Re: Structural Load

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Jerry,

Although I'm slightly unclear over what you're being told I would make 
sure that whoever is providing that information to you has read 
9.2.1.3.1 of the '16 edition of -13:


   9.2.1.3.1 Sprinkler piping shall be substantially supported from the
   building structure, *which must support the added load of the
   water-filled pipe plus a minimum of 250 lb (115 kg) applied at the
   point of hanging*, except where permitted by 9.2.1.1.2, 9.2.1.3.3,
   and 9.2.1.4.1

9.2.1.1.2 deals with toggle hangers supporting pipe 1½" and smaller, 
9.2.1.3.3 covers flexible hose fittings, and 9.2.1.4.1 covers branch 
hangers into a metal deck.


It's pretty clear that the structure has to be able to support at least 
the load noted in 9.2.1.3.1.


As I am a principal member of the hanging and bracing committee, please 
see the disclaimer below.


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

*IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation 
issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the 
personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the 
official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, 
this correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, 
to provide professional consultation or services**

**
**It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the 
NFPA Automatic Sprinkler System Hanging and Bracing Committee in 
accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and 
should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official 
position of the NFPA or its Committees*



On 06/03/2020 8:25 AM, Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum wrote:


I have a building where they are telling me the structural point 
loading on the framing less than 250lbs. (140lbs)


Advice?

Jerry Van Kolken

/_Millennium Fire Protection Corp._/

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730


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


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

Re: NFPA 13D

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Gary,

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


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


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


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

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


On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:29 AM Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
> wrote:


Do hang the HVAC from the CPVC. Not just taking it off. Ever
wonder how codes get thicker and thicker. One way is more
pre-approved design options. The other. Needing to write this kind
of  into code.

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

Best.

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


From the Lubrizol website:

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



On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 9:09 PM Tom Noble via Sprinklerforum
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> wrote:

What about the potential compatibility issues with the duct
touching the CPVC pipe? Could you hang your hat on there?
Could one defer to the installation instructions as they take
precedence?


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

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

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


Tom Wellen
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org


http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org




Tom Noble CET, CFPS,CWBSP
/Technical Programs Specialist/
*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p:  214-349-5965 ext125
w:  firesprinkler.org 






*Call to Action! *Urge your elected officials to include
fire protection as "critical infrastructure industry"
under "shelter in place" orders.  All AFSA members are
asked to forward state specific letters to your
government contacts and post to social media and quickly
spread the message.CLICK HERE
to find
letter templates and contacts.

*AFSA is here to support you!*









___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org


http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org



--
Gary Stites
_805-769-GMAN_

RLH 
WWW.K25.Rocks 
Pandora Station 

Re: NFPA 13D

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Tom,

I did not see this post until today, so I apologize for the delayed 
response.  I'll share my thoughts on what you've observed.


No, there is nothing in NFPA 13D regarding hangers for sprinkler system 
piping not being allowed to be used for non-system components, as there 
is in -13.  As I read -13D the only mention of piping support is in §7.4 
and that defers to the listing limitations for listed piping, which is 
what is shown in the photo you shared.


I would find it difficult to believe that any of the CPVC manufacturers 
would have within their listings the use of their piping to support 
other trades.


I'm also concerned regarding the compatibility of the insulation wrapped 
around the ductwork with CPVC.  There was some good information provided 
not very long ago in a webinar from AFSA detailing the substantial list 
of materials that can negatively impact the structural strength of CPVC.


Also, as one of the others noted - I'm equally concerned over the 
proximity of the sprinkler to the diffuser.  I can't see the temperature 
rating of this sprinkler, however if it's ordinary it must be at least 
24" from the edge of the diffuser, and 12" if the sprinklers in 
intermediate temperature, neither of which seems likely.


Someone else mentioned the holes in the joists.  I'm not familiar with 
other than the California version of the building code, however 
§2308.4.2.4 does provide fairly clear criteria on allowing "notching and 
boring" of joist.  At first glance holes in joists are not permitted in 
the top or bottom 2" or more than 1/3 of the total depth.  I'm somewhat 
skeptical that either of the holes in the joists in your photograph meet 
these criteria.


just my thoughts,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 03/27/2020 2:17 PM, Tom Wellen via Sprinklerforum wrote:
Are all the respondents politicians? Politicians sidestep the original 
question, fail to answer, distract into another direction.


Regarding NFPA 13D, it's silent on sprinkler piping or hangers shall 
not be used to support non-system components. I'm looking for a 
confirmation that is a true statement.


Tom Wellen

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:07 PM Greg McGahan via Sprinklerforum 
> wrote:


What about the distance of the head to the deflector?

Respectfully,

Greg McGahan

**

*4187 Farrington Road*

*Milton, FL 32583*

*O- 850-637-8535*

*C- 850-712-9555*

*From: *Tom Wellen via Sprinklerforum

*Sent: *Friday, March 27, 2020 3:36 PM
*To: *sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

*Cc: *Tom Wellen 
*Subject: *NFPA 13D

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

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

Tom Wellen

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


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


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

Re: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

I've been away from the office all day for a medical issue and missed 
all the exchanges.


