a Quick Response Commercial Upright sprinkler. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis J Briggs Jr. Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Residential Upright Thanks Ron that may work for me. Dennis Briggs, Jr. Miller Fire Protection Inc. 2750 Marble Ct. Forestville MD. 20747 Office - (301) 736-3000 Cell - (240) 304-8967 -Original Message- From: Fletcher, Ron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 01:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Residential Upright I don't know of an upright but I think Globe makes a residential pendent listed for 8 or 12 deflector distance, I can't remember for sure. We have used them in loft style exposed systems because of the problem achieving the 4 deflector distance listed for most residential heads. Good luck. Ron Flecher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis J Briggs Jr. Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Residential Upright Does anyone know if there is a Listed Residential Sprinkler Head currently on the market and if so where i may find it. Thanks, Dennis Briggs, Jr. Miller Fire Protection Inc. 2750 Marble Ct. Forestville MD. 20747 Office - (301) 736-3000 Cell - (240) 304-8967 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pipe scheduled systems - head stagger
No in the past before calculations there was a requirement in NFPA 13 to actually space the sprinkler in a staggered pattern rather than the way we space them today. Normally you would have ten foot spacing and the starter pieces in each line were done such that the sprinklers on one line were staggered so that the sprinklers on the next line were on the half space. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IPA Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Pipe scheduled systems - head stagger When you say 'staggered' you mean a single row of pendants being fed off of two rows (staggered) of upright piping? If this is the case I would think it would be merely for keeping pipe size down on each BL. Instead of taking 7 pendants, for example, off of one of the lines and having a lot of 2 inch they might have tried to split it up and keep the line sizing down to 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 eliminating the need for 2. Just my .02 cents. I've considered doing something similar to a hydraulically calc'd system I'm working on right now. On 3/12/08, Dewayne Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a retrofit of a system put in in 1963 where the heads on the branch lines are staggered. What was the reasoning for this back then? Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pipe scheduled systems - head stagger
When I started in 1971, I think that we were only doing stagger spacing for extra hazard but if you have a 1961 NFPA 13 that is a treasure and there are not many left around. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe scheduled systems - head stagger Because that's they way the code reads. My 1961 Edition Light hazard need not be staggered, except under open wood joist. All others shall be staggered. David Autry Plans Examiner Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office 246 S. 14th Street Lincoln, NE 68508 402-471-9659 402-471-3118 fax www.sfm.ne.gov -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe scheduled systems - head stagger In years past staggered spacing was required in extra hazard applications. At that time you only had 1/2 (5.6K) and 3/4 (8.0K) sprinklers. You may also find some 3/4 pipe used on old pipe schedule systems. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pipe scheduled systems - head stagger I have a retrofit of a system put in in 1963 where the heads on the branch lines are staggered. What was the reasoning for this back then? Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Ordinary chemical plants?
In Vietnam we used White Phosphorus bombs (known as Willie Pete). You cannot put it out with water. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rosemary Beers Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Ordinary chemical plants? My son just did his chemistry report on Phosphorus - his mobile had a tube of toothpaste on it. Some phosphorus can not even be transported other than in water. Out of water well - you do not want to be anywhere near. Yet it is some toothpastes. Point well taken. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:38 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Ordinary chemical plants? Toothpaste, uh, you'd die if you knew some of the stuff that goes into making some of our non-hazardous household products. Pharmaceuticals can use some highly toxic and flammable materials in the process if not in the actual commodity. Some of the chemicals used are used to cause certain reactions and are then discarded and not actually part of the end product but they are in the process. That's why you've got to know the process not just the end product. Some pharmaceuticals and food products have used acetone, hot oils, heat transfer fluids (class III's) above their flash points, ethylene oxide, and the list goes on. Again it's hard to make any assumptions when it comes to these kinds of facilities. So while a chemical plant could be OH2, they are kind of like unicorns. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Ordinary chemical plants? There could be chemical plants that are OH2. Say a plant manufacturing medical drugs. That would also be a chemical plant. If the processed material and products are non-hazardous, it could be OH2. Say a plant that manufactures toothpaste. I have no clue regarding materials involved. But if they are non-hazardous, could qualify for OH2. NFPA 45 for chemical laboratories classify labs OH1 and OH2 depending on the lab classification. The key is what are the material involved? Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: March 6, 2008 11:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Ordinary chemical plants? I'm glad to see others seem to be thinking along the same lines. This is the second design-build chemical facility project this year with no engineering or insurance company input and no company policies on fire protection other than 'code says we need sprinklers'. Let me pose this: if there is no such thing as an 'ordinary chemical plant' and they all require specific engineering analysis per NFPA 30, is NFPA doing a disservice by including this in 13? Anybody can read that statement and decide that a facility is an ordinary chemical plant and protect it as OH2 when it should be analyzed and could be a lot higher. Don't mean to dis the sprinkler bible, but this type of statement could have some unintended consequences. At 12:07 PM 3/6/2008, you wrote: I have never done a chemical processing facility that fell under NFPA 13 and never an OH occupancy. Usually they fall under NFPA 30 or a more stringent and specific FM criteria. Each plant requires a detailed hazards analysis of the process, equipment types and purpose, MSDS info as well as building construction among other issues to determine the proper protection approach. The other issue is that there are new technologies being born every day. Each new product being used or produced doesn't always have a page of it's own in the code. So it takes some homework and detailed analysis when it comes to determining fire protection criteria for these kinds of facilities. Ya gotta love it! Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Ordinary chemical plants? In NFPA 13, under the section describing OH2 occupancies, they mention Chemical plants - ordinary. What is an ordinary chemical plant? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080
RE: Dormitory Bunk Beds
Years ago I made all of the arguments that I see you making and the old Fire Marshal in Florida said fine if you do not put a sprinkler under the top bunk I will not give you a CO. END OF STORY. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Dormitory Bunk Beds Tim, I think it is addressed clearly in 8.5.5.3.2 which states that Sprinklers shall not be required under obstructions that are _not_ fixed in place such as conference tables. (emphasis mine) I would think you could make an excellent case that bunk beds are not fixed in place. I agree that locating the sprinkler so that it might discharge from the adjacent wall would be a reasonable approach, however I think you hit it on the head when you mentioned that the furniture is movable. PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website G. Tim Stone wrote: I have asked an interesting question today by a general contractor and need some assistance. A local college dormitory is undergoing some renovations and the question was asked about double or full size Bunk Beds (wider than 4'-0) being used in the rooms. The local fire marshal has asked about sprinkler protection below the upper bunk. I am assuming an existing structure at this point and the design will call for HSW sprinklers on exposed pipe. My thought would be to locate the sprinkler head on the opposite wall. Now keep in mind that the furniture may be movable. I do not believe this scenario is addressed in NFPA 13, 13R or D. Platforms, Cutting tables and duct wider than 4' are addressed. Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1298 - Release Date: 2/25/2008 8:45 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's
