RE: 2'x4' Light Obstruction
A 2' x 4' light fixture is only 2' wide, so there is no need for protection beneath. Although one dimension is 4', it is not 4' in its least dimension (width). Consider that there are probably conduits, pipes, and even the grid for the ceiling that are over 4' long, but you do not sprinkler below them for the same reason (the are under 4' wide). Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Medina Jr Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 3:13 PM To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Subject: 2'x4' Light Obstruction I have a situation where I have an open ceiling tiled hallway and there are 2' x 4' light fixtures. According to NFPA-13 (2007) Sec. 8.6.5.3.3 it seems I need Coverage under a 4' wide fixed obstruction. My sprinklers are 5' above the lights. Do they need to have ceiling tiles in place around it or is there a solution I am missing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. George Medina Jr. 323-236-1640 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Accidental Fusing
Brad, Are you a lawyer? Paul From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of Brad Sent: Fri 2/5/2010 1:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Accidental Fusing Do any contractors have experience with heads fusing 'accidentally'? Did a lawsuit result? I would appreciate your thoughts on this specific scenario: -Attic Dry System in service, 33 PSI air -early July-- Kansas -1 head out of many fused (at ridge) -1/2, 212F, Standard Response, Reliable Link Type -Soffit vents around perimeter (ventilated) -no mechanical damage to head -fused parts (at least the link) was not found in debris Thank you very much, Brad ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: standpipe for attic?
Per section 1509.2 of the 2006 IBC, a penthouse or rooftop enclosure can be up to 1/3 of the area of the roof. Over that and it is a floor. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: standpipe for attic? Same sort of question could be asked of a Mechanical penthouse How big does it have to be before it's a floor, and not just a box set on the roof? Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: standpipe for attic? Normally an attic is not considered a story, but it could be. If it is not a story and if there is no stair access to the space, there may not be a need to provide a standpipe connection for this area. However, IBC Section 1209.3 does provide for access to concealed spaces such as attics. My assumption would be that a standpipe connection from the floor below would be the source of protection for the attic above if access openings are provided. IBC 905.4, subpar 6 would be the trigger to install additional outlets on the floor below if the access openings are not sufficient. Perhaps John Drucker could add the correct interpretation if I have led in the wrong direction. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: standpipe for attic? I am working on a building where part of the 3rd floor is occupied (center core) and the rest (wings and area over core) is unoccupied attic. The building is fully sprinklered, including the attic. Does the standpipe coverage have to reach the remote part of the attic spaces or just the occupied part? Couldn't find anything in 14. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Chance to Make a Difference in Military Standards
Bill, What section prohibits the placement of risers on exterior walls? Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Chance to Make a Difference in Military Standards I'd suggest a review of the ATFP requirements and the prohibition of riser placement next to an exterior wall. When is it permitted to place a riser adjacent to an exterior wall, and what type wall construction would permit this? Does adequate standoff distance provide an exception to this requirement? Does this mean a standpipe riser cannot be placed in a stairwell since a stairwell always has an exterior wall? If the exterior wall is not suitable construction, how far inside the building must the riser be located? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Kowkabany Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Chance to Make a Difference in Military Standards Guys and Gals, After our discussion on this forum a couple weeks ago, our local SFPE chapter is setting up a symposium to discuss the military design standards and how they can be improved. There will be ranking military representation at this meeting and Navy FPE's who really care about the process and improving it. We are also bringing our local FPE's who do a large volume of military work and some excellent local contractors to this meeting, which will take place two weeks from today. My question to you is - how do you think the UFC codes, ETL's, and other military design standards be improved specifically? What types of things could be added or deleted to add more value to our governmental projects, reduce wasteful spending, and maintain or improve the level of fire protection in these facilities. Here are some things I intend to table for starters: 1) 3,000 sqft design area - reduce this to commercial or FM standards to save money. There is no data I am aware of that shows that doubling the remote areas in NFPA 13 provide better fire protection. 2) 12 psi mandatory backflow preventer pressure drop regardless of type - why force this when most installations are double-checks and this can often result in the need for a fire pump which in turn, is less reliable of a system and more expensive. 3) Doubled hose allowances - What data backs up this requirement and why not go with what works for the commercial world, FD operations on base seem similar to civilian operations and requirements for most buildings. Any thoughts you may have would be greatly appreciated and would love some input from this highly knowledgeable group. Plus you will be doing a service for your country and there is a good chance that some positive change will come of this. We intend to write a position paper based on the results and to collaborate closely with the military. Thank you very much in advance, Steve Kowkabany, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Neptune Fire Protection Engineering LLC 60 Ocean Boulevard, Suite 15 Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 904-652-4200 Phone 904-212-0868 Fax We have moved. Please note our new address. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Virginia Zero Sq. Ft. policy? yes or no
Virginia adopts the IBC with some amendments, but there is no zero sq. ft. policy. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Virginia Zero Sq. Ft. policy? yes or no Can anyone from Virginia tell me if the State has a zero sq. ft policy for sprinklers? We have a large F-2 mfg. area which doesn't require sprinklers based on the IBC. Building is around 200 ft in height in places, single story with working mezzanines inside with some misc. office spaces located throughout. Trying to make sure there are no surprises. Thanks, Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 craig.pr...@ch2m.com http://www.ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Hydrant Flow test results
Any single-hydrant test is questionable to begin with, but if two tests are done they should yield identical graphs. Pitot pressures of less than 10 psi are generally unacceptable. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lindner Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:25 PM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Hydrant Flow test results Have a question regarding hydrant flow tests. We have received a report where the contractor flow a single 2 1/2 outlet and gave us static, residual, pitot and calculated flow. He then performed another test using the 4 1/2 outlet on the hydrant, again giving us values. Plotting the graph, is there supposed to be a correlation between the testing of the 2 1/2 versus the 4 1/2 or are they supposed to be used separately. For example, when graphing the 2 1/2 outlet, the 4 1/2 outlet info should be hitting this line or not?? Also, is a pitot reading of a range of 4 to say 8 on a 4 1/2 outlet valid data? We're not sure how to use this info. Richard ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: UAE, Saudi, Codes and standards and component certifications
We often hire a local architect to assist in code evaluations to ensure local-code compliance. I do have the fire code of Taiwan if anyone speaks Mandarin. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: UAE, Saudi, Codes and standards and component certifications Do not assume any U.S. standards are the most stringent. I have seen authorities ask for 1) sprinklers in concealed spaces because of minor amounts of combustibles, 2) clean agent systems in electronic areas just because there is an NFPA standard for these systems, 3) standpipes in single story buildings because there is an NFPA standard, 4) smoke detection systems above and below ceilings in fully sprinklered buildings, 5) prohibit a sprinkler head from being placed on anything other than a branch line (a previous discussion we had - the forum response was generally that's nuts, why would anyone misinterpret NFPA 13 that way). If possible, it is good policy to separate yourself from any compliance with host country codes and standards. If you are a sub to a sub to a sub, like most of us are, see that the guy at the top of the food chain hires a host country entity to determine your scope and the standards you will follow, including the local interpretations. 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: UAE, Saudi, Codes and standards and component certifications From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com Date: Mon, May 11, 2009 12:05 pm To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org I know we have a few international participants here and I need to know if someone can assist in telling me what Codes are used for fire protection in the above mentioned areas. Also, we use Underwriters Laboratories (U.L.) here as our testing agency which NFPA indirectly references and I'm wondering what is the equivalent over there. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 craig.pr...@ch2m.com http://www.ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Branch line insulation
Insulation on a pipe with non-flowing water is pointless (except for temporary exposures to low temperatures). Insulation can only slow the transmission of heat from the pipe, it does nothing to produce heat. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Russell Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:34 PM To: AFSA Subject: Branch line insulation NFPA13 2007. Is 8.16.4.1.2 telling me that (steel) branch lines cannot be insulated (insulation only)? Also is it telling me that only small areas can be heat traced? We have always used dry or anti-freeze systems so I'm not up to date on this. Russell Rewis Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc. 107C Hemlock Street Valdosta, Georgia 31601 229-244-8130 russ...@brownautomatic.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Walk-in cooler
What you have described is a room, and just like every other room in a sprinkered building it must also be sprinklered. That fact that it is cold in there is irrelevant. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Walk-in cooler Generally the industry practice (from what I know) is to provide sprinklers in walk-in coolers and freezers. The cooler I am looking at is a beer cooler approx. 30 feet long, 10 feet deep and 7 feet high. It is full with shelves, and no one could walk-in. Would it have to be sprinklered? Anyone has come across a similar situation or have any opinions? Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Possible IBC question
It depends upon the distance between buildings and the percent of open wall space under the roof. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Possible IBC question I am looking for some code help. According to NFPA 13 8.2.4 you can have separate buildings that share a common roof, walls or passageway be protected by one riser. Does anyone know if the IBC contradicts this? I have an architect telling me I have to have a separate riser for each section of building. They claim that I can have the risers in the same room but that each building section must have a separate riser. Karen Purvis Senior Designer Facility Systems Consultants 713 South Central Street, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Possible IBC question
If they are actually separated by fire walls, and not just fire-rated walls, then they are separate buildings per the IBC. But, yes, you can use one riser to feed both buildings provided that you protect the connecting pipe from freezing temperatures and you do not exceed the maximum allowable area for the system. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Possible IBC question The buildings are actually just additions to an existing building and they are separated by two adjacent fire walls. Karen Purvis Senior Designer Facility Systems Consultants 713 South Central Street, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Possible IBC question It depends upon the distance between buildings and the percent of open wall space under the roof. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Possible IBC question I am looking for some code help. According to NFPA 13 8.2.4 you can have separate buildings that share a common roof, walls or passageway be protected by one riser. Does anyone know if the IBC contradicts this? I have an architect telling me I have to have a separate riser for each section of building. They claim that I can have the risers in the same room but that each building section must have a separate riser. Karen Purvis Senior Designer Facility Systems Consultants 713 South Central Street, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Possible IBC question