The mistaken position taken by many - AHJ's and Contractors alike - is 
that the two most commonly used materials for UG service of a fire 
sprinkler system are C900 PVC and Ductile Iron pipe.  Those two 
materials conform to the manufacturing standards listed in table 10.1.1 
of NFPA 13, which is a direct extract from NFPA 24.  The standard for 
C900 covers PVC pipe from 4" through 12" in size, and smaller PVC piping 
which meets that standard is not manufactured.  Ductile Iron pipe C151 
also is not manufactured in sizes smaller than 4".  Some have concluded 
that this indicates nothing smaller than 4".  Speaking only for myself 
that is definitely not the intent of the committee as others have noted.


To my knowledge, other than the limitations imposed by the manufacturing 
standards in that table, the only pipe size mandate in -24 is in 5.2.2 
of that document which identifies allowing pipe which does not supply a 
hydrant to be smaller than 6".  Part of this is that a hydrant bury 
elbow is manufactured with a 6" inlet.


For example, brass and copper piping are listed in the same table, and 
definitely manufactured to meet the applicable ASTM standards in sizes 
smaller than 4".  Further, CPVC is now listed for use in underground 
service supplying a fire sprinkler system, and is allowed by 10.1.1.2 
and 10.1.1.2.1.


As I am a principal member of the NFPA 24 committee (AUT-PRI), please 
see the disclaimer below.


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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation 
issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the 
personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the 
official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, 
this correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, 
to provide professional consultation or services


It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 
Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and their Appurtenances 
Committee in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee 
Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the 
official position of the NFPA or its Committees


***




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

Re: Compartment

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Bob,
I'm not sure if 2 ft² can be overlooked by your AHJ, however when I read 
your text the provisions of 8.15.8.1.1 came to mind that any bathroom > 
55 ft² require a sprinkler, except that smaller bathrooms require them 
if they are in a limited care facility or open directly on to a public 
corridor or exitway.


There are some construction material requirements for the bathroom 
omitted from sprinkler coverage, so take that into account.


sincerely,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 02/26/2020 11:33 AM, Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum wrote:


I have a hotel bathroom that is 57 sf.  It also has a full height 
shower wall with a door that is 30” wide.  The wall portion goes to 
the ceiling, but the door has a 20” opening above it.


NFPA 13 (16 ed.) defines compartments this way:

3.3.6  Compartment.   A space  completely enclosed  by  walls and a 
ceiling. Each wall in the compartment is permitted to


have openings to an adjoining space if the openings have a minimum 
lintel depth of 8 in. (200 mm) from the ceiling and


the total width of the openings in each wall does not exceed 8 ft (2.4 
m). A single opening of 36 in. (900 mm) or less in


width without a lintel is permitted when there are no other openings 
to adjoining spaces.


Based on this definition, does the bathroom door to the sleeping area 
qualify as “opening to adjoining spaces”, thereby requiring a 
sprinkler in the bathroom?


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III

Fire by Knight, LLC

208-318-3057

FBK-LOGO-EMAIL


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


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

Re: Misc. Storage

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

No desire for confrontation here either, Kyle.

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


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


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


sincerely,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
On 01/29/2020 9:30 AM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum wrote:


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


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


-Kyle M

*From:* Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of 
*Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:31 AM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Cc:* Brian Harris 
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: Misc. Storage

Ken-

Thank you sir, haven’t talked to you in a while. Much appreciate your 
insight and clarity as always.


If EH kicks in looks like (2) Risers….

*Brian Harris, CET*

BVS Systems Inc.

bvssytemsinc.com 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bvssystemsinc.com_=DwMFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=_i-3gtRgUe3C3_NF6JEVrRsp03qeNc1whW5ctjjD9go=Eehr8EULwOEFVj7mx_BUUA9FU4i6_xpQB4y6xdkenyc=>


*From:* Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> *On Behalf Of 
*Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:16 AM
*To:* Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
*Cc:* Parsley Consulting <mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net>>

*Subject:* Re: Misc. Storage

Brian,

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

  * Review the definition of miscellaneous storage in the paragraph
you quoted.  It sounds to me as though you've described a building
where the storage of 42,000 ft² *_is not_* "incidental" to other
use of the building, *_is not_* less than 4,000 ft² in area, and
*_is not_* less than 10% of the building area. It meets only one
of the criteria as miscellaneous storage - that it doesn't exceed
12' in height.
  * So, we're looking at rack storage of class I-IV commodities, to
12'-0" high.  In §16.2.1.2.1 the protection for those commodities,
stored up to and including 12'-0" "shall be the same as
miscellaneous storage from Chapter 13."  That does not mean that
it *_IS_* miscellaneous storage, simply that it is to be protected
per the criteria in chapter 13.  This is confirmed in §13.2.1(5)
which says Table 13.2.1 and Figure 13.2.1 shall apply to "storage
of class I through IV commodities up to 12' in height *_as
directed by_* 14.2.3.1 and *_16.2.1.2.1_*.
  * Sorry to disagree with your client, however in my read of table
13.2.1, I see that Class IV commodities stored in "rack storage"
below 10' can be protected by an OH2 density.  Once the storage
exceeds 10', but remains less than 12', the density jumps to EH1,
the ceiling height is limited to 32'.
  * I suggest you take a good long look at 5.6.1.2, in its entirety
for protection of mixed commodities.