Check The International Building Code which requires sprinklers protecting some decks and in that section the IBC allows deviations from NFPA 13 or the sprinkler listing. Maybe some bleed over into exterior canopies. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's I'm noticing a lot of small exterior canopies being protected with dry horizontal sidewall sprinklers even though it is open framing (usually 2X6's or 2X10's at 24 o/c) without any type of material fastened to the underside of this framing - which is all good and well since it mostly complies with NFPA #13 '07 ed section 8.4.2 except that it's not 'SMOOTH.' So I guess that's my question, they aren't smooth so how are people getting away with this? Smooth being defined as sructural members being spaced more than 7'-6 o/c. per A3.7.2. The only thing I can come up with is A8.15.7 where you can install a *pendant* at a 45 degree angle to protect small unheated areas so if it's okay for a pendant why not a HSW? (I'm sure it has to do with the intracacies of unfamiliar testing and listing requirements of a pendant over a hsw???) Any thoughts? Thx, -B- Below are the sections talked about: NFPA #13 2007 ED. 8.4.2 Sidewall Spray Sprinklers. Sidewall sprinklers shall only be installed as follows: (1) Light hazard occupancies with smooth, horizontal or sloped, flat ceilings (2) Ordinary hazard occupancies with smooth, flat ceilings where specifically listed for such use (3) To protect areas below overhead doors A.8.15.7 Small loading docks, covered platforms, ducts, or similar small unheated areas can be protected by dry-pendent sprinklers extending through the wall from wet sprinkler piping in an adjacent heated area. Where protecting covered platforms, loading docks, and similar areas, a dry pendent sprinkler should extend down at a 45 degree angle. The width of the area to be protected should not exceed 7½ ft (2.3 m). Sprinklers should be spaced not over 12 ft (3.7 m) apart. (See Figure A.8.15.7.) A.3.7.2 (3) Smooth Ceiling Construction. The term smooth ceiling construction as used in this standard includes the following: (a) Flat slab, pan-type reinforced concrete (b) Continuous smooth bays formed by wood, concrete, or steel beams spaced more than 7½ ft (2.3 m) on centers - beams supported by columns, girders, or trusses (c) Smooth roof or floor decks supported directly on girders or trusses spaced more than 7½ ft (2.3 m) on center (d) Smooth monolithic ceilings of at least ¾ in. (19 mm) of plaster on metal lath or a combination of materials of equivalent fire-resistive rating attached to the underside of wood joists, wood trusses, and bar joists (e) Open-web-type steel beams, regardless of spacing (f) Smooth shell-type roofs, such as folded plates, hyperbolic paraboloids, saddles, domes, and long barrel shells (g) Suspended ceilings of combustible or noncombustible construction (h) Smooth monolithic ceilings with fire resistance less than that specified under item (d) and attached to the underside of wood joists, wood trusses, and bar joists - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's
See the June 2006 Edition of Sprinkler Age in the article Balconies and the IBC by Steve Rians. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Holsopple (forum) Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's To all Looking at A.8.14.7 in 13 (02 ed), it looks like you are allowed to angle (@ a 45ºangle) a dry pendent through the wall without regard to construction type. What would be the downside to doing this with a sidewall? (Other than it does not show an HSW in the picture) Wouldn't the spray pattern develop a little better? Ken Holsopple Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. I'm noticing a lot of small exterior canopies being protected with dry horizontal sidewall sprinklers even though it is open framing (usually 2X6's or 2X10's at 24 o/c) without any type of material fastened to the underside of this framing - which is all good and well since it mostly complies with NFPA #13 '07 ed section 8.4.2 except that it's not 'SMOOTH.' So I guess that's my question, they aren't smooth so how are people getting away with this? Smooth being defined as sructural members being spaced more than 7'-6 o/c. per A3.7.2. The only thing I can come up with is A8.15.7 where you can install a *pendant* at a 45 degree angle to protect small unheated areas so if it's okay for a pendant why not a HSW? (I'm sure it has to do with the intracacies of unfamiliar testing and listing requirements of a pendant over a hsw???) Any thoughts? Thx, -B- Below are the sections talked about: NFPA #13 2007 ED. 8.4.2 Sidewall Spray Sprinklers. Sidewall sprinklers shall only be installed as follows: (1) Light hazard occupancies with smooth, horizontal or sloped, flat ceilings (2) Ordinary hazard occupancies with smooth, flat ceilings where specifically listed for such use (3) To protect areas below overhead doors A.8.15.7 Small loading docks, covered platforms, ducts, or similar small unheated areas can be protected by dry-pendent sprinklers extending through the wall from wet sprinkler piping in an adjacent heated area. Where protecting covered platforms, loading docks, and similar areas, a dry pendent sprinkler should extend down at a 45 degree angle. The width of the area to be protected should not exceed 7½ ft (2.3 m). Sprinklers should be spaced not over 12 ft (3.7 m) apart. (See Figure A.8.15.7.) A.3.7.2 (3) Smooth Ceiling Construction. The term smooth ceiling construction as used in this standard includes the following: (a) Flat slab, pan-type reinforced concrete (b) Continuous smooth bays formed by wood, concrete, or steel beams spaced more than 7½ ft (2.3 m) on centers - beams supported by columns, girders, or trusses (c) Smooth roof or floor decks supported directly on girders or trusses spaced more than 7½ ft (2.3 m) on center (d) Smooth monolithic ceilings of at least ¾ in. (19 mm) of plaster on metal lath or a combination of materials of equivalent fire-resistive rating attached to the underside of wood joists, wood trusses, and bar joists (e) Open-web-type steel beams, regardless of spacing (f) Smooth shell-type roofs, such as folded plates, hyperbolic paraboloids, saddles, domes, and long barrel shells (g) Suspended ceilings of combustible or noncombustible construction (h) Smooth monolithic ceilings with fire resistance less than that specified under item (d) and attached to the underside of wood joists, wood trusses, and bar joists - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email
RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's
There are two issues with a sprinkler. Those are sensitivity and distribution. The sidewall sprinklers must be tested to insure that they provide the appropriate sensitivity and distribution in distribution tests (RDD ADD) as well as sensitivity tests and fire tests. I would not think that having a fire official just deciding one was better than the other is a really good idea. That smacks of the fire inspector saying he wants something done just because he wants it that way. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's There seems to be a consensus among the inspector's I know that the sidewall is better than a pendent in many cases because of the spray pattern. Would there be a significant difference in the time it takes to fuse the two different types of heads? Thank you, Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 7:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's Check The International Building Code which requires sprinklers protecting some decks and in that section the IBC allows deviations from NFPA 13 or the sprinkler listing. Maybe some bleed over into exterior canopies. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's I'm noticing a lot of small exterior canopies being protected with dry horizontal sidewall sprinklers even though it is open framing (usually 2X6's or 2X10's at 24 o/c) without any type of material fastened to the underside of this framing - which is all good and well since it mostly complies with NFPA #13 '07 ed section 8.4.2 except that it's not 'SMOOTH.' So I guess that's my question, they aren't smooth so how are people getting away with this? Smooth being defined as sructural members being spaced more than 7'-6 o/c. per A3.7.2. The only thing I can come up with is A8.15.7 where you can install a *pendant* at a 45 degree angle to protect small unheated areas so if it's okay for a pendant why not a HSW? (I'm sure it has to do with the intracacies of unfamiliar testing and listing requirements of a pendant over a hsw???) Any thoughts? Thx, -B- Below are the sections talked about: NFPA #13 2007 ED. 8.4.2 Sidewall Spray Sprinklers. Sidewall sprinklers shall only be installed as follows: (1) Light hazard occupancies with smooth, horizontal or sloped, flat ceilings (2) Ordinary hazard occupancies with smooth, flat ceilings where specifically listed for such use (3) To protect areas below overhead doors A.8.15.7 Small loading docks, covered platforms, ducts, or similar small unheated areas can be protected by dry-pendent sprinklers extending through the wall from wet sprinkler piping in an adjacent heated area. Where protecting covered platforms, loading docks, and similar areas, a dry pendent sprinkler should extend down at a 45 degree angle. The width of the area to be protected should not exceed 7½ ft (2.3 m). Sprinklers should be spaced not over 12 ft (3.7 m) apart. (See Figure A.8.15.7.) A.3.7.2 (3) Smooth Ceiling Construction. The term smooth ceiling construction as used in this standard includes the following: (a) Flat slab, pan-type reinforced concrete (b) Continuous smooth bays formed by wood, concrete, or steel beams spaced more than 7½ ft (2.3 m) on centers - beams supported by columns, girders, or trusses (c) Smooth roof or floor decks supported directly on girders or trusses spaced more than 7½ ft (2.3 m) on center (d) Smooth monolithic ceilings of at least ¾ in. (19 mm) of plaster on metal lath or a combination of materials of equivalent fire-resistive rating attached to the underside of wood joists, wood trusses, and bar joists (e) Open-web-type steel beams, regardless of spacing (f) Smooth shell-type roofs, such as folded plates, hyperbolic paraboloids, saddles, domes, and long barrel shells (g) Suspended ceilings of combustible or noncombustible construction (h) Smooth monolithic ceilings with fire resistance less than that specified under item (d) and attached to the underside of wood joists, wood trusses, and bar joists - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's
That has been in NFPA 13 for ages but in 37 years I have never seen on done that way. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Holsopple (forum) Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's To all Looking at A.8.14.7 in 13 (02 ed), it looks like you are allowed to angle (@ a 45ºangle) a dry pendent through the wall without regard to construction type. What would be the downside to doing this with a sidewall? (Other than it does not show an HSW in the picture) Wouldn't the spray pattern develop a little better? Ken Holsopple Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. I'm noticing a lot of small exterior canopies being protected with dry horizontal sidewall sprinklers even though it is open framing (usually 2X6's or 2X10's at 24 o/c) without any type of material fastened to the underside of this framing - which is all good and well since it mostly complies with NFPA #13 '07 ed section 8.4.2 except that it's not 'SMOOTH.' So I guess that's my question, they aren't smooth so how are people getting away with this? Smooth being defined as sructural members being spaced more than 7'-6 o/c. per A3.7.2. The only thing I can come up with is A8.15.7 where you can install a *pendant* at a 45 degree angle to protect small unheated areas so if it's okay for a pendant why not a HSW? (I'm sure it has to do with the intracacies of unfamiliar testing and listing requirements of a pendant over a hsw???) Any thoughts? Thx, -B- Below are the sections talked about: NFPA #13 2007 ED. 8.4.2 Sidewall Spray Sprinklers. Sidewall sprinklers shall only be installed as follows: (1) Light hazard occupancies with smooth, horizontal or sloped, flat ceilings (2) Ordinary hazard occupancies with smooth, flat ceilings where specifically listed for such use (3) To protect areas below overhead doors A.8.15.7 Small loading docks, covered platforms, ducts, or similar small unheated areas can be protected by dry-pendent sprinklers extending through the wall from wet sprinkler piping in an adjacent heated area. Where protecting covered platforms, loading docks, and similar areas, a dry pendent sprinkler should extend down at a 45 degree angle. The width of the area to be protected should not exceed 7½ ft (2.3 m). Sprinklers should be spaced not over 12 ft (3.7 m) apart. (See Figure A.8.15.7.) A.3.7.2 (3) Smooth Ceiling Construction. The term smooth ceiling construction as used in this standard includes the following: (a) Flat slab, pan-type reinforced concrete (b) Continuous smooth bays formed by wood, concrete, or steel beams spaced more than 7½ ft (2.3 m) on centers - beams supported by columns, girders, or trusses (c) Smooth roof or floor decks supported directly on girders or trusses spaced more than 7½ ft (2.3 m) on center (d) Smooth monolithic ceilings of at least ¾ in. (19 mm) of plaster on metal lath or a combination of materials of equivalent fire-resistive rating attached to the underside of wood joists, wood trusses, and bar joists (e) Open-web-type steel beams, regardless of spacing (f) Smooth shell-type roofs, such as folded plates, hyperbolic paraboloids, saddles, domes, and long barrel shells (g) Suspended ceilings of combustible or noncombustible construction (h) Smooth monolithic ceilings with fire resistance less than that specified under item (d) and attached to the underside of wood joists, wood trusses, and bar joists - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL
RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's
Yes George George; I was at the NFPA 13D meeting before the 2007 Edition of NFPA 13 came out and I went with one purpose and that was to discuss the questions that I get all of the time as a technical service manager. What do I (designer or engineer) do when I have a sloped ceiling more than 8 in. in 12 in. and what do I do it the sloped ceiling that also has beams. Additionally what do I do (designer or engineer) do I do when have a bunch of decorative beams creating pockets. Is it good fire protection to put 16 residential sprinklers in a room with beams and only calculate two sprinklers? I was not allowed to speak because I was not a member of the committee so I packed my bags and went home. I know that there are a lot of opinion about everything but it was really difficult to watch some of the members who really did not seem to know a lot about sprinklers but were there to protect their turf. My opinion was that put they could put in the code that there that you have to treat it like light hazard or whatever (say calculate six sprinklers) but give the designers and engineers some direction. What they did was dumped it back on the sprinkler designer or his company or the engineer and mostly the AHJ. In my opinion the committee abdicated their responsibility. There are also some other areas that need attention. The voted to allow dry and Preaction systems in single family homes. I answer questions all of the time about Preaction systems from sprinkler contractors that do more kinds of sprinkler systems than residential. Many residential sprinkler contractors do not know anything about Preaction nor have they ever done a Preaction system. Some of the people seemed to think that you could use the normal detectors in a home spaced any way you wanted to or that you would need a releasing panel. The reason was one of the members had a client that had ten million dollars worth of art and was concerned about accidental discharge. In my opinion if you have ten millions dollars worth of art you do not need a 13D sprinkler system. Another issue was not addressed and that is there is no limitation on the size of a single family home. In my opinion a 44,000 square foot home does not need a 13D system. Another question is why do we not require and alarm on a 13D sprinkler system. The answer was the cost. That is BS since an electric bell is not expensive and yet they pass dry and Preaction. Overall, I was embarrassed and somewhat ticked off at the rampant attempts of certain parties to get the code changed to meet a product they either made or wanted to make. But that may be had it has always been. All of this may be a moot point when you see the flows and pressures that are going to be required to pass the new UL testing requirements for residential sprinklers. The insanity continues! The above is my personal opinion and is not way intended to be the opinion of my company. Sorry that I got carried away but that is the way I feel. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's Mike- Were you at James' seminar at last AFSA where he had the sloped nightmare residential scenarios in which heads in the hall opened before the otherwise obvious heads that would open first? With the thermal movie? My point is this- James was completely surprised at which heads opened under beamed sloped ceilings. He has a lot more testing experience than I'll ever have, even if I quit and went to work for FM or UL tomorrow. BUT- when deciding how to protect these buggers, we're to consult with and seek direction from - the AHJ. Who likely has never seen a burn, probably has never seen a burn video, let alone understand heat flow across beams or along slopes, etc. if James was wrong, how do we think the AHJ is going to be right? Law of averages, at least its either right or wrong and 50% is better than what we'd otherwise get? Mike, I AGREE WITH YOU that asking the local AHJ, who in my area may not know what a flow switch looks like, is silly if you want an informed answer. But isn't that what the Code directs us to do? Scary, isn't it? Good thing we don't use spkrs as often as car brakes, there's be more fire deaths. Glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry HSW under open framed 2x's There are two issues with a sprinkler. Those are sensitivity and distribution. The sidewall sprinklers must be tested to insure that they provide the appropriate sensitivity and distribution in distribution tests (RDD ADD) as well as sensitivity tests and fire tests. I would not think that having a fire official just deciding one