One last thing to keep in mind is that some water companies demand separate services if they are considered separate buildings; that supersedes the requirements of NFPA 13. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Possible IBC question I would add to everyone else's replies that it is NOT the intent of NFPA 13 to require separate systems in this situation, whether or not the structure is considered to be divided into separate buildings, or just separate fire areas or occupancies - see 8.2.4, 2007 ed. And thanks again to whoever turned me onto that - saved us a lot of bitchin' and pissin' with the AHJ on that particular project. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Possible IBC question I am looking for some code help. According to NFPA 13 8.2.4 you can have separate buildings that share a common roof, walls or passageway be protected by one riser. Does anyone know if the IBC contradicts this? I have an architect telling me I have to have a separate riser for each section of building. They claim that I can have the risers in the same room but that each building section must have a separate riser. Karen Purvis Senior Designer Facility Systems Consultants 713 South Central Street, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3954 (20090323) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3954 (20090323) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pipe Labeling
On F-Troop, FIRE WATER was a beverage. :) Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe Labeling That's how I read it also. If your arch buddy wants flow arrows, pipe ID markers (FIRE WATER- DO NOT DRINK), that's not required by 13. So if he/she wants them, it should be a change order. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum- boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 11:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe Labeling I read that to mean the identification label put on by the manufacturer not the flashy little flow stickers such? Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe Labeling Check out section 6.3.8, though the architect's definition of 'Labeled' may mean something different. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO Forum, I just wanted to double check myself before I put my foot in my mouth, I'm working on a school and the spec says that pipe is to be labeled per NFPA-13 (2002). I don't remember seeing anything in NFPA that talks about labeling pipe, I just did another quick search and didn't come up with anything. Does anybody know if labeling is talked about in there? If it is and my understanding is correct NFPA-13 would only tell you how to do it and not when to do it, correct? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: PE Peer Review
The reduction in design area has nothing to do with the likelihood of a fire, it is related to the ability of the sprinkler system to control the fireperiod. This is a great example of the reviewer suffering rectal cranial inversion. I will bet that in typical RJA fashion the review was littered with statements-of-the-obvious that have nothing to do with deficiencies in your design like: comply with NFPA 13, follow the obstruction rules, take an umbrella if its raining... and all of the other fluff and filler they use to make their reviews appear extensive. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: PE Peer Review I would like the take from the PE's on forum on how to deal with a plan review comment from an unnamed engineering firm (RJA). Due to the higher than normal potential for a fire in the occupant sleeping and common areas, the reduction in fire are (remote area) for quick response sprinkler in accordance with NFPA #13 Figure 11.2.3.2.3.1 is not a good engineering practice. Please revise the hydraulic calculation to account for at least the minimum 1500 square foot design area as specified by NFPA #13. The hazard is a dormitory at a minimum security prison. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Sprinkler Phoenix, AZ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: underground pre-action piping
I would suggest mechanical-joint cement-lined ductile iron, but I do not know how you are going to drain it short of putting in a pit. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Lori Kitchen Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: underground pre-action piping We are working on the underground for a project where a remote building is to be protected by a pre-action system whose valve is in a different building 50ft away. The underground connecting these two buildings is to be part of the pre-action system (piping filled with air). In other words, the pre-action valve is in building A. The piping runs underground (after the valve) to building B. This is a new one for us. My questions are what type of pipe do you use for this purpose and how do we drain the water out of the underground? I appreciate any info! Lori Kitchen Whitewater Fire Sprinkler 316-295-4120 (office) 316-295-4162 (fax) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: * Possible Spam *Re: Bedbug Treatment
I agree that it would be a waste to simply dispose of perfectly good sprinklers, and I personally would have no problem with someone reusing them for such an application. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Watt Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: * Possible Spam *Re: Bedbug Treatment I know what the code says but it seems wasteful to use these heads for 24 hours and then throw them away. I got the feeling that the profit margin on this job was pretty slim already. As far as firewatches go, having to rely on hotel staff for this does not make me feel confident at all. Especially when the management wants this all done quickly and quietly.(hush-hush) - Original Message - From: Paul Pinigis p.pini...@haengineers.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:40 AM Subject: RE: * Possible Spam *Bedbug Treatment Installing intermediate temperature sprinklers seems like the most sensible approach, but you could not reinstall them elsewhere because they are now used. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Watt Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: * Possible Spam *Bedbug Treatment Hello group, Several months ago I was sent to remove the (12)sprinklers from a hotel room so that it could be heat treated for a bedbug infestation. This process involves heating the room to over 130 degrees. My instructions were to remove the sprinklers and replace with nipple/caps until the next day when the sprinklers could be replaced. I know in many cases the heating equipment is truck mounted and the heating ducts are stretched into the unit to be treated. In this case, the heater/blowers were all portable units. In retrospect, with all of these appliances in this unprotected space in an occupied wing of this hotel, this was a catastrophe waiting to happen. 1) Could I have replaced the 155* heads with intermediate temp heads? 2) Could I reuse these heads for the next bedbug job? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1930 - Release Date: 2/2/2009 7:51 AM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Sprinklered vs Sprinkled
Yes, I have heard it many times here in Virginia, and always find it amusing. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Sprinklered vs Sprinkled Actually this is a serious question. Is there anywhere in the country where the term sprinkled is commonly used by sprinkler industry types to describe a building with a sprinkler system? 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 http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: another fire - this will be interesting
The lack of detail on the engineer's sprinkler drawings is often dictated by the client, not the A/E firm. For example, the Navy will not allow us to do detailed designs because they (like many others) believe that will lead to change orders. Somehow they don't have a problem with the HVAC engineer or the plumbing engineer showing their detailed designs. I would like to see equal treatment; the HVAC engineers should show a hatch pattern on the floor plan with a note that says deign ductwork to provide a comfortable environment.. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting You'll have to do more than just make your magical FPE's appear from the sky, you'll have to change the mindset of an entire industry. For too long the A/E industry has felt it was a waste of time and money to do detailed design for fire protection, the thought being that since the contractor did all that for free, why duplicate the effort. Less hours spent on fire protection meant more hours to be used by someone else or could be saved altogether. That makes the PM look good, hours unspent=bigger bonus. So even if you did have your super FPE's appear, they would still not be able to produce the documents the contractors would love to see. Trying to educate project managers, schedulers, department managers etc.. is an uphill battle. They don't understand the FP industry, how it works, who does what, submittals to AHJ's, minimum information required on a drawing package, when in the course of the project fire protection needs to start and finish, what info is needed to do the fp design work (when you are doing more than an X on a drawing, and the list of obstacles goes on and on. Next project, you start the battle all over again. Other disciplines don't understand the rules you have for head spacing, deflector distances below decks, obstructions, water pressure and flow issues, etc. Most think FP as being able to move where ever so they have more room and are often told that very thing by their supervisors. You don't know how many times I've been told by ME's who are supposed to be responsible for FP work that it is so confusing. What's scary is most probably know just enough to pass the FPE. So that's obviously not the answer to the overall problem. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 craig.pr...@ch2m.com http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:24 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting We'd need several hundred qualified FPEs (or equal) to fall out of the sky in order to do what you say, as desirable a concept as you present. That and a couple thousand more so we contractors can put them on staff so we can evaluate water supplies and perform hydraulic calculations in accordance with the SFPE White Paper (unless the more recent revs have allowed us to calc systems like we've been doing as an industry since there were calcs). Instead we have FPE-Plumbing Designer ACTING like FPEs despite being only casually familiar with our industry, codes, standards, materials, etc.- i.e., practicing outside their area of competence. And so we don't just call this PE bashing, I'll point out that contractors evaluating water supplies- and that would be all of us performing calcs based on some flow test, ours or someone elses- need to be aware of lowest tank gradient, the importance of correcting for elevation and other corrections needed to move the data correctly from the test to the floor flange. I have a project where my competitor doing an adjacent building on same site off same main is using a flow test result that is 10 PSI higher than mine, with twice the flow. I've become familiar with the site, water supply, and did a more accurate test than they did, I guess that's the price of being able to sleep at night. glc -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Very well said John. This is exactly the approach that we take; we look at the building or project holistically and our fire protection engineers direct the architect, mechanical, electrical, structural, telecom, etc. to ensure coordination and compliance
RE: another fire - this will be interesting
Very well said John. This is exactly the approach that we take; we look at the building or project holistically and our fire protection engineers direct the architect, mechanical, electrical, structural, telecom, etc. to ensure coordination and compliance. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head Hankins and Anderson Consulting Engineers 4880 Sadler Road Suite 300 Glen Allen, VA 23060 v: (804) 285.4171 f: (804) 217.8520 d:(804) 521-7011 http://www.haengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Simply put fire protection is not seamless. Often enough it's a patchwork of pieces and parts assembled without a clear and common objective. We see this everyday with smoke detectors being installed in unsprinklered elevator hoistways because no one told the alarm engineer that sprinklers had been eliminated by the sprinkler engineer, or fire dampers installed in one hour walls in fully sprinklered buildings because no one told the mechanical engineer. The disconnect with the fire service is yet another example, site planning left to the civil engineer without regard to fire protection needs. What we need are MEPF firms, engineering firms that employ and fully utilize fire protection engineers to look at the big picture, assess, plan, design, coordinate and supervise cost effective and efficient fire protection solutions. If as a fire protection engineer you're simply designing fire alarm or sprinkler systems you are not working to your full potential ! There are firms that provide life safety analysis to provide passive fire protection solutions, often coined working for the dark side they nonetheless do what others are not, looking at the big picture. High rise sprinklers in Chicago or San Diego anyone ? So how does the active fire protection community counter this claim, perhaps by long term planning, synergistic value driven engineering. It goes all the way back to codes and standards, how many cycles did it take to recognize sprinklers in fully sprinklered buildings for notification survivability on fire alarm systems ? One stop shopping ladies and gentlemen, one stop shopping. Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Ron said (I suspect the savings in mains, hydrants, fire stations, apparatus and firefighters is way more than a wash in fully sprinklered, planned communities than the cost of sprinklering schools). Were these savings realized? Last I read which was a long time ago there was very little saved on the reduction in the list you provided. They never actually followed through in reducing mains and limiting stations etc. I will certainly say in the macro scale these saving are not being fully realized. Hell we still have fully paid stations in many departments that average 1 call a day and plenty more that are 2. As a pay-per-call volunteer I saw more fire than many paid guys in these parts. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 2:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: another fire - this will be interesting Good point so far overlooked. There's also the dubious saved foundation success that may have not been worth the risk of going into harm's way. And no one has brought up the environmental advantages of sprinklers--less smoke, less destroyed building materials to dispose of, less dirty water to process and, of course, less water used overall. And the Scottsdale less public money spent on firefighting infrastructure (I suspect the savings in mains, hydrants, fire stations, apparatus and firefighters is way more than a wash in fully sprinklered, planned communities than the cost of sprinklering schools). On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Dave nomore...@yahoo.com wrote: Since we are offering up various thoughts and theories on the general application of sprinklers . Regardless of how much egress time is allegedly available or occupant ability to respond or even construction materials methods - there still is a fire in a building - Presuming we get