Also, how are you intending to exceed the limit for a system 
protection storage of 40,000 ft² in 8.2.1, or EH?


hope that gives you some help,

*Ken Wagoner, SET
**Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit the website 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.parsleyconsulting.com_=DwMFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=_i-3gtRgUe3C3_NF6JEVrRsp03qeNc1whW5ctjjD9go=weMlHZR15R1XKbhcZZfI65UsJDt_5jUCOoknwGbXThU=> 
*


On 01/29/2020 7:44 AM, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum wrote:

Just want to confirm per the definition of Misc. Storage (3.9.1.18
NFPA 2013) that just because something is stored less than 12’
high doesn’t aut

Re: Misc. Storage

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Brian,

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

 * Review the definition of miscellaneous storage in the paragraph you
   quoted.  It sounds to me as though you've described a building where
   the storage of 42,000 ft² _*is not*_ "incidental" to other use of
   the building, _*is not*_ less than 4,000 ft² in area, and _*is not*_
   less than 10% of the building area.  It meets only one of the
   criteria as miscellaneous storage - that it doesn't exceed 12' in
   height.
 * So, we're looking at rack storage of class I-IV commodities, to
   12'-0" high. In §16.2.1.2.1 the protection for those commodities,
   stored up to and including 12'-0" "shall be the same as
   miscellaneous storage from Chapter 13."  That does not mean that it
   _*IS*_ miscellaneous storage, simply that it is to be protected per
   the criteria in chapter 13.  This is confirmed in §13.2.1(5) which
   says Table 13.2.1 and Figure 13.2.1 shall apply to "storage of class
   I through IV commodities up to 12' in height _*as directed by*_
   14.2.3.1 and _*16.2.1.2.1*_.
 * Sorry to disagree with your client, however in my read of table
   13.2.1, I see that Class IV commodities stored in "rack storage"
   below 10' can be protected by an OH2 density.  Once the storage
   exceeds 10', but remains less than 12', the density jumps to EH1,
   the ceiling height is limited to 32'.
 * I suggest you take a good long look at 5.6.1.2, in its entirety for
   protection of mixed commodities.

Also, how are you intending to exceed the limit for a system protection 
storage of 40,000 ft² in 8.2.1, or EH?


hope that gives you some help,

*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 01/29/2020 7:44 AM, Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum wrote:


Just want to confirm per the definition of Misc. Storage (3.9.1.18 
NFPA 2013) that just because something is stored less than 12’ high 
doesn’t automatically make it misc. storage. Working on a project that 
is 42,000 sq.ft. and the owner is storing Class I-IV commodities on 
double row racks. Says he was told as long as he doesn’t exceed 12’ 
high he only needs OH-2 protection at the ceiling…


*Brian Harris, CET*

BVS Systems Inc.

Design Manager

bvssystemsinc.com 

Phone: 704.896.9989

Fax: 704.896.1935


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


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

Re: Fire Pump NFPA 20

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Per the 2019 edition of NFPA 20:

   /4.7.1* Fire pumps shall be dedicated to and listed for fire
   protection service.
   /

The identical language was contained in the 2013 and 2016 editions.

It would be a good idea to be familiar with the term "listed" as defined 
in NFPA 20 [also 2019 edition]:


   /3.2.3* Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list
   published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority
   having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of products or
   services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed
   equipment or materials or periodic evaluation of services, and whose
   listing states that either the equipment, material, or service meets
   approprite designated standards or has been tested and found
   suitable //for a specified purpose/.

So, it appears the short answer is "yes."

sincerely,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 01/23/2020 9:55 AM, Luis Perea via Sprinklerforum wrote:


Hi Everyone

Does The Fire Pump needs to be UL to comply with NFPA 20?

Regards.

lpe...@demek.com

Base Firma RSE


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


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

Re: Fire Pump NFPA 20, part 2

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Apparently I missed the designation "UL" in your question, and thanks to 
Matt and Craig for providing clarity.


So, the answer is "listed", yes, "UL", not necessarily.

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

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

private reply

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Bob,

My thought is that it's asking for a way to evaluate the one variable 
which can't be changed - elevation gain or loss.


Just my opinion,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 01/09/2020 1:41 PM, Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum wrote:


From NFPA 13 (2013 ED), 23.1.3 (37) Relative  elevations  of  
sprinklers,  junction  points,  and supply or reference points.


This is probably an obvious question, but not to me.  What is this 
asking for?


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III

Fire by Knight, LLC

208-318-3057

FBK-LOGO-EMAIL


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


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

Re: Detached Garage

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Tagging on to the point Travis raised regarding the potential cost of a 
meter upsize.


There is a water purveyor in San Diego County which has established a 
_*minimum*_ meter size of 2" for a sprinkler system designed to NFPA 13, 
with the potential for even larger devices should the demand exceed the 
listed capacity of the 2" model.


The following are their published cost of the meter to their customers:

 * 1" $2,200
 * 1¼" $4,500
 * 1½" $8,000
 * 2" $22,000

So taking into consideration the increased minimum meter upsize cost the 
system has just been made $20K more expensive.


That's worth some discussion with the AHJ in my thinking.