RE: Parking Garage Sprinkler System
If you would like one I will send you a copy of my Rules of Thumb for designing large dry systems. You can contact me off line at [EMAIL PROTECTED] MLB -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:17 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Parking Garage Sprinkler System Hi All, I would like to ask about sprinkler system design in a car parking garage. The parking garage has two stories (Basement Ground floor). It is only for car parking application which can hold about 350 cars. There is No mechanical devices to transport cars, and cars will drive to their own parking palaces. The area of each story is about 44,000 square feet, and ceiling high is about 10 feet. We are going to design a dry pipe sprinkler system for this car parking garage as piping are subjected to freezing during the cold weather. I looked up in NFPA codes for designing car parking garage, but I couldn't find that much helpfull information in NFPA-88A. In NFPA-13 I saw that automobile parking and showrooms are specified as Ordinary hazard occupancies (Group 1). I am going to design a tree dry pipe sprinkler system some inside fire hoses in the garage. My questions are as followings: 1- What is your recommended Area of sprinkler operation and Density for my application after determining from the Density/Area curve? 2- I am going to use upright sprinklers, what kind of sprinkler is more common for such an application? standards coverage/extended coverage...? 3- What is the common distance between sprinklers and maximum area of coverage per sprinkler for a parking garage? 4- Is it necessary place a sprinkler exactly at above each car or not? 5- Is it necessary to place sprinklers in corridors ramps where no cars are parked and only cars are moving? 6- What is the NFPA recommended duration for sprinkler system inside hose stream? 7- Can I connect the inside hose to the dry sprinkler system piping? or shoud I connect the inside hose piping directly to the fire pumps? 8- I will place some insde fire hoses in the garage that provides 1 1/2 in. hose stations and according to NFPA-14 the minimum residual pressure at the outlet of most remote 1 1/2 in. hose stations should be 65 psi for hydraulically designed systems, so I think my fire pump head should be at least 80 psi? What do you think about this fire pump head, do you think it is low, high or good? 9- I want to protect both strories with a single riser using a 4 dry pipe system to feed my sprinkler system fire hoses, what do you think about it? Thanks for your kind help in advance, Reza - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Parking Garage Sprinkler System ***
Reza Take a look at your available pressure and choke down your branch line sizes and look at your cross main and feed main sizes as well. If you can reduce them this makes the system volume less as well as makes the system more economical. If you have a lot of pressure and the structure will allow it use extended coverage sprinklers. If you expand your spacing you will need more pressure but you will be covering more square feet. It is a game you play with pressure when designing systems and if you can achieve the balance of the options you will have designed the best system. Remember that NFPA 13 does not impose any velocity limits but usually you need to say below 32ft per second. The selection of the k factor of the sprinkler is a part of the dance. Generally, the large the orifice in the inspector's test connection is the faster you can exhaust the air from the system. Good Luck Mike Brown By the way, those are Rules of Thumb not engineering principles and you may at times make a different decision. But those Rules of Thumb are time tested over many years and if you violate all of them you can have . -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Parking Garage Sprinkler System *** Thanks Craig, As I am connecting fire hoses to my sprinkler system, then the system pressure would be high to comply with NFPA-14 minimum residual pressure requirements at the outlet of most remote 1 1/2 in. hose station which is 65 psi. In this case my fire pump minimum head would be around 100 psi. Actually this pressure is good for the fire hoses but may be high for my sprinkler system. As my required density is 0.15/1950 sq. ft which low, and my residual pressure is high in my sprinkler system, then may be a sprinkler with K=2.8 could work well to supply my required density, if I assume the pressure in the most remote sprinkler is about 70 psi then: Q=k x sq. root of Pressure Q= 2.8 x sq. root of (70) Q= 23.4 GPM which is good and can supply my required density. But Mike sent me an article which stated Avoid 5.6 K-factor Sprinklers. Use Large Orifice (8.0 K-factor) or larger Sprinklers to Exhaust the Air Faster. IF I use 8.0 K-factor then: Q=k x sq. root of Pressure Q= 8 x sq. root of (70) Q= 67GPM which is very large and much more than my required density and will force me a big pump and a big water source! What should I do to solve this problem? Thanks, Reza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depending on where your riser is in relation to the remote part of your system you may have to have multiple systems to deal with the time factor. It's a bit hard to determine without actually seeing everything you're seeing. Make the electrical guy move his lights, tell him fire protection is more critical. Maybe he will move, maybe you will have to work around him. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Parking Garage Sprinkler System *** Dears friends Craig, Travis, Kurt Todd, Many thanks for your detailed answer, your answers were very helpful,. I will use the sprinkler piping for my fire hoses to save some pipe, after calculation, the water velocity in piping is about 20 ft/s and the capacity of sprinkler piping in each floor is 1030 gallons, so it seems that each floors needs 2 dry pipe systems (As NFPA limits the volume of a dry pipe system to 750 gallons). ***I know that this 750 gallons limit may be exceeded if the maximum water delivery time is less than 60 seconds, I will use accelerators to speed the operation of dry pipe systems, but I don't think even the accelerators can reduce it to 60 seconds because the system is large, what do you think? Do I have to use 2 dry pipe systems for each floor? Is there any solution to use only 1 dry pipe system for each floor as I want to be economical? Even if I don't connect fire hoses to sprinkler piping, the system is large enough and it doesn't help that much, any ideas? *** Another question is that, the garage lighting system is about 50 cm below the roof, can I place the sprinklers above the lighting? I think this is a kind of obstruction, what should I do? should i change the place of lighting system? Thanks, Reza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reza, 1- What is your recommended Area of sprinkler operation and Density for my application after determining from the Density/Area curve? ANSWER: .15/1500 works but don't forget to increase the design area by 30% due to it being a dry
RE: Max Ceiling Heights
Hi There are no restrictions in NFPA 13 for Standard Spray Sprinklers. The ceiling limitations are for storage sprinklers like ESFR. The old NFPA 101 Life Safety used to allow you to eliminate sprinklers in atriums above 55 feet in height. There have been times when this has been questions in the NFPA meetings but to my knowledge there have been no new requirements added in NFPA 13. Michael L Brown The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:24 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Max Ceiling Heights Craig, Thanks for the input, the manufacturer just called me back and said they have no limitations on the heads I'm using, I had him send me that in an email which I will forward to the AHJ. Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Max Ceiling Heights Certain types of sprinklers have specific limitations and they are usually listed as such, typically those designated for storage occupancies. Most Control Mode sprinklers don't list any restrictions and so far I haven't been able to find anything in NFPA stating an NFPA imposed restriction. NFPA defers to the mfgr data for installation issues. Dealt with this issue ad naseum on a 100ft high structure. I contacted one of the Sprinkler mfgrs and they were very helpful in explaining that in my case even at 100ft the sprinklers will operate. The fire does have to be large enough to bring the ceiling temps up to the release temps of the heads and that could take a little longer than in a 20-30ft high bldg and might trigger more heads. If the AHJ is being persistent, ask the mfgr to write a letter explaining the operation of the heads at the higher elevation will occur and whatever other blah, blah blah words they need. Just something to satisfy the AHJ. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Max Ceiling Heights Forum, I just got back some comments from the local AHJ on a project we are doing and he's asking me to verify that the heads we are using are rated for ceilings over 30'. I've spoke with the manufacturer and he said he doesn't have anything on min./max. ceiling heights. If memory serves me isn't 50' somewhere in NFPA? Any help would be appreciated. Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