RE: another fire - this will be interesting
We have 5 registered FPEs (not turd-herders pretending to be FPEs) and 5 EITs who will get registered as they become eligible. Most of our design work is done by our designers (two Level IV, and one Level II). Our engineers are responsible for the ENGINEERING activities. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:24 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting We'd need several hundred qualified FPEs (or equal) to fall out of the sky in order to do what you say, as desirable a concept as you present. That and a couple thousand more so we contractors can put them on staff so we can evaluate water supplies and perform hydraulic calculations in accordance with the SFPE White Paper (unless the more recent revs have allowed us to calc systems like we've been doing as an industry since there were calcs). Instead we have FPE-Plumbing Designer ACTING like FPEs despite being only casually familiar with our industry, codes, standards, materials, etc.- i.e., practicing outside their area of competence. And so we don't just call this PE bashing, I'll point out that contractors evaluating water supplies- and that would be all of us performing calcs based on some flow test, ours or someone elses- need to be aware of lowest tank gradient, the importance of correcting for elevation and other corrections needed to move the data correctly from the test to the floor flange. I have a project where my competitor doing an adjacent building on same site off same main is using a flow test result that is 10 PSI higher than mine, with twice the flow. I've become familiar with the site, water supply, and did a more accurate test than they did, I guess that's the price of being able to sleep at night. glc -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Very well said John. This is exactly the approach that we take; we look at the building or project holistically and our fire protection engineers direct the architect, mechanical, electrical, structural, telecom, etc. to ensure coordination and compliance. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head Hankins and Anderson Consulting Engineers 4880 Sadler Road Suite 300 Glen Allen, VA 23060 v: (804) 285.4171 f: (804) 217.8520 d:(804) 521-7011 http://www.haengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Simply put fire protection is not seamless. Often enough it's a patchwork of pieces and parts assembled without a clear and common objective. We see this everyday with smoke detectors being installed in unsprinklered elevator hoistways because no one told the alarm engineer that sprinklers had been eliminated by the sprinkler engineer, or fire dampers installed in one hour walls in fully sprinklered buildings because no one told the mechanical engineer. The disconnect with the fire service is yet another example, site planning left to the civil engineer without regard to fire protection needs. What we need are MEPF firms, engineering firms that employ and fully utilize fire protection engineers to look at the big picture, assess, plan, design, coordinate and supervise cost effective and efficient fire protection solutions. If as a fire protection engineer you're simply designing fire alarm or sprinkler systems you are not working to your full potential ! There are firms that provide life safety analysis to provide passive fire protection solutions, often coined working for the dark side they nonetheless do what others are not, looking at the big picture. High rise sprinklers in Chicago or San Diego anyone ? So how does the active fire protection community counter this claim, perhaps by long term planning, synergistic value driven engineering. It goes all the way back to codes and standards, how many cycles did it take to recognize sprinklers in fully sprinklered buildings for notification survivability on fire alarm systems ? One stop shopping ladies and gentlemen, one stop shopping. Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE
RE: another fire - this will be interesting
There is your problem! You have electrical doing fire alarm and mechanical doing sprinkler!!! You just defined the need for a qualified FPE to perform those functions (and many more). Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Unfortunately, even just MPE firms can't co-ordinate within the firm, adding another layer (F) won't improve the end product. The E showed the smoke detector, the M said sprinkler per code, and the P never even remembered the sump in the elevator pit. Add an (F) to that and I can assure you that it will be all F'ed up! Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker What we need are MEPF firms, engineering firms that employ and fully utilize fire protection engineers to look at the big picture, assess, plan, design, coordinate and supervise cost effective and efficient fire protection solutions. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: another fire - this will be interesting
Our firm will not allow anyone to work outside of their area of expertise, but some firms do. I received a call from a mechanical engineer a few years ago who was in desperate need of help; his boss appointed him as the company's FPE and he had no experience in any aspect of fire protection engineering (his previous responsibility was designing industrial valves). Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Actually this is the engineering community's problem, not mine. You're the one's that allow incompetent work to be done by engineers that are neither qualified or trained to do it. Working Outside their area of expertise If all states licensed engineers by discipline or degree, or had some really effective bylaws and penalties for engineers that do work outside their knowledge or training it might help. Most states like Colorado allow the engineers to Self Police their brother engineers, and unless someone dies or a huge financial loss occurs, they rarely do more than send censure notes to fellow engineers.(Please don't be bad anymore, and take that 3 day NFPA 13 class, cause that's all the training you need to DESIGN fire sprinkler systems, because you already know everything else.) Just as there are good and bad contractors, there are good and bad engineers. To the good ones I apologize. To the good ones I say help your selves, do something about all the bad ones! For the good and bad contractors? Licensing doesn't work. But educating your AHj's can help ensure that shoddy work doesn't take place where you work. Raise the bar for everyone, don't stoop to the level of the competition. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting There is your problem! You have electrical doing fire alarm and mechanical doing sprinkler!!! You just defined the need for a qualified FPE to perform those functions (and many more). Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Residential Sprinkler Ordinances
It appears that all jurisdictions that adopt NFPA 101 have, either intentionally or inadvertently, adopted the requirement for sprinkler protection in all one- and two-family homes. The only state that comes to mind as having adopted NFPA 101 is West Virginia; and I do not know if they are actually enforcing that provision of the code. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T. Johnson, CFPS Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Residential Sprinkler Ordinances Good Afternoon,  A friend is partnering with an editor for a series of articles about residential sprinklers in a newspaper in regards to the upcoming vote at the IRC meeting in Sept. She was asking for names of cities, municipalities, and townships that have adopted residential sprinkler ordinances in the last 2-3 years throughout the U.S. I imagine the forum would know of a few...  Thanks, John T. Johnson, CFPS Technical Trainer/Firefighting Instructor -- Fire Sprinklers/Smoke Detectors Save Lives* ___ 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: NFPA 101 Dwelling Unit Sprinklers
That is really funny! I read it the same way. If you provide party walls between the townhouses they become single family homes and require sprinkler protection, but if you don't they are garden apartments and do not require sprinklers. I would be very interested to know the logic behind this also. I would also be interested to know if state that adopt NFPA 101 are enforcing the requirement for sprinklers in single family homes. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA 101 Dwelling Unit Sprinklers I have a quick question on sprinkler requirements for Dwellings as defined in NFPA 101 2006 edition. We are working on a 600+ unit residential community overseas that includes single family, two family, quadraplexes and apartments. NFPA 101, section 24.3.51 (one and two family dwellings) indicates that all new one- and two-family dwellings shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 24.3.5.2. I read this to say that all new single and two family units will need to be provided with sprinklers under this code, and I do not see any exceptions in 24.3.5.2 NFPA 101, section 30.3.5.1 (new apartment buildings) states that All buildings, other than those complying with 30.3.5.2 shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system . . . Section 30.3.5.2 (1) provides an exception that sprinkler systems are not required in buildings where every dwelling unit provides an exit door opening directly to the street or yard at ground level. The quad units are 4 side by side town houses with exits at ground directly outside to a yard and street. Based on the sections noted above, I think I am required to sprinkler the one and two family units but not the quads. In addition, if the architect provides a rated separation between the quads that is approved by the AHJ, I can call each unit a one family swelling and use chapter 24, but that would then require sprinklers. I am struggling with the logic of this. In addition, if I am understanding this correctly, I could present a site plan to the AHJ that sprinklers the one and two family swellings, the 42 unit apartment buildings, but not the quad unit town houses and be code compliant, albeit in my mind a little bit silly. This does not sit right with me. What am I missing, or is this just one of those things? I feel like Monday never ended. Thanks. Andrew Weisfield This email is intended for named recipients only. ___ 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: Shelf Storage
Keeping it brief Bill? Paul Pinigis Hankins and Anderson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Shelf Storage ___ 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: Soleniod valve
I don't think that you will find a solenoid valve that is listed as preaction valve, but the engineer of record should be able to point you to one if it exists and was the basis of his design. Preaction valves do have solenoid valves in them, but the solenoid is not usually listed for the purpose you describe. I will bet you that the engineer of record is turd herder, not an FPE. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Pepin Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Soleniod valve The engineer of record for a project has provided me with a drawing to provide sprinklers in an IT room. His proposal is to install a solenoid valve on the wet sprinkler line that is wired closed so that the line can be drained of water, in essence, making that portion dry. He indicated that the solenoid will be wired to a smoke/heat detector that will open in the event of a fire, charging the line. The sprinkler head will remain closed until they reach the operating temperature. The engineer does not want water in this room until needed. What do you think about his school of thought? At the very least, the valve would have to be approved for fire sprinkler use? Thanks Keith ___ 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: Floating Ceilings