*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 12/06/2019 3:25 AM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum wrote:

Owen:

Weren’t you the one complaining that a couple hundred dollar flow test 
was causing significant problems.


Now you want to make a detached garage in a 13D system to have NFPA 13 
densities. Wouldn’t that require a full flow test there?


That meter upsize is likely far more expensive than the flow test.

13D is about making the systems cost effective to get them into homes 
with less resistance.


Pure 13D says no sprinklers in the garage when it is attached. By 
making it detached, there would be a more solid argument for not 
putting sprinklers in it.


To the original question: If you have to protect the detached garage, 
I would follow the requirements of 13D as modified by the local fire 
code when applicable.


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271 x700
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2019, at 11:29 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:



Owen:

 1.  Because it could trigger a meter up-size that might cost
$$thousands.
 2.  Because there's no statistical substantiation for
over-protecting a freestanding garage with dead attic space
above,   If it was a dwelling unit above it would be a .05, so
why would a "basic" garage require more?   According to NFPA,
fewer than 3% of home fires started in the garage, nearly all of
those from hot work.
 3. Because it's not required by the code and referenced standards.
 4. The reason it's not required is that the intent of home fire
sprinkler protection is life-safety and not property protection.

Now, if you're willing to subsidize the cost impact of a higher 
density, I'm sure both the contractor and owner of the subject 
property would love to hear from you.  But why stop there - if you 
look at it as a detached parking structure, the correct density is .15.


Steve L.


*From:* Sprinklerforum 
 on behalf of 
firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 

*Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2019 9:02 PM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 


*Cc:* firs...@aol.com 
*Subject:* Re: Detached Garage
The thinking being why not spend a few extra bucks and protect the 
structure and contents with greater density. Makes no sense to buy 
time for escape with .05.


Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:



This issue was not clearly defined in the current 2016 California 
code set but if you look to the 2019, there is new material that 
very clearly states that this would be per 13D.  Utility occupancies 
that are accessory to an SFD are to be protected by that standard.




Steve Leyton

(Sent from my phone; please excuse typos and voice text corruptions.)




 Original message 
From: Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum 


Date: 12/5/19 7:10 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: Detached Garage

I’m a little rusty on my 13D.

I have a residence with a detached 3 car garage with a non-storage 
attic above about 860 sqft. If I’m to provide protect the structure 
would it still fall under 13d?


Jerry Van Kolken

/_Millennium Fire Protection Corp._/

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730

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

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


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


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Trouble getting Architects to give Revit files

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Permit me to endorse and support Steve's comment I've highlighted below.

In the course of doing 3rd party plan review for various AHJ's in San 
Diego county I've seen numerous sets of plans as prepared by the staff 
at Protection Design.  As a result I've become familiar with the style 
and methods they use in layout and preparation of details.


And to my surprise a set of plans was submitted for review by another 
firm and extensively used the details from PD  I didn't bring this to 
Steve's attention until I had some significant issues with some of the 
details which hadn't been updated for the particular project they were 
ostensibly supporting.  Specifically, I've come to recognize the format 
PD uses to prepare a standpipe drawing, providing any number of items 
of significant information - floor clamps, flexible couplings (we're in 
seismic country), hose valve elevation above the finished floor, 
hydraulic reference points, and a great number of other bits of information.


To my shock in reviewing the project I mentioned I saw a six story 
standpipe detail for a two-story building.  I phoned Steve to ask - uh, 
what gives?  Only to find that another contractor had deviously acquired 
their details and included them on this drawing without bothering to 
update them.


One of my most jaw-clenching irritants in doing plan review is the 
(admittedly) time saving capability of CAD to allow details to be used 
again and again except the details require modification from project to 
project. There is very little more to say when reading a note in a 
detail that says the install is to conform to XX AHJ's requirements, 
only to observe that the project is not in that jurisdiction, the pipe 
sizes and materials are different, and the reference points don't match 
the supporting calculations.


Add into that the pirating of someone else's work as Steve noted below 
and it's clear there is much to be careful about in working with CAD, 
Revit, BIM and the like.


finished expounding for the day,

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

On 12/04/2019 10:40 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum wrote:


We’ve been designing in Revit (not designing in CAD and then crafting 
a piping model to plug into the Architect’s building model, but 
designing soup-to-nuts in Revit) since 2014.    Over the course of 
that time, since we were into that space before any substantive 
content was available from manufacturers or the so-called BIM cities, 
we have developed nearly all of the families that we use and the 
methodologies we employ whilst designing on this platform.    So I 
would say (as humbly as I’m capable of) that our firm is as 
knowledgeable as any in the fire protection community regarding “best 
practices” when it comes to the construction team handoff. To date, we 
have only been asked a couple times for our model by a contractor and 
we have responded affirmatively. *But we have also dumbed down the 
model because our experience with the contracting community of the 
years has been that our intellectual property will be copied and used 
by unscrupulous contractors and I’m not speculating about that; I’ve 
written at least a half-dozen cease-and-desist letters to sprinkler 
subs caught using our stuff.* We’ve spent literally thousands of hours 
and dozens of thousands of dollars to position ourselves as THE go-to 
resource for Revit-based fire protection design in the markets we 
serve and have accomplished that that, so I’ll be damned if I’m going 
to (knowingly) serve as a free content resource for others.