Understood and agree. My point is that testing and engineering can be used as a tool but do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Some of the old guys that wrote NFPA 13 were quite good. I forgot Polybuthlene and PozLock piping which were listed and tested etc. but were removed from the market. There are probably more that I cannot remember. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Pressure Anomaly Mike, My point is that NFPA 13 should be read literally rather than being interpreted on the basis of assumptions about the depth and breadth of testing that may or may not be true, depending on the application. 13 is not defective, but some of the interpretations of it are. Joe Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) wrote: Before you get too excited about the engineering process and testing I offer the following: In the early 70's, GEM (Not called Tyco then) had a HSW that covered 16 x 28 ft. It was UL Listed until they figured out that they did not test it with a ceiling. When they did, the water spray hit the ceiling about mid-way and never got to 28 ft. It quietly disappeared from the market place. In the early 80's or there about there was the Central, and I think Grinnell, On and Off head was tested and listed by UL until it too quietly disappeared from the market place. Even lately there was an antifreeze system that was pushed by Tyco and FM as well as a PHD at FM that was installed in a number of places until it too was quietly removed from the market place. There was also the Central Super Valve that disappeared from the market place. And I do not even have to bring up the Omega and the GB which were the greatest screw up of them all There are others if I had time to list all of them. Many of the rules and regulations in NFPA 13 have stood the test of time in the market place and too just dismiss these out of hand is a mistake. Too many times based on a few fire tests we have, as an industry, jumped on the band wagon and the wagon ran into a ditch along the way. Michael L. Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly Thom- If you're a contractor- and I know you don't just play one on TV :)- You're a risk-taker. In this litigious society, you can be held liable for meeting the adopted standard, but not applying a newer code. Or, for that matter, the reverse. So even with staying within the boundaries of adopted standards and codes does not relieve you of risk - and I know you and Noreen work hard at reducing and controlling the risks you have. And there are no right answers, but there certainly are wrong ones! If you're the first to take the test and you show up with K25's and 50 PSI, you've got a pretty good shot at knocking down a challenge. Certainly not everything, and perhaps it could have been done with less- but at mega cost to continue running iterations of continually decreasing pressures. Heck, Thom, if I didn't feel lucky I wouldn't do what we do. Spent last Wed in depositions trying to collect money almost 3 years after a job completed. And certainly adopting good practices in advance of them being required is a way to both reduce risk and offer something of value to your customers. We'll keep doing work under both the adopted standards and the Equivalency clause, dotting on I's, crossing our t's, because the stuff that blindsides us is often independent of the design criteria, and it can come down to the layman or judge (non-expert in either case) and their opinion on what was presented, not what SHOULD be, what COULD be, or what actually was. I was flabbergasted to learn about the old area/density curve development we've relied on for years- in a late-night war stories session at an AFSA convention (yes, that's a plug, how many places are you going to run into a discussion on this topic at 2 AM, and still be able to get drinks after hours to keep the discussion, well, moving?). I'd placed a lot more credibility on these graphs, and sweated out calcs to the 3rd decimal point, to find out they were derived- well, arbitrarily isn't far off the mark. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Pressure Anomaly The main point James has made for class I-IV, is that the lower end of the curve, may actually work most of the time, but as soon as you try to rise up the curve the greater the risk of failure. (Tyco has this nice test facility where he can play, and see things that have
RE: Most Remote Point
If you are interested I have a document that I call Rules of Thumb for designing large dry systems that might be helpful. Not engineering but just old time rules that I learned at Automatic many years ago. If you will send me your email address at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will be happy to share them. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Most Remote Point Ron, We were always concerned about delivering water in no more than 1 minute. (The 30% dry system penalty was based 1 minute delivery) The assumption in 13 was that a 500 gal system (or 750 with an accelerator) would meet that requirement. Turned out to be a bad assumption. This also turned out to be another example of reading more into 13 than was intended. People saw long water delivery times on systems with accelerators, and drew the conclusion (and I've seen it actually published) that a 10 minute delivery time was OK on a 750 gal system with an accelerator. That's why the change is coming. (I always was amazed that fire protection professionals could say a 5 minute water delivery time was OK for a 750 gal system with an accelerator, but that an 800 gal system had to meet the 1 minute time. How dies the fire know the air capacity of the system) A good rule of thumb, by the way, is to put the inspectors test connection on the end of the longest branch line at the end of a single cross main system ,and at the end of the longest branch line at the end of the cross main with the greatest air capacity (measured from the top of the riser) in multiple cross main systems. The test connection should never be on a cross main. The old trick used to be to put the test connection on the bottom of a cross main at the end of the system. I saw a system (grid) deliver water to a test connection on the bottom of the cross main at the end of the system in 45 seconds. A test connection in the middle of the remote grid line took over 7 minutes. Joe Bill, How important is this? Until yesterday we were only concerned that the system tripped (which in reality would have left the IT anywhere since the air decompresses evenly) and that there was no debris in the system which would work its way to the opening. Oh and that water delivery was within a minute on systems over 750 gallons. Now (or coming soon to a code near you) we have the minute for everything but just how important is it we get that remote point down to the one and only most remote by seven inches point? I still get to use skill, experience and my magic eight ball for the design area. I still use water data taken at a particular time and on a particular day by instruments with a pretty loose degree of accuracy measuring a constantly changing fluid in motion as universally accurate and then perform calculations that employ constants and ignore issues like temperature, viscosity and gravity. How accurate can any of this be. With all due respect, and you know I hold you in high regards, this sounds like an academician's question. On Dec 11, 2007 5:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a way to prove that a dry system inspector's test is in the most remote position? Can this be demonstrated by some sort of calculation? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 410-544-3620 Phone 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