Rick, I agree with you, you no longer have a noncombustible concealed space above the ceiling. When we see architects attempt this at the design stage we usually steer them away from the cloud ceiling; when we cannot, we sprinkler above and below the ceiling (obstruction). Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Green Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Floating Ceilings I am in the design phase installing wet pipe sprinkler systems protecting new schools. I have noticed that in several of the rooms in the schools(cafeteria, band room, main corridor that runs the length of the school), architect has designed lay-in ceiling systems with gaps ranging from 4 to 12 along the walls and between sections of ceiling within the rooms (floating ceiling sections). I do not believe my non-combustible concealed space above the ceilings is concealed anymore and may require protection. Has anyone dealt with this? I have heard some discussion that if the total square feet of the openings is below a certain percent of the total square foot of a space, sprinkler protection above the space may not be required? Interesting thing is that the school is being built as a Green project and seems like the designed openings would make the schools less energy efficient. Anyone's help would be most appreciated... Rick E. Green District Manager East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. 1113 Cavalier Boulevard Chesapeake, Virginia 23323 757/485-7486(p), 757/295-0956(direct), 757/328-0131(cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Stair shafts
Most carpeting meets the definition of non-combustible, but I would suggest checking the manufacturers cut sheet to verify. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Margaret Zabel Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:39 AM To: Sprinkler Forum Subject: Stair shafts Using NFPA 13-2002, paragraph 8.14.3.2 describes the requirements for sprinklers in non-combustible stair shafts. Would a non-combustible construction stair shaft (concrete stairs, sheetrock/rated walls) that has carpet on the landings and stair treads be considered non-combustible? Assuming the stairs are over 4'-0 wide, should there be sprinklers located throughout the shaft -- below treads and stairs? Thank you, Margaret Zabel Cisco Fire Sprinklers ___ 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: Water Supply
I would suggest redoing the flow test and using a playpipe for better accuracy. If the first test was done with an open hydrant butt and a factor or 0.9, you may find that the estimate was too conservative. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Burtell Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:58 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Water Supply I have a project where the system demand with hose allowance exceeds the city supply by 31 GPM. It's still under the curve but the city flow test was 1210 and my system demand is 1241. Is there anything in the codes that allows me to exceed the city capscity? Best regards, Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS Burtell Fire Protection, Inc. Phone: 406.652.7697 Fax: 406.652.7743 Cell: 406.861.4507 ___ 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: Water Supply
I just re-read your original question. If I read it correctly, you indicate that your demand point is below the curve, but the flow measured during the test was less than the demand flow of your system. As long as you are below the curve you are fine. The amount of flow at the time of the test is irrelevant, it simply provides a point on your curve. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Burtell Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Supply I have tried a new flow test with two 2-1/2 openings flowing and the pressure dropped off so that didn't work. I checked the coefficient and it is a .9. The hydrant does have a rounded inlet. I don't have play pipes and either does the city which is the only one that can do the test. I have tried different heads and pipes and nothing will drop my GPM to below the 31 gpm we are short. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Supply That was my first thought too. Joe's been around and must have already done this. Maybe he's having a bad day or there is more to the story. To answer Joe's question plainly, no. The but is I never meet an AHJ that wouldn't give up 31gpm especially on a 500 hose allowance. A fire pump is a tough sell for 31 gpm especially when the hose isn't used until the FD arrives and they bring a pump. I'd though, if as an AHJ, would make sure you really did practically max out pipe sizes. 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 Richard Carr Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Supply If you plot it out on a curve you will have more than 1210 but at a lower residual pressure. Richard Carr, SET Design Manager Associated Sprinkler Co., LLC 336.373.3901 ext 217 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Burtell Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:58 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Water Supply I have a project where the system demand with hose allowance exceeds the city supply by 31 GPM. It's still under the curve but the city flow test was 1210 and my system demand is 1241. Is there anything in the codes that allows me to exceed the city capscity? Best regards, Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS Burtell Fire Protection, Inc. Phone: 406.652.7697 Fax: 406.652.7743 Cell: 406.861.4507 ___ 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) This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments. ___ 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: Deperming Pier
Please direct your questions about this installation to the engineer of record, Eric Shelton, P.E. Thank you, Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer Hankins and Anderson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kurt Kingston Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 10:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Deperming Pier I have seen a nice dry standpipe system installation done by a competitor using HDPE and fusion seal fittings a few years ago on a salt water pier (Cap Sante Marina, Anacortes, WA.). I cannot remember the specific brand now, but this link is something similar: http://corrosion-products.com/PipingProducts/HDPE.htm IMHO, it looked like using the right tool. Good success, Kurt Kingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commercial Fire Protection Inc. PO Box 128 Mt Vernon, WA 98273 ph (360)-848-9093 fax (360)-848-1072 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Deperming Pier I'd be concerned about two things with CPVC- Effects of sunlight, even under the pier you'd likely get strong reflections off the water; and where are you getting 6 CPVC? I have no idea if regular plumber's PVC would work; if you have a low-pressure DPV, and you're looking at a 2.5 DPV as your activating device (and combo exhauster, it's a pretty big orifice) then wouldn't the air never be at high pressure and so it shouldn't be a problem to use PVC? NFI, just a thought that would save my tax dollars versus SS316. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Deperming Pier What if you ran plastic, CPVC is approved for fire protection above grade per NFPA 13. See 6.3 of NFPA 13, 2007. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Green Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Deperming Pier I am installing a dry pipe system (no sprinklers) supplying four hose valves on a pier. The dry pipe valve assembly is located in a heated area. Extending out from the dry pipe valve assembly is 6 galvanized steel pipe. The steel pipe is routed below the pier out to the location of four hose valves. The pier is used for Deperming ships, submarines. Deperming is a procedure for erasing the permanent magnetism from ships and submarineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines to camouflagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camouflage them against magnetic detection vessels and enemy marine mineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mines. Anyway, there is about a 200' section of the pier that requires that all materials be non-magnetic. *Galvanized steel pipe that NAVY specified obviously want work. *CPVC plastic pipe will not work because installing dry system - correct on this right? *Provided them pricing for stainless steel, copper, brass and now they want pricing for Aluminum,. So a few questions o Ever used aluminum pipe for sprinkler installations? o Is there some other pipe type that I am not thinking about Help would be most appreciated. Rick E. Green District Manager East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. 1113 Cavalier Boulevard Chesapeake, Virginia 23323 757/485-7486(p), 757/295-0956(direct), 757/328-0131(cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ 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 Flow Calculation
Nope, if you have a building that is not sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13 (and you don't because there are unsprinklered areas beyond those that are allowed to be unsprinklered by NFPA 13) you have an unsprinklered building. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Flow Calculation It's for fire flow from hydrants. I guess I'm wondering if we can pro-rate the unsprinklered percentage. If we use 50k sqft with no credit for sprinklers and 300k sqft at a 75% reduction and add them together or something to that effect. Ron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Willis Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Flow Calculation Tables B and C of the IFC ( I think) list the flows. An intersting question arises..., if it is not fully sprinkled... I believe you do not get the nice reduction?.. Is this what you are looking for ? R/ Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Fire Flow Calculation Looking for help to determine required fire flow. New addition to hospital is 200k sqft. 150k sqft existing building with 50k sqft of the 150k not sprinklered. Construction type is I-FR. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ ___ 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: Institutional Sprinklers
How about putting some indelible orange ink in the line so that the next moron who opens the sprinkler becomes an oompa loompa? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Institutional Sprinklers Handcuff's ?? Brian Harris FDFP INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Institutional Sprinklers Problem; we have some institutional sprinklers in a holding cell at a local jail that repeatedly are getting knocked out by the temporary inmates. Has anybody come up with a good solution to this problem from our end; specialty sprinkler guards or anything? Thank you in advance, Bobby Gillett Project Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] (731)-424-0130 ___ 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) E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.354) Database version: 5.10250e http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.354) Database version: 5.10250e http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ ___ 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: Backflow device and steel pipe
But, ductile iron IS ferrous pipe! Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wisneski Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Backflow device and steel pipe Well forumites, I've gat a new one (to me). Customer wants a small anti-freeze system on a loading dock. The existing system is a steel pipe system with a double check backflow at the service entry. Normally I would just tap into the closest main (5 feet away), drop down to a reduced pressure backflow and install an expansion tank and the eight head anti-freeze system. The water purveyor now tells me that is unacceptable. They want the anti-freeze system tied into the ductile iron pipe at the service entrance, before the existing double check, and fed with non ferrous pipe. They say they do not want any type of backflow device fed with black steel pipe. This, I believe, is not a code issue. Has anyone run into this situation before? Thanks in advance, Mike Wisneski ___ 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: PIV 40ft from Building
As the story was told to me, this dates back to the first iron-framed buildings with brick exterior walls. The buildings were generally walk-ups (pre-elevator days) so they were up to four stories tall. The problem was that the iron would expand in a fire and push outward on the walls until the brick failed and collapsed. The 40-foot distance was considered to be out of reach of the falling brick and would allow the fire department to shut off the water to conserve water for manual fire fighting. Might be true, might be a campfire story. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: PIV 40ft from Building Forum: Anyone know the reason WHY PIVs are to be located at least 40 ft. from the building (on a fire service line piped into the building)? I have heard some theories - like to keep the valve free from a collapsing wall. But I am curious if any of you have any definitive explanations for that number. Why not 30 ft.? Why not 50 ft. We are dealing with an AHJ who is requiring we pipe an underground an additional 200+ ft. around a corner just so our PIV can be at least 40 ft. from the building. Otherwise, if we pipe straight out the building, the public right-of-way is such that we'd be only 31 ft. from the building with the PIV. This is not good enough for this gentleman since, as he says, it is POSSIBLE for you to get it 40 ft. away (with the 200+ ft. of underground). If there was no other way, he would have allowed the 31 ft. separation. Frustrated-in-Fargo, PE Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 3350 38th Avenue S. Fargo, ND 58104-7079 Direct:701. 280.8591 Fax:701.280.8739 Cell:701.371.5759 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ulteig.com http://www.ulteig.com/ Cofidentiality Notice This message may contain privileged and confidential information. If you think, for any reason, this message may have been addressed to you in error, you must not disseminate copy or take any action in reliance on it, and we would ask you to notify me immediately by return email to [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) ___ 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: Sectional Valves...