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

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Owen,

Let me offer a couple of thoughts here.

First, please be aware that that figure of 26 gpm for two sprinklers 
flowing makes a couple of dubious assumptions.  If the layout used 
horizontal sidewall sprinklers and covered an area 14' wide with a throw 
of 26', the required flow is 42 gpm each.  If two such sprinklers were 
in a compartment the flow is at least 84 gpm which is more than three 
times the value of 26 gpm.  And, should those HSW's be placed in a 
compartment with a sloped and beamed ceiling with the sprinklers in each 
pocket formed by the beams, and that compartment exceeded 600 ft² the 
AHJ may have a mandate that in such situations a three sprinkler flowing 
calculation is required, or perhaps a greater flow.  The calculations 
could easily require more than 120 gpm.


I agree that these demands are likely to be quite low on the supply 
curve available from the water purveyor.


My suggestion would be that you follow the guidance of Steve Leyton with 
the following additional thoughts.  Contact the AHJ and bring this 
matter to their attention.  Remind them of the provision of §10.1.2 of 
NFPA 13D which notes that if the water supply is from a public or 
private main of 4" or greater diameter that the static pressure shall be 
permitted to be used in preparing the hydraulic calculations.  Make the 
AHJ aware of the decision of the water purveyor to ignore this section, 
which by the way is the law in California.


Such an arbitrary decision by a water purveyor does indeed place a 
greater cost impact on the owner/builder and the AHJ should be made 
aware of that.


sincerely.
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 11/19/2019 4:45 AM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum wrote:

Bruce,
13D allows calculations to be developed from static pressure only when the 
system is being supplied from a reliable water supply like a municipal system. 
Because the demand of a 13D system is so minimal (26 gpm, two heads flowing) a 
water supply curve developed from a flow test (static, residual, and flow) is 
not required. The water company charges $600 to perform a flow test. Our 
forefathers developed the 13D standard to be a minimal system to keep the cost 
down to reduce the resistance from developers and municipalities. A flow test 
for a 13D system is monumental waist of time and money. But try and explain 
that to the new inspector (who has all the power yet very little knowledge and 
training) who is just passing through on the promotional track. Very 
frustrating.

Sent from my iPhone


On Nov 18, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well.




On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting for 
it to get done.

We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different positions 
come and go. Since 1991, up until now, the procedure was the water purveyor 
provided the static pressure at the proposed job site. This was the third party 
verification for the development of the calculations by the installing 
contractor.

Sent from my iPhone


On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

Do you have to perform the test or do they do it?

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPhone


On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:57 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

Need advice on the best way  to fight a non required requirement.
Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to require a 
full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler systems at a cost of 
$600 each. The vast majority of water mains that run down residential streets 
are 6”. There are a few 4” and that’s the smallest. Who on Gods green earth 
thinks that two residential heads flowing could over-run the municipal water 
supply, therefore, a flow test is required to develop supply curve, really?
Am I missing something or is this requirement BS and nothing but a money grab?
Owen Evans

Sent from my iPhone
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwIGaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=iTziAtPF_lY685hJJ1vizDq1HKIibaCtX8p-L4yPSn0=RhKF9rf4aehsyLX_SomSwPubAxSKV3Vg9T4eFISBSDw=

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

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

Re: 13D CAD and Calc Program

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

I have to agree with the others Owen.  Those programs which are 
integrated provide so much more flexibility and functionality than due 
two separate stand-alone programs.


There are two caveats here however.

The first is noting your criteria that the solution be "simple and 
inexpensive if possible."  If you're considering a substantial amount of 
production it's wise to remember "you get what you pay for."  Purchasing 
software to do what you want can be quite difficult it the cost is the 
most important factor.  I would much rather spend a little more money up 
front and end up with software that does exactly what I want it to do or 
as close to that as possible.  To purchase a limited system that has to 
be tailored to your needs could create more difficulty that it solves.


The second concern is the oldest rule in data processing - garbage in = 
garbage out.  If the data input is cumbersome, or challenging, or 
confusing then you should take into consideration how confident you're 
going to be that the results are going to be as accurate as you need.


If all you're doing is layout of 13D systems and supporting them with 
hydraulic calculations I would suggest continuing to do the layout as 
you have, and develop your own spreadsheets to do the hydraulics.


sincerely,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 11/08/2019 6:50 AM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum wrote:
Yeah. I would say autosprink as well. But as he said low cost, plain 
cad and a spreadsheet is about as cheap as you can get. Unless draw by 
hand and a calculator for Calcs.


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
480-505-9271
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign,com
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 8, 2019, at 7:34 AM, Tim Stone via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:




Owen,

I have used most of the Sprinkler cad programs available and my only 
suggestion is AutoSPRINK. I have been using this package since 2006 
and while not inexpensive I feel it is the best. Active live 
Hydraulics are the best!


Regards,

*G. Tim Stone*

*/G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC/*

*NICET Level III Engineering Technician*

*Fire Protection Sprinkler Design*

*and Consulting Services*

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

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

tston...@comcast.net 

*From:* Sprinklerforum 
 *On Behalf Of 
*firstin--- via Sprinklerforum

*Sent:* Friday, November 8, 2019 8:07 AM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Cc:* firs...@aol.com
*Subject:* 13D CAD and Calc Program

Hello all,

I've been drawing 13D systems by hand on reflective ceiling plans for 
years. I'm now looking for recommendations for a CAD program for 13D 
systems, something simple and inexpensive if possible.