Before you get too excited about the engineering process and testing I offer the following: In the early 70's, GEM (Not called Tyco then) had a HSW that covered 16 x 28 ft. It was UL Listed until they figured out that they did not test it with a ceiling. When they did, the water spray hit the ceiling about mid-way and never got to 28 ft. It quietly disappeared from the market place. In the early 80's or there about there was the Central, and I think Grinnell, On and Off head was tested and listed by UL until it too quietly disappeared from the market place. Even lately there was an antifreeze system that was pushed by Tyco and FM as well as a PHD at FM that was installed in a number of places until it too was quietly removed from the market place. There was also the Central Super Valve that disappeared from the market place. And I do not even have to bring up the Omega and the GB which were the greatest screw up of them all There are others if I had time to list all of them. Many of the rules and regulations in NFPA 13 have stood the test of time in the market place and too just dismiss these out of hand is a mistake. Too many times based on a few fire tests we have, as an industry, jumped on the band wagon and the wagon ran into a ditch along the way. Michael L. Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly Thom- If you're a contractor- and I know you don't just play one on TV :)- You're a risk-taker. In this litigious society, you can be held liable for meeting the adopted standard, but not applying a newer code. Or, for that matter, the reverse. So even with staying within the boundaries of adopted standards and codes does not relieve you of risk - and I know you and Noreen work hard at reducing and controlling the risks you have. And there are no right answers, but there certainly are wrong ones! If you're the first to take the test and you show up with K25's and 50 PSI, you've got a pretty good shot at knocking down a challenge. Certainly not everything, and perhaps it could have been done with less- but at mega cost to continue running iterations of continually decreasing pressures. Heck, Thom, if I didn't feel lucky I wouldn't do what we do. Spent last Wed in depositions trying to collect money almost 3 years after a job completed. And certainly adopting good practices in advance of them being required is a way to both reduce risk and offer something of value to your customers. We'll keep doing work under both the adopted standards and the Equivalency clause, dotting on I's, crossing our t's, because the stuff that blindsides us is often independent of the design criteria, and it can come down to the layman or judge (non-expert in either case) and their opinion on what was presented, not what SHOULD be, what COULD be, or what actually was. I was flabbergasted to learn about the old area/density curve development we've relied on for years- in a late-night war stories session at an AFSA convention (yes, that's a plug, how many places are you going to run into a discussion on this topic at 2 AM, and still be able to get drinks after hours to keep the discussion, well, moving?). I'd placed a lot more credibility on these graphs, and sweated out calcs to the 3rd decimal point, to find out they were derived- well, arbitrarily isn't far off the mark. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Pressure Anomaly The main point James has made for class I-IV, is that the lower end of the curve, may actually work most of the time, but as soon as you try to rise up the curve the greater the risk of failure. (Tyco has this nice test facility where he can play, and see things that have not been tested for FM or UL approval, just the increased knowledge of TYCO and their staff) We are risk takers. Our insurance companies are risk takers, with Attitude. And our owners believe that we have removed all of their risk. Increasing our exposure because its allowed has never been appealing to me, and each of us shouldn't wait for it to be Code before we adopt good practices. So before you climb up that curve, ask yourself Do Ya Feel Lucky? Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - From: Chris Cahill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly I was reading from the cut sheet, technically FM criteria. NFPA according to the cut sheet there is no protection scheme for the K25. Even in the table you reference there is no ESFR 25 for this. As far as flows 25's
RE: Tape and/or Dope
This may stem from the CPVC people who say do not both tape and dope the thread It has always been done with steel pipe but with CPVC it can cause problems. Mike Brown. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Tape and/or Dope I think the point is to tape and dope the inspector ... Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Stites Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 8:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Tape and/or Dope Here's one for you In Los Angeles on a high-rise building, we had a field inspector cite NFPA 13, 6-5.1.3 (2002) as meaning we could use tape OR compound on pipe NOT both. Does anyone out there believe this is the intent of the code? Or do you think the point of this passage is to NOT put these items on the female threads? Gary Stites Operations Manager: Southern California RLH Fire Protection 3430 Unicorn Road Bakersfield, Ca. 93308 661-322-9344 #1343 Direct Line 661-410-1343 Direct FAX 866-871-2237 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rlhfp.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Maximum Velocity
I guess being old and having been around for a long time. The 32 ft per sec came from some old water distribution engineering manuals and became sort of a rule of thumb for sprinkler calculations in that when you get above that velocity the friction loss gets larger in a hurry. At one time FM came out with a requirement for a maximum of 20ft per second in grid branch lines but they sort of backed off on that issue but did keep the requirement for the velocity in riser nipples or something like that. I am not sure what FM does now regarding velocity. Most of the computer hydraulic programs have followed the old rule of thumb that you need to keep your velocity at or under 32 ft per second and usually they will show you the various pipes that exceed that velocity and you can make the decision on changing the pipe size or not. But the velocity is not addressed in NFPA 13. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Maximum Velocity also look at 13: A.22.4.1 (last sentence) It is not necessary to restrict the water velocity when determining friction loss using the Hazen-Williams formula. This is also in the 02 edition. Roland On Nov 12, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Brian Harris wrote: What's the general rule of thumb for maximum velocities in hydraulic calc's? I use Hydra-Calc and the default is set @ 32, I assume that's feet per second. Where did that number come from, I didn't see anything in the code book. Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Supervisory Alarm - Low Air
The monitoring of a high pressure is not in NFPA 13 or any other NFPA Pamphlet except in NFPA 72, and the NFPA 13 Committee has never seen fit to put it in NFPA 13. I have never met anyone that could tell me why it was in NFPA 72. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:58 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Supervisory Alarm - Low Air Of course! How foolish of me! Dave, can you send me your address. I lost it and I want to send your Tacoma Code Book. On 10/24/07, David de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would you know? Simple, Ron. You would just check the log where the building engineer dutifully recorded the air pressure on the system on a weekly basis, as required by NFPA 25 where there is no electrical supervison, of course! lol Dave at Firetech Engineering Incorp. Ron Greenman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've always considered the high air supervision more critical than low since a malfunctioning compressor that runs the air up will cause a longer trip time whereas low air will just let you know that an unwanted trip could happen if not attended to. Of course the emphasis is put on the low air because that trip rolls fire trucks, requires a technician to be summoned, disrupts the normal course of a day and costs the owner money. All recordable events and therefore statistically useful for proving one point or another. If, on the other hand, you receive a high air you just fix the problem as a piece of equipment that needs maintenance. If a life or building was ever lost because of high air delaying a trip how would anyone ever know? The evidence would demonstrate an overwhelmed system but although it might suggest it there is nothing I can think of that would definitively demonstrate it was due to a delayed trip time. If a bear s in the woods...? On 10/24/07, Tim Frankenberg wrote: Dave, The requirement to monitor low and high air pressure has been in the code before the 1993 edition of the National Fire Alarm Code. Most of the supervisory pressure switches installed are very much capable of monitoring both low and high air and have been able to for many, many years. More times than not, the high air condition is not being enforced by the AHJ. Kind Regards, Tim Frankenberg, CFPS Tim Frankenberg, CFPS Fire Product Manager Potter Electric Signal Company www.pottersignal.com 800-325-3936 Dave Phelan 10/23/2007 4:52 PM Something new to me popped up today as we are now using the 2002 editions of 13 72 here. On a dry pipe sprinkler the National Fire Alarm Code - NFPA 72 states that the air supervisory sensor shall signal on loss of 10 PSI but also on 10 PSI greater than the system set pressure. Check out 5.13 for yourself but I'm thinking Ive never seen or tested for air greater than 10 PSI of the set pressure before. How is this being handled in the field during installs and maintenance ? Does the typical air pressure switch in the little red cover actually cover both loss and increase pressures? Thanks. Dave - a NJ AHJ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- Ron Greenman at home ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- Ron Greenman at home ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: RE:Clean room sprinkler heads w/ covers