If the closure of those valves will impair the operation of the system (which I believe they will) they need to be monitored. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RFI - Bismarck Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Sectional Valves... I think I asked this already... and apologize for regurgitating it! I have a bldg. that is 'U-shaped' in nature. The system is of CPVC in nature - fairly small. Prior to going into the 'legs' of the 'U' - the contractor wants to have (2) ball valves installed to isolate each wing for maintenance purposes. Do these ball valves need to be of a 'monitored' (wired to panel) type or can they be just run-of-the-mill ball valves? Imho - I believe they should be 'monitored' valves. Thanks! R.F.P. Chuck No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1458 - Release Date: 5/21/2008 7:21 AM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Change in static pressure
Look at the cut sheet on the BFP. Some BFPs require a significant amount of pressure to open at very low flows. For example, an 12 Ames 2000SS requires almost 6 psi to operate at very low flow so it can sit there all day with an upstream pressure nearly 6 psi higher than the system side pressure. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Change in static pressure I have a job site which is 10ft higher than the water supply. A gauge on the water supply hydrant reads 55 PSI static pressure while two gauges on the system riser after the BFP read 37 PSI? The total elevation change between the system gauges and the supply gauge is about 17ft. Why would there be a 18 PSI difference between the gauges when elevation only accounts for 7.36 PSI? I confirmed with the city that there are no shut valves. Any thoughts? 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: Change in static pressure
If water was flowed on the system side of the BFP there can be a lower pressure on the system side vs. the supply side due to the on-off action of some axial-check BFPs. This is not the same phenomenon as the pressure difference across an ACV because the ACV uses a simple side-hinged check. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 3:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Change in static pressure The BFP should trap the highest pressure on the system side so that the up and down fluctuations will happen on the supply side. This will read the same as the two gages on an alarm check valve when it is acting as the only system/supply check. The water tower seems the culprit. The elevation difference accounts for 7.4 psi. The remaining 10.6 psi could be the tank if the before refill/after refill elevation inside the tank is 24.5 feet. On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Dewayne Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, I will look into the cut sheet. The fitter preformed an alarm test so only a small amount of water was flown. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Change in static pressure Look at the cut sheet on the BFP. Some BFPs require a significant amount of pressure to open at very low flows. For example, an 12 Ames 2000SS requires almost 6 psi to operate at very low flow so it can sit there all day with an upstream pressure nearly 6 psi higher than the system side pressure. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Change in static pressure I have a job site which is 10ft higher than the water supply. A gauge on the water supply hydrant reads 55 PSI static pressure while two gauges on the system riser after the BFP read 37 PSI? The total elevation change between the system gauges and the supply gauge is about 17ft. Why would there be a 18 PSI difference between the gauges when elevation only accounts for 7.36 PSI? I confirmed with the city that there are no shut valves. Any thoughts? 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) -- 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: Hay Bale/Cube Storage
Class III, ordinary combustibles. See chapter 14 of the 2007 NFPA 13 for design density curves. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Cyr Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 5:28 PM To: American Fire Sprinkler Association Subject: Hay Bale/Cube Storage Forum, What commodity class would hay bales in solid piles to 20 feet in height fall under? This is a fully enclosed structure. Thanks in advance, Ed Cyr Alpha Fire Sprinkler Corp. ___ 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: Fuel Tank Rooms
Why? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 2:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fuel Tank Rooms NFPA 13 - 2007 I would try Section 21.6: .30gpm/sq.ft. over 2500 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. per sprinkler maximum John August Denhardt, P.E. Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Phelan Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Fuel Tank Rooms How does the group feel on the occupancy classification of a rated room in a building that contains a 275 Gal #2 Fuel tank for the rooftop generator? The room is on the ground level and the tank is 130 feet above on the roof. The architect is calling this a OH2 hazard and protecting the room with a single K5.6 QR Head @ .18 over 1500 Ft2. His reasoning is that the tank is not combustible, just the product in it ... Im leaning towards a EH designation in the event of fire the fuel would be more than capable of supporting combustion. At the very least I dont see the current configuration as being adequate. Thanks, Dave P. An AHJ in NJ ___ 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: Fuel Tank Rooms
I would agree with OH2 (or even OH1). It is a combustible liquid in a closed system. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Phelan Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Fuel Tank Rooms How does the group feel on the occupancy classification of a rated room in a building that contains a 275 Gal #2 Fuel tank for the rooftop generator? The room is on the ground level and the tank is 130 feet above on the roof. The architect is calling this a OH2 hazard and protecting the room with a single K5.6 QR Head @ .18 over 1500 Ft2. His reasoning is that the tank is not combustible, just the product in it ... Im leaning towards a EH designation in the event of fire the fuel would be more than capable of supporting combustion. At the very least I dont see the current configuration as being adequate. Thanks, Dave P. An AHJ in NJ ___ 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: BASIC HYDRAULICS
Elevation still affects the pressure in a closed system. If the water is static in a pressurized system the pressure is the same throughout the system only at a constant elevation. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Minkel Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:55 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: BASIC HYDRAULICS Someone educate me or re-educate me on basic hydraulics, engineering not necessarily sprinkler hydraulics. I understand the difference between static pressure and residual pressure while flowing some amount and how gravity losses come into play with increasing elevation. However I have the notion that a closed system when pressurized has equal pressure thru the entire system such as when testing a sprinkler system at 200 psi. The pressure in the closed system pumped up to 200 psi is 200 psi throughout regardless of elevation? Bill Minkel, Designer Western States Fire Protection, Dallas NFPA Member #2578666 ___ 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: Dormitory Bunk Beds
8.5.5.3.2 Sprinklers shall not be required under obstructions that are not fixed in place such as conference tables. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Dormitory Bunk Beds 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)
RE: Gaggle of closets
Don't you just love it when the letter of the code works in your favor. I really don't think that this is what the NFPA 13 committee had in mind when they developed that section. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 5:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Gaggle of closets I am looking an apartment building which is to be designed according to NFPA 13. On the first level, there is a room which contains 55 - 3'x5' tenant storage closets (mostly filled with shelves). These would need to be sprinklered, which is fine, but the issue comes in the hydraulics. Section 14.4.4.4.2 states that closets with a single sprinkler may be omitted from the calculation. There could be up to 47 closets in the remote area. I have used this exception numerous times, but never in this quantity. The standard says nothing to the contrary, so I could eliminate 47 sprinklers in the remote area because they are in closets? Is there something I am overlooking? 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: General Seismic Question
1. No, that is the responsibility of the engineer and the project design team. 2. Yep, that is a clear change order. 3. Check your contract for this one. He most likely has to pay for work done and materials fabricated. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: General Seismic Question We have a job that we bid which excluded seismic bracing, we are suppose to start hanging pipe on Monday the 25th. The GC is now telling us that we need to include seismic and he expects us to eat the cost, if we don't he's going to use the 2nd place bidder. He says that it was our responsibility to determine if seismic was required or not. 1. Is it ever the sprinkler man's job to determine if seismic is required? I think not... 2. If you exclude items in your bid and are awarded the contract isn't a change order at this point a no brainer? 3. Can he legally ditch us at this point and go to the number 2 bidder, we already have pipe fabricated? 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)
RE: Diesel vs Electric
We have found that a diesel pump alone is more cost effective than an electric with a gen set. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Thurston Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 7:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Diesel vs Electric Hello sprinklerforum, I am looking for opinions on installing a Diesel fire pump Vs installing an Electric fire pump and Gen Set. I have a location that is being cut loose from the Site Wide fire pump loop now owned by others. -- Best regards, Charles mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Coastal Fire Protection ___ 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[2]: Who's the most important person?
Idiots are important too! Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Re[2]: Who's the most important person? So why is it that we're always wondering why we have so many idiot clients ... ?? Oh, never mind. :o) Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Re[2]: Who's the most important person? You have all missed it. The CLIENT is the most important; without him you have no project. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Re[2]: Who's the most important person? You guys do not understand the Golden Rule. HE WHO HAS THE GOLD RULES! Mike Brown -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matsuda, Richad Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Re[2]: Who's the most important person? I'd like to vote, tooonly my opinion. 1. The PE or architect or sprinkler designer does his work on paper. 2. The AHJ or consulting engineer approves the paper submittal. 3. The field crew installs the project based on the paper plans, but they have the ability to make desisions based on their knowledge of what is required, and perhaps make appropriate corrections before the city inspector finds these errors. 4. The city inspector who approves/disapproves the installation based on the approved plans and his knowledge of what is required. The most important people are the field crew and city inspectors because they ultimately see and approved the completed project regardless of what is done on paper in Items # 1 and 2. Heck, I'm only a plan reviewer...and I have the upmost respect for the knowledgable field guy who finds and corrects all the mistakes that I made during my paper plan review. Train them, pay them, and keep them in your company cause they can make or break you. rick matsuda, city of dallas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Re[2]: Who's the most important person? Actually the question was a serious one. I am trying to separate the components of successful companies into several categories - perhaps I should have included the fitter crew also. Maybe this one of those chain is no stronger than the weakest link scenarios. Maybe there's no ready answer to the question - I'll go back and sit down now. 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) ___ 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: 3 alarm Fire @ Monte Carlo now in las vegas
It looks that way. But WHY? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: 3 alarm Fire @ Monte Carlo now in las vegas it is early to say, but I will anyway... sounds like a sprinkler did not get water on the fire. scot deal excelsior 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)
RE: MIC Testing
Will they test the pipe too? I only know of them testing the water and the scale, not the quality of the pipe. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terri Leyton Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: MIC Testing http://www.huguenotlabs.com/ These guys are pretty good. Terri Simmons Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING Ph:Â 858-751-2930 - ext. 101 Fax:Â Â Â 858-751-2933 Cell:Â 619-871-8450 Go CHARGERS! We take care of our KIDS! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 6:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: MIC Testing There is a forensic metallurgist in Northern Virginia that I have used a few times. I am looking for his card, but no luck yet. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: MIC Testing Where do you send pipe for MIC testing? Forest Wilson Cherokee Fire **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489 ___ 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: MIC Testing
There is a forensic metallurgist in Northern Virginia that I have used a few times. I am looking for his card, but no luck yet. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: MIC Testing Where do you send pipe for MIC testing? Forest Wilson Cherokee Fire **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489 ___ 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: One Fire Pump Serving Multiple Buildings
I have done this several times. It is analogous to single pump house feeding a campus, but you happen to have the pump in one of the protected buildings instead. Just as with a pump house, you assume a single fire condition. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: One Fire Pump Serving Multiple Buildings Are there any codes regulating the use of one fire pump to serve multiple building? Do you assume only one fire condition? John Kaminski This email is intended for named recipients only. ___ 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: Great Forum Advice...
Maybe we can get the Union and the class-action lawyer listed on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. It sounds like their tactics are awfully similar to those of other extremists. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terri Leyton Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Great Forum Advice... Hi All, I would like to gather some opinions on a rather sensitive subject. We have a very long time, good client, who has been in the sprinkler business since he joined the Union in 1961. His Contracting Company is now open shop and has been since 1994. He and several other San Diego area contractors have been arbitrarily sued by Local 669, allegedly for violations of overtime and prevailing wage obligations. The MO has been to find ex-employees of these firms and essentially sponsor class-action law suits against these firms, even though there may not be evidence of any wrong-doing. In fact, in our friend's case, the judge has dropped the union from the suit as there is no substance to any claims of theirs. However, the suits have been allowed to proceed as class actions and it may be that 669 continues to fund the plaintiff's counsel; the latest tactic was that clients of this firm have received letters notifying them that they have or may be named as John Does in the litigation. There appears to be no merit to these suits and the plaintiff's tactics are simply to bleed the defendants financially and it's working. Now, with GC's and developers being put on notice, there isn't much chance that these companies can continue doing business under current circumstances. According to our friend's attorneys, it's all legal - perhaps in equal parts because it's happening as a class action and because it's in California. This is now affecting other companies - like OURS. And their other vendors and subs, such as fabricators and underground utilities contractors. Any similar experiences? Any advice? Terri Simmons Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING 8849-B Complex Drive San Diego, CA 92123 - Ph: 858-751-2930 - ext. 101 Fax:858-751-2933 Cell: 619-871-8450 The height of your accomplishments will equal the depth of your convictions. --William F. Scolavino ___ 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: Room Design
If the doors are open at the time of your visit, I think it is safe to assume that they will be propped open at other times as well (unless of course they were temporarily propped open to move equipment in or out). Merry Christmas everyone! Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Room Design When you are performing an inspection of a system calculated using the room design approach, how do you handle all of the doors that are propped open? Or, how do you calculate these systems? Do you always go with the extra two sprinklers and assume the doors will be held open? 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)
RE: Room Design
I am not sure if I understand your question completely, but here is my attempt at an answer. The remote area is the actual physical area and not the hydraulic area. For example, consider a 22'x22' room with four sprinklers on 14' centers, the actual physical area is 484 sq. feet, but the hydraulic area is 784 square feet. Only 484 sq. ft. is in the design area. Have I interpreted your question properly? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Norton Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Room Design While we are on this topic...We have a small debate in our office regarding the density/area method. Some say to ignore the walls completely through the entire calculation process, just like the example that NFPA 13 describes (which works great for a the typical warehouse with equal sprinkler spacing). Others say ignore the walls with regard to the general location of the remote area (1.2 rectangle) and then use the walls to determine the actual square footage of the remote area and to determine the actual gpm required from each sprinkler within the remote area. What do you all say? Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Room Design I can't see a good reason for NFPA to nix the room design method - I've seen enough locations where the self-closing doors actually remain closed. But I can't see a contractor willingly avoid the room design either - not without potentially losing more work to the other guy. A classic example of why NFPA 13 is a minimum standard; and why (many times) there should be a third party taking responsibility for the design. Say, like an engineer of record for instance - one that knows what's going on, that is. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Room Design propped open doors? propped open self-closing doors? that IS reality. that is why the Room Design method has to wake up and smell the coffee. not that the Room Design method is bad in intention. one, two, three sprinklers kabosh most LH/OH fires. just that there are some bad assumptions to the Room Design method. Like doors being closed. scot deal excelsior 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) ___ 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: Standpipe Requirements
That is going to be in the building code. If you are using the IBC, the height of the building dictates the necessity of standpipes. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Standpipe Requirements I have a question for anyone working today. There is a code somewhere that states when a standpipe must be used. I have searched through NFPA 14 and 13 and can not find the code. Does anyone know what and where that information is? Karen Purvis Designer Facility Systems Consultants 714 S Gay St Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 ___ 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: Flow test effective point.