I've been using Hydronics to run the calculations. There is a problem 
with this program when trying to plug in a pump. I would like to know 
who is using what as far a as calculation program. Any 
recommendations on computer drawing and calculation programs.


Thanks all!

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPhone

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


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


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

Re: Through Bolt in Timber

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Bob,

You're certainly welcome, and that is pretty much what most contractors 
do when they submit plans.


Regarding concrete. In the cycle for the 2016 edition the application of 
the prying factor for anchors in concrete moved from annex material, and 
thus advisory, to the body of the standard, and therefore mandatory.  
While the calculations to determine the prying factor for various 
hardware components are not complicated the limiting item was the 
reluctance on the part of the manufacturers to provide the exact 
dimensions for their hardware which were needed to compute that value.


In order to avoid a nightmare the committee created a task group who 
took various manufacturers data, computed the prying factor, and applied 
that to various post-installed anchors in various concrete 
configurations, and published the results.  The result was the extensive 
tables you see in the '16 and '19 editions of -13.


Having said that I must observe that there are several manufacturers of 
seismic bracing hardware who have published values for their products, 
combined with specific anchor manufacturers, and those maximum load 
numbers are at times much higher than those in -13.  I have encouraged 
every submitter who asked about this to consult their manufacturer to 
get their limiting values, and use that documentation when submitting 
plans and seismic calculations.   And, I note with some delight that 
several online seismic brace calculation programs take the data from the 
specific manufacturer into account.


As I am a member of the hanging and bracing committee please see the 
disclaimer below.


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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation 
issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the 
personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the 
official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, 
this correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, 
to provide professional consultation or services


It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 
Automatic Sprinkler System Hanging and Bracing Committee in accordance 
with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should 
therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position 
of the NFPA or its Committees

***


On 11/04/2019 4:06 PM, Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum wrote:


Thanks Ken. What you have described is what I have always done.  Just 
seems like there’s a gap here.  There’s table after table for concrete 
but not for wood.  I guess concrete rules in the seismic world.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III

Fire by Knight, LLC

208-318-3057




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

Re: Through Bolt in Timber

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Bob,

I can only give you my thoughts. From what I understood in some of the 
committee meetings the maximum load weights shown in table 9.3.5.12.2(h) 
were based on the diameter of the bolt, and the length of that bolt in 
the timber, which had been tested.


Several times I've run across designers who've used a 5½" length in the 
timber for a ½" diameter bolt, and limited the weight to the value shown 
for 3½" in the timber, as they did not have any testing to support a 
greater capacity.z


You're of course welcome to get a registered PE to sign off on a greater 
maximum load, if they have done the calculations to support that greater 
capacity, as is permitted by §9.3.5.12.7. Barring that I would suggest 
limiting the maximum load to the values in the table.


As I am a member of the hanging and bracing committee, please see the 
disclaimer below.


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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation 
issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the 
personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the 
official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, 
this correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, 
to provide professional consultation or services


It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 
Automatic Sprinkler System Hanging and Bracing Committee in accordance 
with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should 
therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position 
of the NFPA or its Committees




***
On 11/04/2019 3:07 PM, Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum wrote:


Since NFPA 13 requires me to use a through bolt in timber for sway 
bracing, what weight should I use? The chart stops at 3-1/2” for ½” 
and 5-1/2 for the others.


Do I use the weight for 3-1/2” even when I have a 8-3/4” beam?

Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III

Fire by Knight, LLC

208-318-3057

FBK-LOGO-EMAIL


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


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

Re: 13D GPM to use?

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Ask the correct question, Owen.

Is the "compartment" one with a beamed ceiling with sprinklers at the 
bottom of the beams, or beamed and sloped with sprinklers at the bottom 
of the beams, or in the pockets?  And, if any of the above are true is 
the compartment of greater than 600 ft²?


It just may be that the AHJ is viewing the parameters of 10.2.1 (1)-(5), 
as well as 10.2.4 and the advisory in A.10.2.4 suggesting that for those 
conditions which don't meet 10.2.1 and 10.2.3, that "a greater number of 
design sprinklers and/or higher discharge flows should be considered in 
the system design."


This may be the AHJ's answer to the conditions noted above.

sincerely,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 11/01/2019 1:11 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum wrote:

I have an AHJ who wanted a 4 head calculation on a 13D system. The heads being 
used flow 13 gpm. 13 x 4 + 5 domestic = 57 gpm.

After running the calculations, the calculations indicate that head 1 is 
flowing 13 gpm, head 2 flowing 13.2 gpm, head 3 flowing 14 gpm, and head 4 
flowing 15.6 gpm, plus 5 gpm domestic, for a total of 60.8 gpm flowing.

The AHJ wants that gpm used to obtain friction loss through the water meter and 
BFP. I mean, that sounds legit, but is it?  And if so, why wouldn’t he require 
the friction loss through all the pipes and fittings using that gpm?