Just for your info. Reliable still makes a Sealing Concealer with a gasket but it is not quick response or FM Approved. Check the Reliable website www.reliablesprinkler.com Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Cabral Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RE:Clean room sprinkler heads w/ covers What you describe sounds like a sprinkler that was made by ASCOA Automatic Sprinkler Company of America As far as I know they are long gone. It was there standard concealed sprinkler with a silicone gasket that attached to the cover plate to provide a seal between the space above the sprinkler and the clean room. Mike Cabral Ford wrote: A customer is asking us to provide sprinklers for a clean room. We saw some installed ones and they appear to have very large cover plates that are rubber gasketed at the ceiling. Manufacturer unknown. Anybody run into these and knows their origin? Burton Ford SET, CFPS Member AFAA [EMAIL PROTECTED] 267-487-1000 Fax 267-487-1010 This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to be confidential and privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you are not a named addressee you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please delete and otherwise erase it and any attachments from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. Thank you. Cintas Corporation This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to be confidential and privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you are not a named addressee you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please delete and otherwise erase it and any attachments from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Dry system size
Let me say again, you might want to check with the AHJ because many of them and some of the building codes still requiring a one head test and you must get the water to the ITC in 60 seconds. You can engineer it all you want but it will boil down to what the code and the AHJ requires. Michael L. Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Dry system size reread the last sentence of 7.2.3.7. for confirmation of what I said Roland On Oct 11, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Russell wrote: So if I choose option #3, I do not have to use option #2 involving a program or use #1 and meet it's requirement of a single connection with 60 sec. time period. #3 means using a test manifold using table 7.2.3.6.1. This table shows (in my situation for ordinary hazard) to use a two outlet manifold utilizing one branch line and a water delivery time of 50 seconds. Ron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Dry system size lets start over again and allow me to summarize what has been said by others. For systems greater than 750 gals, you have THREE options. 1. Single test connection at 60 seconds 2. Calculated delivery using Table 7.2.3.6.1 3. Test manifold using Table 7.2.3.6.1 Read 7.2.3.7 taking note of the last sentence (confirming if you use the manifold you do not have to do either of the other two options). This section also tells you where to connect when more than 2 sprinklers are on the manifold. Other tidbits: Even with a calculated system, you still have to do the single head flow test as part of the acceptance test BUT there is NO 60 sec limit. For smaller systems serving a dwelling unit, you now have to satisfy the 60 sec rule (for spray sprinklers). Roland On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Russell wrote: I take it that the table 7.2.3.6.1 goes only with a program, but if so, how do I determine the number of branch lines to include in the manifold? Am I not understanding what you're telling me? Ron Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 6/10/2007 1:39 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 6/10/2007 1:39 PM Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 6/10/2007 1:39 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Dry system size
You might want to check the building codes. Some require that the system meet the 60 second rule no matter what the volume of the dry system is. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry system size Yes, if over 750 gallons. Under 750 you still get the choice of the quick opening device with time not mattering and under 500 time doesn't matter - no manifold no program. The time could be as low as 40 sec. depending on the hazard. See 7.2.3.1 in the '07. Table 7.2.3.6.1 goes with it. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry system size Uh oh, so you're saying that I will need to use the manifold and meet the 60 seconds when I'm not using a program? Ron Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 6/10/2007 1:39 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Spare Head boxes
There was one of the after market providers that used to have a plastic sprinkler head box. ARCO or FPPI ?? Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Schwab Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Spare Head boxes Does anyone know of a spare head box that can stand up to a corrosive environment? Standard head boxes that are available as a standard do not do well against direct exposure to the elements. Any help/advice is appreciated Pete Schwab Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Bucket Test
Folks The Put the Water in the Bucket Test was developed years ago when Cobb County GA Fire Department was promoting what later became NFPA 13R. The Cobb County Fire Dept. was promoting an affordable fire sprinkler system in commercial and residential applications. There was a video produced by Byron Belzak to show how to conduct a bucket test. I know because I was a paid actor in the video. You would be surprised to learn that a lot of the systems installed when tested did not provide the correct amount of water out of the remote sprinkler. The bucket test was a way to actually test the systems prior to covering up the system piping. I would suggest that you contact the Cobb County, GA Fire Department and they may be able to supply more information. Another contact would be Jerry Grier, now retired, at (678) 517-8938. Michael L. Brown The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Minkel Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bucket Test They get you by the whatever by refusing to sign off on the system so you can't get a certificate of occupancy and the general contractor the architect the owner go ballistic, so you do what Dum-Dum wants. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bucket Test Pete has an excellent idea about showing where the committee rejected proposals to 13R; Far easier to ask where the requirement stems from- So you can completely comply with the provisions of the alleged requirement- And when he can't find the requirement, you don't need to do it. If he says he wants it even tho he can't produce the requirement, ask him if it isn't done, what would be the penalty? Under what secition of applicable law would you be prosecuted? glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Schwab Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bucket Test The bucket test has been around for a long time. May have originated in Cobb County - then again, I do not know for sure. The best thing you can do to convince the AHJ that it is not necessary is to go back to the report on Proposals and Comments for NFPA 13R. I BELIEVE IN THE 90'S. There have been proposals to the committee requiring the bucket test that have been rejected. If the AHJ won't buy this, you have to call it the cost of doing business (unfortunate but true) Pete Schwab Wayne Automatic Fire ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pie Pans
Yes, contact the AFSA and the NFSA. I believe that Roland Huggins did an article on it and I know Russ Fleming of the NFSA did one years ago. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pie Pans Okay, forum. I know pie pan heat collectors don't work and actually make it worse. My question, is there any documentation that I can get my hands on? David Autry Plans Examiner Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office 246 S. 14th Street Lincoln, NE 68508 402-471-9659 402-471-3118 fax www.sfm.ne.gov ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Test