Yes, you must correct for elevation. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow test effective point. I thought I understood this, but maybe not. When determining the effective point for a hydrant flow test, I was told that it is at the junction of the flowing and non-flowing water. (for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that we are talking about a single main, fed from both directions, with hydrants on branches off the main. Pressures are read at one hydrant and another single hydrant is flowed) If this is the case, then the effective point of of the flow test would be at the junction of the main and the branch to the hydrant where the pressures are read. However, this junction occurs underground. If we assume that the gauge on the hydrant is 1'-6 off the ground and the main is 5 ft underground, this would mean that the pressures are read 6.5 ft above the effective point. The pressures at the effective point would be 2.8 psi greater than those read at the hydrant. Is or should a correction be included? This makes a difference on programs such as Autosprink where you draw a 3D model of the underground system and insert a supply at the effective point. 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: Dick Patton
Yes, I got a copy of his report from the 1970s. The current cost, with inflation, is actually $1.71 per square foot, but he took credit for reducing the amount of fireproofing on the structure as a reduction in the cost of his system. He provided no details to show a difference between his design and any NFPA 13 design. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Dick Patton Anyone ever get a reply to their request from Richard Dick regarding his $0.38 per sq. ft. hospital design? Steve Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING 8849-B Complex Drive San Diego, CA 92123 - Ph: 858.751.2930 - Ext. 102 Fax:858.751.2933 Cell: 619.972.5696 ___ 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: Dick Patton
Definitely Turd polishing. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dick Patton Hmmm, you want to write him back and ask him about the particulars or does this fall into the category of polishing a turd? (Sorry Munce - for more on polishing, see AFSA's seminar program ...) :o) Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dick Patton Yes, I got a copy of his report from the 1970s. The current cost, with inflation, is actually $1.71 per square foot, but he took credit for reducing the amount of fireproofing on the structure as a reduction in the cost of his system. He provided no details to show a difference between his design and any NFPA 13 design. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Dick Patton Anyone ever get a reply to their request from Richard Dick regarding his $0.38 per sq. ft. hospital design? Steve Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING 8849-B Complex Drive San Diego, CA 92123 - Ph: 858.751.2930 - Ext. 102 Fax:858.751.2933 Cell: 619.972.5696 ___ 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: Wow
I reviewed some of his writings, and he has an obvious bias against just about everything.except heat detectors. I wonder if he is one of those guys who sells the wind-up heat detectors? Most of his statistics appear to be unfounded, and unsubstantiated. He is also part of an organization the is out to expose the evils of the ionization smoke detector...their message is very one-sides, but not completely inaccurate. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Willis Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:12 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Wow http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDet ailID=18844 What a way to start the day... Matthew J. Willis Living Water Fire Protection, LLC. 1160 McKenzie Rd. PO Box 877 Cantonment, FL. 32533 850-937-1850 Voice 850-937-1852 Facsimile [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ 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: Wow
I just got a return email from Mr. Patton. He is going to send me a copy of his report on the 35 cent design. I will disseminate what I learn from it to the forum in a couple of weeks. I am imagining thousands of water balloons tied to the ceiling, but I think the labor for that might exceed 35 cents per square foot. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:26 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wow If you're talking about Richard Dick Patton, I didn't know he was selling kitchen hood systems. I just thought he was a loony. I kinda' like conspiracy theorists though. You can usually un-piece their strategy by disconnecting the facts that are strung together to form their theory. Dick says he designed a 1.2 million s.f. medical center for 35 cents per s.f. I think we can pretty much stop reading right there. There is a troubling aspect to seeing this guy's rantings in print however, and that is that people who would seize any idea that they think would make sprinklers cheaper (i.e. the NAHB, for ex.) will give him a venue and an audience. Our good friend, the late Bob Caputo and my SoCal buddy Ken Wagoner have both had their day with this fellow and they came out of the experience with anger issues and a foul odor about them. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Cabral Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Cc: Matt Willis Subject: Re: Wow This guy is selling Fire Extinguisher. Kitchen Fire Suppression Systems. . . his answer to the US Fire problem. Talk about self serving. . . -- Mike Cabral Matt Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDet ailID=18844 What a way to start the day... Matthew J. Willis Living Water Fire Protection, LLC. 1160 McKenzie Rd. PO Box 877 Cantonment, FL. 32533 850-937-1850 Voice 850-937-1852 Facsimile [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ 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: 13-R Anti freeze conversions
I assume that these systems are not CPVC since CPVC is incompatible with most antifreeze. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ford, Charles Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:38 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 13-R Anti freeze conversions We have been asked to convert many (100+) existing 13-R systems to anti-freeze. The valve groups are installed in unheated garages (with heat tape) but the garages are sprinklered and freeze occasionally. Garages cannot be isolated for dry sidewalls due to configuration. All homes are owned by a single company. My basic question: Is this a good idea? Wouldn't it be cheaper in both the long and short run to heat garages to 40+ F? These are in the NE USA but below the Mason Dixon line. Comments welcome. 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject:Fire Department boost pressure This is two questions in one posting. A two for one deal. I'm designing a sprinkler system for a grain elevator that has been taken out of service, and now used as a museum. It will be cleaned and there will be no more grain. This building has a footprint of approx. 2000 sf. So crawlspace and main floor are 2000 sf each. The area housing the 7 grain bins is about 80 feet high and has a foot print of approx. 1000 sf (included in the main floor 2000 sf). At the very top there is a lower penthouse and upper penthouse (about 300 sf each). The building area is small, but due to sloped roofs and obstructions, requires about 110 sprinkler heads. The first question: Although it is classified as a museum, I'm designing it for OH1 occupancy. The entire building is exposed wood construction and very dry. If there is a fire the fuel load is very high. Any comments? Now there is a crawlspace area under the bins that is combustible and not accessible. The owner does not want this area to be sprinklered. So kicks in the 3000 sf requirement. Second question: Should I include heads a diffent levels in my calcs.? The city supply (110 static pressure) is enough to supply about 30 sprinklers at different levels at the top (excluding the penthouses which are not open to the rest of the building). Should I be includng additional sprinklers from the penthouses and lower levels? If I did include additional heads, the city supply is insufficient. But the owner (who is the City) has told me that if the city supply is not enough, it will be boosted by the responding fire department and they will issue a variance to that effect. So the third question (I cheated there were three), which would apply to other buildings also that have high pressure water supply. Do I need a pressure reducing valve? The fire dept. boost is typically over 100 psi. 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) 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
RE: UNDERGGROUND FIRE MAIN TESTING
Pressure is pressure, but do you really want to test the integrity of plastic fittings with a compressible gas? A failure could produce a most interesting rocket from a piece of pipe. If you must use a gas, why nitrogen, why not compressed air (not suggesting that either is a good idea)? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Loren Johnson Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:23 PM To: Sprinkler Forum Subject: UNDERGGROUND FIRE MAIN TESTING Forum: We have a situation that just came up.here's the quick question side of things: Can listed plastic underground fire main piping be tested with nitrogen instead of the typical hydro-static water method? I've always been told this is not acceptable, and there are no sections on the test form that indicate this to be an option. In addi-tion, since FM Global is the insuance carrier for this project, there is a very strong possibility the installation would be unacceptable when field in-spected. Thanks in advance. Loren Johnson Peoria, IL Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html ___ 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: [NJFireSafety] NASFM Code Enforcement Bulletin again
According to this approach, my office is an H occupancy. There is not separation of my office from the rest of the spaces on this floor and we have hundreds of chairs and several couches. I do believe that we have more than 250 pounds of polyurethane foam in the fire area. Now I am scared, I had no idea that I was entering a death trap every morning! And, my God, I have upholstered furniture in my home...how irresponsible! Is there any loss history to support his assertion that a furniture showroom cannot be protected as a mercantile occupancy? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: [NJFireSafety] NASFM Code Enforcement Bulletin again Seems quite a stretch to call polyurethane a chemical in order to call it a flammable solid thus making the warehouse an H occupancy. I would also think any group A plastic could fall into this same approach. Didi the occupants have any trouble getting out - NO so why impose all the other requirements such as a much tougher egress criteria? This is nuts. Why not attack the size of the warehouse before sprinklers are required based on heat release and flame spread Also do you have any data on the set-up of the flame test. A burn rate of 0.1 inch per second is slower than a class II commodity for rack fires (excluding initial burn time). Roland On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:14 AM, John Drucker wrote: The list server stripped the file, heres the link; http://www.firemarshals.org/mission/catastrophic/ furniture_stores_wareho uses.asp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:12 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FW: [NJFireSafety] NASFM Code Enforcement Bulletin Forum Members, Thought this may be of interest to you. John Drucker From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert J Davidson Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NJFireSafety] NASFM Code Enforcement Bulletin Attached is a copy of a code enforcement bulletin from the National Association of State Fire Marshals concerning upholstered furniture. Robert J Davidson Fire Life Safety Consultant Davidson Code Concepts, LLC 45 Colonial Drive Tinton Falls, NJ 07753 732-643-1799 phone/fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidsoncodeconcepts.com http://www.davidsoncodeconcepts.com/ This message contains confidential information, intended only for the person(s) named above, which may also be privileged. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. In such case, you should delete this message and kindly notify the sender via reply e-mail. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet e-mail for messages of this kind. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJFireSafety/message/ 5282;_ylc=X3oDMTM0Mj NxNTY1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzUxMTQ4MTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNjgyBG1z Z0 lkAzUyODIEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMTkyMDE5MTM2BHRwY0lkAzUyODI- (1) Reply (via web post) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJFireSafety/ post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwMG5la2RyBF 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzUxMTQ4MTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNjgyBG1zZ0lkAzUy OD IEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMTkyMDE5MTM2? act=replymessageNum=5282 | Start a new topic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJFireSafety/ post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZzdqNGxkBF 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzUxMTQ4MTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNjgyBHNlYwNmdHIE c2 xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5MjAxOTEzNg-- Messages http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJFireSafety/ messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb3A4bW poBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzUxMTQ4MTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNjgyBHNlYwNm dH IEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE5MjAxOTEzNg-- | Members http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJFireSafety/ members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDBlaGh rBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzUxMTQ4MTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNjgyBHNlYwNmd HI Ec2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTE5MjAxOTEzNg-- Yahoo! Groups http:// groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbmloMWEyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA zUxMTQ4MTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNjgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTk yM DE5MTM2 Change settings via the Web http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NJFireSafety/ join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN3RtaGg1BF 9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzUxMTQ4MTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwNjgyBHNlYwNmdHIE c2 xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExOTIwMTkxMzY- (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery: Digest | Switch format to Traditional mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery Format: Traditional Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ NJFireSafety;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZGFpa3IxBF9TAzk