Scratching my head.

Owen Evans


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


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

Re: Fire Alarm plan checklist

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

The most I've seen is from A.3.3.251:

   /Shop Drawings. Shop drawings typically include the property
   location, scaled//floor plans, equipment wiring details, typical
   equipment installation details, riser details, conduit///conductor
   size, and routing information needed to install a fire alarm and/or
   signaling//system./

and in item (3) of A.7.2.1:

   /(3) Floor plan layout showing locations of all devices, control
   equipment, and supervising station and shared communications
   equipment with each sheet showing the following:
   /

   /(a) Point of compass (north arrow)//
   //(b) A graphic representation of the scale used//
   //(c) Room use identification//
   //(d) Building features that will affect the placement of
   initiating devices and notification appliances/

See also 7.4.5, and 7.4.6:/
/

   /7.4.5 Floor plan drawings shall be drawn to an indicated scale and
   shall include the following information, where applicable for the
   particular system:
   /

   /(1) Floor or level identification
   (2) Point of compass (indication of North)
   (3) Graphic scale
   (4) All walls and doors
   (5) All partitions extending to within 15 percent of the ceiling
   height (where applicable and when known)
   (6) Room and area descriptions
   (7) System devices/component locations
   (8) Locations of fire alarm primary power disconnecting means
   (9) Locations of monitor/control interfaces to other systems
   (10) System riser locations
   (11) Type and number of system components/devices on each
   circuit, on each floor or level
   (12) Type and quantity of conductors and conduit (if used) for
   each circuit
   (13) Identification of any ceiling over 10 ft (3.0 m) in height
   where automatic fire detection is being proposed
   (14) Details of ceiling geometries, including beams and solid
   joists, where automatic fire detection is being proposed
   (15) Where known, acoustic properties of spaces
   /

   /7.4.6 System riser diagrams shall be coordinated with the floor
   plans and shall include the following information:
   /

   /(1) General arrangement of the system in building cross-section
   (2) Number of risers
   (3) Type and number of circuits in each riser
   (4) Type and number of system components/devices on each
   circuit, on each floor or level
   (5) Number of conductors for each circuit
   /

That is all from the 2016 edition of -72.
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website 

***
On 10/23/2019 10:10 AM, John Irwin via Sprinklerforum wrote:


We have chapter 23 in NFPA 13 that gives us our checklist of what 
needs to be included in our shop drawings.


Is there are similar check list for fire alarms? I don’t see anything 
in NFPA 72


John Irwin


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


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

Re: Pump? Or Pump & Tank?

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

And to add on to what Steve noted - there are always four considerations 
- at least - when protecting storage.  The ones I use:


1. What is being stored?
 * If it's plastic, is it in cartons or exposed?

2. How is it being stored? Racks? (single, double, multiple?) Pallets? 
   Shelf?
 *   Is it encapsulated? Not really an issue when protecting
   plastics however.

3. How high is the intended/possible storage?
4. How high is the ceiling above the top of the storage?

There are any number of other considerations such as roof slope.  Until 
you have all that data any approach in protecting storage is incomplete.


Also, I looked into chapter 17 for storage of plastics up to 25' in 
racks, and I didn't find one which had a remote area of 2,500 ft² and a 
density of 0.45.  Where did you come up with 0.45/2500?


*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 09/12/2019 8:12 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum wrote:


Do you know how to do a flow rate projection from a two point flow 
test? I figure that with overflow your .45/2500 will require 1250 GPM 
+ 500 GPM hose, yes?   At 1750 GPM your flow test projects to a 
residual pressure of 22-23 PSI, so you don’t need a tank but you do 
need a pump.


Steve L.

*From:*Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of 
*Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum

*Sent:* Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:08 AM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Cc:* Brian Harris
*Subject:* Pump? Or Pump & Tank?

An insurance adjuster is telling a local packaging plant they need to 
update their current sprinkler system to meet the higher demands of 
product they are now storing. Adjuster is classifying everything as 
Unexpanded Group A plastics, on racks, max 25’ storage, max 30’ 
ceilings. One option allows .45/2500 + 500 hose using 11.2K heads. 
Running some quick numbers I’m around 1850 GPM @ 65 PSI. The latest 
flow test is only 84 Static, 60 Residual @ 1010 GPM. They’ve been told 
their gonna need a pump, I’m thinking they need more water as well. 
Thoughts?


*Brian Harris, CET*

BVS Systems Inc.

Design Manager

bvssystemsinc.com 

Phone: 704.896.9989

Fax: 704.896.1935


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


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

Private reply

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Maybe we could hire a bunch of homeless people to run through a building 
and flush all the toilets at the same time.  Sort of a man made undertow?


Just thinking...
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 09/10/2019 12:51 PM, Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum wrote:
I think it is worth pointing out that the way our table reads in 13R, 
and the way that the plumbing code sizes piping, uses fixture units to 
convert to flow, which do not convert linearly. For example, if we had 
a building with 100 fixture units, we would plug in a domestic demand 
of 45 GPM and for a building with 1000 fixture units we would plug in 
a domestic demand of 200 GPM (NOT 450 GPM). I believe this is done to 
account for the fact that not all of the domestic fixtures are running 
at once.