OK -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Minkel Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test It was a slow Friday. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tambini, Ed Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test WTF???!!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test Let's see, have you ever told a lie? What do you call a person who tells a lie? If I told you a lie, what would that make me? A liar. Have you ever taken anything that did not belong to you? What do you call a person who takes things that do not belong to him / her? If I took something from you, what would you call me? A thief. When we compare ourselves to the Ten Commandments, which give us a picture of God's perfection, we see that we don't stack up too well. Now that's a good test to see how we will do on the day we stand before God. To take the test yourself follow the link, http://www.needgod.com/ Bob Knight -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Smith, Steven D. (CSFD) Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test What is the criteria to determine if it's a good test or not? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Minkel Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test That was a good test. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Schmid Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Test Ray Schmid, P.E. Principal Koffel Associates, Inc. 410-750-2246 www.koffel.com http://www.koffel.com/ This communication is confidential. This information may be privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the above named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are expressly prohibited from copying, distributing, disseminating, or in any other way using any of this information contained herein. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by telephone at (410) 750-2246 or by response via e-mail and then permanently delete the original email and any copies. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Adobe Structures
Dear Ed You may want to talk to the NFPA 13 D Committee that in the 2007 Edition allowed the use of dry and preaction systems in residential occupancies. There is no doubt that the old reliable wet system is the least likely to need maintenance etc. but how many fires have not been controlled by systems with the control valves shut. Nothing is fool proof and double interlock preaction systems that are designed correctly, installed correctly and maintained properly work quite well in thousands of installation. You want real heart burn think about residential installations where preaction systems are installed by companies that rarely do preaction and maintained by the home owner. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Vining Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 3:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Adobe Structures Ed, don't listen to the hydrophobic hysterical architect. These historic adobes have been around for decades. Many were run down, had lost their roofs, and were exposed to the elements for years. Now look at them. Second piece of advice, don't be fooled by the so-called advantages of preaction systems. They are complicated, and much less reliable than ordinary wet-pipe systems. In structures like these, unreliability includes both in failure to operate, and operation when there is no fire. Witness what happened at the new planetarium at the College of San Mateo. Reports say accidental discharge of this system ruined the planetarium equipment. A similar event occurred at TV station KQED. Testing of a preaction system at Pine Hall, Stanford University caused a leak, and damaged vital computer equipment. Failure of a preaction system in Fresno resulted in a million dollar fire loss in a warehouse. In the real estate business it's location, location location. With sprinklers it's wet pipe, wet pipe, wet pipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ed Vining 4819 John Muir Rd Martinez CA 94553 925-228-8792 - Original Message From: Ed Cyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: American Fire Sprinkler Association SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 11:55:42 AM Subject: Adobe Structures Forum Members, The Great State of California has many historic missions that are made of adobe (dried mud bricks). Wood roof structure. Our county has adopted an ordinance that all buildings in our downtown core be sprinklered by a certain date in the future. We have seen written comments from a preservation architect that has worked on numerous historic adobe buildings, that fire sprinklers should not be installed in any historic adobes. This recommendation is based on inherent risk of water damage. I recommended that a dbl interlock pre-action system would suffice. That would take care of the accidental activation issue. Question: Does anyone have a case history of dealing with adobe structures? What is the forums opinion on how this should be treated? Suggestions for alternate protection measures? Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Ed Cyr Alpha Fire Sprinkler Corp. San Luis Obispo, CA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: heat activated devices for a deluge system.
If the designer or engineer knew what he or she was doing there would be a test valve in the pilot line to test the system. Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: heat activated devices for a deluge system. I think they need to be a bit more specific in their reference to what kind of pneumatic HAD's they have. This could be construed as closed sprinkler heads (pilot heads) on pilot piping. If they are using an electrical actuation utilizing something like the Notifier 302 or similar series heat detector (HAD) then I would think they should be tested as would any other actuation device of the fire alarm system. But I've never tested a pilot system by busting a pilot head open. You've got different types of hardware that can be considered Heat Activated Devices (heat detectors). Often the application dictates the type of device that will work best in the situation. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Shelton Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: heat activated devices for a deluge system. Since NFPA 72 includes discussion of these types of detectors, I'm not sure the 72 committee would agree that since they're not electrical they're not fire alarm. The original question might get some additional answers from folks more knowledgeable than I over at the firealarm yahoo-group. Eric Shelton Hankins and Anderson, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: heat activated devices for a deluge system. they are NOT electrical devices, so 72 shouldn't be part of the equation. The ones I've played with are just domes with small diameter tubes. Never thought of them as a pneumatic SIGNAL. That may be leading to some of the confusion. Better to think of it as a pneumatic HAD that activates the system. As a related note, the current edition of 25 only checks the mechanical condition of the electrical (72 type) activation components of a deluge system. There is no requirement for a functional test of the electrical release side. This will be addressed in the 07 edition stating that a 72 inspection of those components is required to ensure the system is full functional. That is provided that isn't one of the NITMAMs going to the NFPA floor in June. I'm not saying it was required. It just wasn't driven by 25. Roland On Mar 29, 2007, at 11:29 AM, MOWLE Kevin(K) - BRUCE POWER wrote: Are heat actuated devices (HADS) used to initiate a deluge system via a pneumatic signal considered: 1- a heat detector and so the required testing is per NFPA 72 ? 2- or are the HADS considered part of the deluge system so testing requirements as per NFPA 25 ? Thanks Kevin Mowle Bruce Power Tiverton, ON guess ** *** The contents of this email and any attachments *** are confidential and may be privileged. *** They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. *** If this message has been delivered to you in error, please reply to the *** sender to that effect, don't forward the message to anyone *** and delete the message from your computer. *** Thanks for your help, and sorry for the inconvenience. ** ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email
RE: What I'm Hearing About Hydrostatic Testing
Folks A water hammer can do nasty things to a sprinklers system but just pump pressure can cause problems if the sprinkler fitters have not done their work properly. Years ago at Phillips Plaza in Atlanta a grooved coupling was not properly tightened because the groove on the pipe was too shallow. The grooved coupling held for the 200 psi test but later when the pump was put into service the coupling did not hold and the basement of the upscale mall was flooded and the complete mall was shut down for several hours while the system was repaired. Fortunately the installers were not mine. Michael L. Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: What I'm Hearing About Hydrostatic Testing more worried about it NOT staying in its intended orientation. Joe - Did you guys see any systems where sprigs and rotated? Roland On Mar 8, 2007, at 7:01 PM, Joe Hankins wrote: There was nothing to suggest water hammer. Water hammer resulting from a pump start is unlikely in sprinkler system piping. Even if there is a water hammer problem, it's something you want to know because it's easy to fiz.When you do see water hammer from a fire pump, it usually happens in underground. Also, starting fire pumps with the discharge valve open is by far the most common way weekly runs are made. I've seen many sprinkler systems that have held up to weekly pump starts for more than 30 years without incident. If you truly beleive that a sprinkler system can be blown apart by a fire pump, you have a very low opinion of the quality of sprinkler installations! Joe ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