RE: Owner's Information Certificate
That depends upon the source of that information that he has interpreted. His property and casualty insurer (FM, IRI, etc.) may have emphasized the property protection aspects of an NFPA 13 system since they do not insure human life. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Owner's Information Certificate Can you believe this gentleman told me that he had been told 20 times that NFPA 13 systems protect property only and not life safety? This is a normal intelligent businessman who said this? No longer fuming, but wanting to go home and boss my dog around, Greg Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Owner's Information Certificate Greg, It would be good to mention where the OH2 requirement came from. At 03:33 PM 8/3/2007, you wrote: This letter is to reiterate the fact the sprinkler system in your new building is designed and installed for Ordinary Hazard Group II occupancy. We have installed the system per approved drawings with some small modifications as required per jobsite conditions. Please note that your future tenants should be advised that if they use the building for storage of commodities, storage heights or storage arrangements other than provided for Ordinary Hazard Group II in NFPA #13; the system could be inadequate and will not be in compliance with code. If you or your tenants have specific questions we will be glad to assist in any way that we can. (Best I can do on a Friday afternoon.) 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 Garth W. Warren Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Owner's Information Certificate Greg - sounds like you are handling it very professionally (well, ok, except for the fuming part) with your letter which will complement the data nameplate on the riser. I'd try and avoid the negatives in the letter and maybe state the various types of occupancies for which the system is properly designed. Garth - Original Message - From: Greg McGahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:39 PM Subject: Owner's Information Certificate New spec warehouse designed for Ordinary Hazard Group II occupancy. Halfway through construction we find out that half of the warehouse is leased to a major retailer who also performs home improvements and they intend to store home improvement items in the space. I thought we were correct in sending the GC an OIC and asking the tenant to complete and return. It comes back with vinyl siding stored in racks to 11'-0. We inform the owner and GC (one and the same) that the system is inadequate and needs to be addressed. Mr Owner calls me, blesses me thoroughly for trying to monitor the world and asks if I intend to do daily inspections of the premises to make sure the tenant is storing in accordance with OH2 and etc, etc, etc. I review 13 4.3 and A4.3 and realize that there is a tremendous hole in the standard. Although the intent is spelled out in the appendix it stops short of describing the exact situation that we have here. Why doesn't it say that the OIC must be reviewed and resigned by the owner after the building is built? In this case the owner feels that if we have an OIC prior to starting the job we should shut up and move since 13 does not REQUIRE us to revisit the design after that. The change of occupancy does not technically apply since the building has not yet, nor will be occupied when we finish. In order to cover us, we are going to write a letter stating that the system is OH2 and any tenants should comply with all that entails or they are not in compliance and the system is not adequate. And before you all attack me and tell me to walk, this happens to be one of the most stable and established GC's in our little town and we really do not want to alienate him. Still fuming, Greg Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___
RE: Telling an AHJ No ?
We have an AHJ here who has been elevated to deity status by every spineless architect, engineer, and owner that bends to his every whim and wish. He is generally very knowledgeable, but not always correct, and does not appreciate having his knowledge questioned. He refused to even look at a formal interpretation from the ICC because he, don't know where those people get their ideas.! He is an AHJ for state-owned or state-controlled properties and has cost taxpayers many millions of dollars for things like student computer centers designed to OH2 because computers have plastic cases, hazardous exhaust systems for rooms where ounces of cleaning agents will be used, and a multitude of other requirements. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Telling an AHJ No ? I note from this thread and many others on the subject of what to do when the AHJ requires things that are beyond their authority, along with a telecon I had earlier this week, that it happens far more often than it should, and there's a wide variance on how we sprinkler guys handle it. We're all aware that staying current on the codes- NFPA and Building- is more than a full-time job, and most would agree that a large part of the membership benefit of AFSA and other associations is assistance in keeping up with those changes, advance notice of what's in the pipeline, and naturally, the AFSA's Informal Interpretations. If it is difficult for us to stay atop of just the FP part of this, and the AHJs we deal with often lack our breadth of experience, intimate code knowledge, and they often have handicap and egress requirements upon which they also must remain current- so it is not a surprise that we're often saddled with sorting out valid corrections from hearsay learned in a seminar and misapplied. Compounding this is the tenuous adversarial positions we may end up in if we tell the AHJ he's wrong, and/or stand up for the rights of the Owner and/or our own. We must deal with this guy whenever we're in his jurisdiction, and there's no end to the things an AHJ can do to make our lives difficult. So many of us simply roll over and if its not a lot of money, we give in. While this avoids continuation of a problem on the first job, where schedule demands may point to rolling over since no time exists to fight, it sets a dangerous precedent that the AHJ will expect you to follow in the future. In one jurisdiction, we were asked when we were planning on doing our bucket test on a 13R installation. I pointed out that this was a 13D requirement stemming from the possible need to verify the calc-light option in 13D, but that the calcs run for 13R met a higher standard of care and therefore the code doesn't require a bucket test in 13R. He replied our competitors all do it. And I responded that that's their option, I'd rather educate you on what you're asking for- and he said if its not a requirement of 13R, you don't need to do it. So we saved some labor hours on each job there, and I trust our competitors no longer have to do it either (at least those that bother to read this!). But there was no argument, no lines drawn in the sand, just an explanation of where and what the requirement was, and why it didn't apply where he was trying to apply it. This was made far easier from the AHJ's recognition of his own limited knowledge, and his familiarity with my code knowledge- exhibited in the explanation of not only what the code said, but explaining why. The larger problems arise when we encounter what many of us refer to as the badge-heavy AHJ who believes he's been anointed from on high, and therefore his proclamations are supreme. Having encountered some of these, I can understand a second type of response to the AHJ asking for more than he's entitled to- dump it in the Owner (or GC's) lap and ask if they want to fight or give it to him. I don't want to know how much money has been wasted on pacifying the clueless. This doesn't end the war, it just lets him win the battle and have precedent set that he gets his own way, when he really needs to have someone explain what local amendments are, how they are obtained, and without them, you have the base building code. The more we cave in to excessive demands, the longer the problem will persist. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Check valve in 13D system I second Ron's thoughts. Guys, I cite chapter and verse. You may not like reading it or worse doing it but hey its in the code. I'll entertain a variation if you have a better mousetrap but you gotta do the homework. Its pretty simple. Have the inspector cite it. John Drucker (AHJ)
RE: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1)
If there is nothing on the building code side driving you to have a sprinklered building, the protecting specific hazards is acceptable, but you will still not have a sprinklered building. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1) We have met and satisfied all the requirements of the building code for the installation. 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 Paul Pinigis Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1) Are there allowances for height, area, fire-endurance, etc. being applied to the project based upon it being sprinklered? If so, look at those exceptions very carefully. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1) I've got a gypsum board mfg. facility. Several areas are unsprinkled as permitted by the IFB due to the lack of hazard present and building separations. I also have hazardous storage, paper storage and offices which are sprinkled, again in accordance with the IFB and IFC. The AHJ is saying that if we sprinkler anything then EVERYTHING needs to be sprinkled regardless of what the building code says based on 8.1.1(1). Sprinklers shall be installed throughout the premises. Does anyone have a formal interpretation on this sentence? If he has his way I'd have to protect 500,000 sf of finished gypboard. Craig L. Prahl, CET ___ 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: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1)
Sweet! Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 1:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1) Well thanks to those who replied. We just got a call from the AHJ and the ruling was changed. We're good to go. 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 Paul Pinigis Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1) If there is nothing on the building code side driving you to have a sprinklered building, the protecting specific hazards is acceptable, but you will still not have a sprinklered building. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1) We have met and satisfied all the requirements of the building code for the installation. 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 Paul Pinigis Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1) Are there allowances for height, area, fire-endurance, etc. being applied to the project based upon it being sprinklered? If so, look at those exceptions very carefully. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Interpretation of nfpa 13, 8.1.1(1) I've got a gypsum board mfg. facility. Several areas are unsprinkled as permitted by the IFB due to the lack of hazard present and building separations. I also have hazardous storage, paper storage and offices which are sprinkled, again in accordance with the IFB and IFC. The AHJ is saying that if we sprinkler anything then EVERYTHING needs to be sprinkled regardless of what the building code says based on 8.1.1(1). Sprinklers shall be installed throughout the premises. Does anyone have a formal interpretation on this sentence? If he has his way I'd have to protect 500,000 sf of finished gypboard. Craig L. Prahl, CET ___ 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 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: Corps of Engineers Grv'd Cplg Spec