Back to the original question, here's what I would do (for what it is 
worth).  Figure the domestic demand using the table for the new 
building and add it at the point of connection. Then add together the 
fixture units for both buildings, find the GPM value in the table, 
then deduct the GPM that I already added for the new building. I would 
plug that GPM in for domestic demand for the existing building at the 
point of connection.


When multiple buildings are connected to the same, small, dead end 
main, there can be a very real pressure drop due to domestic water 
usage (that's why we go through this excersize in the first place). 
It's good to remember that this isn't all theoretical. If something 
were to happen, I wouldn't want it on my conscience that I 
purposefully didn't account for something that I knew could be a real 
issue. If the water main is too small, then the water main is too small.


Also, I think it is worth mentioning that this may lead to a situation 
we see all of the time with RPZ backflow preventers. When the pressure 
fluctuates on the inlet side of the RPZ (in this case because of the 
domestic demand), the relief will spray/dump and you will have a very 
angry owner with water everywhere. If you are using a RPZ, put a check 
valve in before the backflow to prevent this from ever happening. It 
is likely that no one will know the disaster that would have been, 
except you. If the backflow is a double check, this is not an issue.



Skyler Bilbo
Wente Plumbing and Fire Protection
1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct
217-347-7315 Fax



On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 12:37 PM Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum 
> wrote:


Steve

Codes cannot cover 100% of the exact situations that we will
encounter in the real world. I submitted this proposal because we
had Engineers and AHJ’s requiring domestic demand being added for
all buildings attached to a site main.

What is the likelihood of all the fixtures being used
simultaneously during a fire event? What is the impact of not
calculating that other building? 2-3 PSI? So we have a .047
Density verses a .05? Being 13R we are probably calculating a 4
sprinkler design whereas the UL 1626 test is 2 sprinklers? The
first operating sprinkler opens with the full available pressure
verses the listing? I think we are picking the fly $h!t out of the
pepper here……

Just my opinion as a member of the Residential Committee and not
that of the NFPA.

Pete

Peter Schwab

VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.

222 Capitol Court

Ocoee, Fl 34761

*Mobile: (407) 468-8248*

Direct: (407) 877-5570

Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com 

cid:image001.png@01D06169.38DEA4C0

WAYNE_40thAnniversary (1)

*/I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you? /*

*From:*Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2019 11:14 AM
*To:* Pete Schwab mailto:pe...@waynefire.com>>;
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

*Cc:* J H mailto:design.azfire...@gmail.com>>
*Subject:* RE: 13R Fixture Units for Multiple Buildings

Hey Pete:

I do not recall the discussion specifically, but our intent was to
not have to put in an 8” main because of the plumbing unit values
in 13R and what the non-fire allowance would look like if you have
30 buildings on site using a common water supply. The point of
adding domestic allowance is to pad the water supply for non-fire
uses.  It is counterintuitive to ignore the potential concurrent
domestic and irrigation flows that could impact the fire sprinkler
system water supply and in this case we should consider intent,
which is to assure that the portion of the site piping that serves
both buildings can accommodate all fire and non-fire flows.  In

Re: N 1.85 graph

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

David,

I'm delighted I waited to answer him.  You're entirely correct, and that 
is exactly what I was going to say.


Have a great weekend my friend,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 08/30/2019 1:01 PM, David Blackwell via Sprinklerforum wrote:


Try this…from a quick Google of “logarithmic graph excel”:

Decide which axis you would like to make logarithmic: a logarithmic 
graph makes both axes logarithmic, while a semi-log graph makes only 
one of the axes logarithmic.


Double-click that axis. Click on the "Scale" tab, then check the box 
corresponding to "Logarithmic Scale." Your graph will now become 
semi-logarithmic.


*Respectfully,*

**

*/David Blackwell /*

**

*David Blackwell, P.E.*

*Chief Engineer*

(803)896-9833

*Office of State Fire Marshal*

141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203

http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/

(803)896-9800

/"Our firefighting starts with plan review..."/

*From:* Sprinklerforum 
 *On Behalf Of *Jerry 
Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum

*Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2019 3:43 PM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Cc:* jvankol...@mfpc.us
*Subject:* RE: N 1.85 graph

 SCDLLR NOTICE ***

*

*·**  This email is from an external email address. Please use caution 
when deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links. *


*·**  Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included 
in e-mail text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.*


I’d be curious to know if anyone knows how to build this in excel? I 
‘ve built the flow test but the graph is a regular curve.


Jerry Van Kolken

/_Millennium Fire Protection Corp._/

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730


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


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

Re: Can a Branchline cross the main when Bracing

[Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum]

Jerry,

I have to admit I'm a bit confused. Why are you longitudinally bracing 
branch lines?  That certainly isn't required by NFPA 13.  Per §9.3.5.6.1 
of the '16 edition, longitudinal bracing is only required for feed and 
cross mains.


As I am a member of the hanging and bracing committee, please see the 
disclaimer below.


sincerely,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website 
**
*
*IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation 
issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the 
personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the 
official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, 
this correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, 
to provide professional consultation or services**

**
**It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the 
NFPA Automatic Sprinkler System Hanging and Bracing Committee in 
accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and 
should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official 
position of the NFPA or its Committees*
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org