The client paid for the design, but not the cost of producing multiple sets of drawings to be sent out to bidders. The small fee that is charged is not for the design, but for the paper output. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregg Key, SET Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Corps of Engineers Grv'd Cplg Spec You are right Bob, especially when is a Gov. Job. We are suppose to have a clause in our contract that states that if we have to pay for drawings it will be an extra to the contract. So cost of work goes up. Gov has already paid for it once. Gregg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 3:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Corps of Engineers Grv'd Cplg Spec Ron said, Something is very wrong in the building industry. Very true and there has been for many years. Besides all the little niceties that you mentioned, my pet peeve is the architect or engineer who has been paid multi-thousands of dollars to provide the owner with plans and specs and then turns around and wants the sub to pay him another $50, $150, $300, or what ever absurd price to transmit you the drawings. Anyway my rant, I'm done. Bob knight ___ 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: Corps of Engineers Grv'd Cplg Spec
No, that would be robbery. Emails are free, CDs are usually free, and paper is based on the actual printing and delivery costs. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Corps of Engineers Grv'd Cplg Spec $200 per sheet for email is for paper output? 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 Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Corps of Engineers Grv'd Cplg Spec The client paid for the design, but not the cost of producing multiple sets of drawings to be sent out to bidders. The small fee that is charged is not for the design, but for the paper output. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregg Key, SET Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Corps of Engineers Grv'd Cplg Spec You are right Bob, especially when is a Gov. Job. We are suppose to have a clause in our contract that states that if we have to pay for drawings it will be an extra to the contract. So cost of work goes up. Gov has already paid for it once. Gregg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 3:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Corps of Engineers Grv'd Cplg Spec Ron said, Something is very wrong in the building industry. Very true and there has been for many years. Besides all the little niceties that you mentioned, my pet peeve is the architect or engineer who has been paid multi-thousands of dollars to provide the owner with plans and specs and then turns around and wants the sub to pay him another $50, $150, $300, or what ever absurd price to transmit you the drawings. Anyway my rant, I'm done. Bob knight ___ 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: 10psi Saftey Factor
Why? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 1:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: 10psi Saftey Factor ___ 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: IDOD Dry pipe systems
IDOD is just a high-quality galvanized pipe that has a nice alloy layer of zinc and steel on the surface because the pipe is heated to the same temperature as the zinc bath before it is dipped. There is no flaking of the zinc coating that you get when you roll grove lower quality pipe (e.g. stuff from China) so it has a better corrosion resistance. I don't think that there are any listing restrictions. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 4:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: IDOD Dry pipe systems We have a project with about 120,000 Sf of dry parking garage, which requires the use of IDOD for all branchlines, and Galv mains. We have never used the IDOD product and have the following questions for any of you that have: What is the preferred head out let?(Side outlet coupling?)(Snap-o-lets between?)(other?) Any specific listing restrictions with this product? Do you order pre-cuts from the factory or cut your own? Any other suggestions? Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - ___ 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: IDOD Dry pipe systems
IDOD is the product name for a galvanized pipe product. The IDOD came from Inside Diameter, Outside Diameter since both surfaces are galvanized. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: IDOD Dry pipe systems Educate the sheltered amongst us. What is IDOD? 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 Thom McMahon Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 4:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: IDOD Dry pipe systems We have a project with about 120,000 Sf of dry parking garage, which requires the use of IDOD for all branchlines, and Galv mains. We have never used the IDOD product and have the following questions for any of you that have: What is the preferred head out let?(Side outlet coupling?)(Snap-o-lets between?)(other?) Any specific listing restrictions with this product? Do you order pre-cuts from the factory or cut your own? Any other suggestions? Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - ___ 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: Sprinkler Success Story
Dan, Is this a dry pipe or pre-action system? Did the pipe happen to be made in China? Was there any testing for the presence of the microbes associated with MIC? What type of sprinklers were these? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler Success Story Dear Forum members, I have got the following situation. A 4 years old system, grid type, 2 galvanized pipes, K=5.6 pendent sprinklers, bulb type. Suspecting that there is a great deal of clogged heads, we run some tests: 1. We subjected a sample to 15 psi pressure and initiated the bulbs. 2. Some of the heads burst. Some did not. 3. One head burst at 14 bars, one at 3.5 bars, one at 1.5 bars. 4. In the sprinklers that bust, the cone type plastic plug was ejected, but the deposit did not, i.e.: The actual nozzle was about 1/4 of the full sprinkler bore area. We tested the water. The general solid contents were between 277 and 455 mg/L. Ca was between 55 and 82 mg/L, Mg 32 to 37 mg/L. Cl 25 to 27 mg/L Na 14 to 17 mg/L Zn 3 to 6 mg/L We also tested the deposits within some sprinklers that appeared to be hard (resulting in a constricted nozzle). In these deposits we found a great deal of Iron and Zinc. In the deposit one head we found 4% Ca, 50% iron and 4.4% Zinc, In another one 10% Ca, 1.5% Iron and 20% Zinc. Another one 4.5% Ca, 25% Iron, 8% Zinc. All came from the same galvanized system. This is all very disturbing information. It appears that Zinc and Iron ions migrate to the copper based sprinkler and creates hard deposit de-capacitating the sprinkler system. I would like to hear from other people experience and source of information for similar research. After all, under NFPA25 one is not supposed to inspect the condition of sprinklers by dismounting a sample. DAN, Dan Arbel Tel: 972-4-8243337 Fax: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-2810593 ___ 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: Sprinkler Success Story
I know of a lot of quality issues with galvanized pipe that is coming out of China. Does this happen to be Chinese pipe? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler Success Story This is a standard wet type system. Dan Arbel Tel: 972-4-8243337 Fax: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-2810593 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler Success Story Dan, Is this a dry pipe or pre-action system? Did the pipe happen to be made in China? Was there any testing for the presence of the microbes associated with MIC? What type of sprinklers were these? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler Success Story Dear Forum members, I have got the following situation. A 4 years old system, grid type, 2 galvanized pipes, K=5.6 pendent sprinklers, bulb type. Suspecting that there is a great deal of clogged heads, we run some tests: 1. We subjected a sample to 15 psi pressure and initiated the bulbs. 2. Some of the heads burst. Some did not. 3. One head burst at 14 bars, one at 3.5 bars, one at 1.5 bars. 4. In the sprinklers that bust, the cone type plastic plug was ejected, but the deposit did not, i.e.: The actual nozzle was about 1/4 of the full sprinkler bore area. We tested the water. The general solid contents were between 277 and 455 mg/L. Ca was between 55 and 82 mg/L, Mg 32 to 37 mg/L. Cl 25 to 27 mg/L Na 14 to 17 mg/L Zn 3 to 6 mg/L We also tested the deposits within some sprinklers that appeared to be hard (resulting in a constricted nozzle). In these deposits we found a great deal of Iron and Zinc. In the deposit one head we found 4% Ca, 50% iron and 4.4% Zinc, In another one 10% Ca, 1.5% Iron and 20% Zinc. Another one 4.5% Ca, 25% Iron, 8% Zinc. All came from the same galvanized system. This is all very disturbing information. It appears that Zinc and Iron ions migrate to the copper based sprinkler and creates hard deposit de-capacitating the sprinkler system. I would like to hear from other people experience and source of information for similar research. After all, under NFPA25 one is not supposed to inspect the condition of sprinklers by dismounting a sample. DAN, Dan Arbel Tel: 972-4-8243337 Fax: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-2810593 ___ 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) __ NOD32 2361 (20070628) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.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: Gang Drain for Attic Dry System
Yes, unless you put a drain valve on the end of each branch line to facilitate drainage of each line individually. Could be expensive. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:24 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Gang Drain for Attic Dry System This question was just posed to me by my Branch Manager - In an attic dry system with each branch line ending in what amounts to a low?point, if the designer interconnected each branch line to?a 1-inch gang drain, would that not, in effect, create a gridded dry system? Ray Hoshall Service Manager FIRE TECH SERVICES, INC. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.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: Steam Room
What would be your justification for not protecting that room? I can not find anything that would permit omission of sprinklers. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 1:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Steam Room But the question still is; is there somewhere in the code that states that this is how you treat a steamroom. In other words do I have to have that area covered? Karen Purvis Designer Facility Systems Consultants 714 S Gay St Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 1:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Steam Room Actually we use 360'F heads in our sauna's and 286 in steam rooms. Steam is 212'F max unless its under pressure, (at a pressure above atmospheric) which should never occur in a steam room. The sauna is higher because the electrical cut out is usually well over 200'F (As high as 300). We protect both as light haz.. even tho the sauna has un-treated wood thru out, can have more in the way of combustible lotions oils and towels in contact with the dry heat element, than is usually able to happen in the non-combustible steam room. Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 - Original Message - From: Jamie Seidl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 11:24 AM Subject: RE: Steam Room I talked with a sauna rep awhile back on this same issue. They recommend a 286 deg head. Jamie Seidl ___ 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: Steam Room
I would suggest asking the engineer for his justification for omitting the room, in writing. I doubt that you will get anything. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Steam Room I could not find anything either but the engineer did not think it would need to be covered. Just trying to cover my bases. Karen Purvis Designer Facility Systems Consultants 714 S Gay St Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Steam Room What would be your justification for not protecting that room? I can not find anything that would permit omission of sprinklers. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer ___ 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: Biodiesel mfg
Biodiesel is vegetable oil, and likely a Class IIIB combustible liquid. You should question the classification considering that the flash point of vegetable oil is very high. The following is from an FM document: The closed cup flash point of the tested vegetable oil was 450°F (232°C) Even if this was an oil-cooking facility the density would only be 0.25 gpm/sf over 3,000 sq ft (per FM standard on oil cooking equipment). Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Biodiesel mfg I have been asked to look at some criteria for a small (2500 sqft) biodiesel processing facility. Someone (I'm not sure who) defined this as a Class !B flammable liquid and called for a 0.40 gpm/sqft density over the entire building area. While I'm not necessarily challenging this, I cannot find anything to verify it. NFPA 13 and 30 seem to focus more on storage than processing. Has anyone else run into this yet? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Test
Ding. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -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)
RE: FDC check valves
In my 1983 edition the requirement is listed and there is a bar next to the section indicating that it was either new or changed. But, there are other references to the check valve that don't indicate changes, so the requirement definitely predates 1983. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Christine Conlin Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC check valves Good day to all! Does anyone know when NFPA 14 or other NFPA standard first initiated the requirement for a check valve in the fire department connection? Thanks for the help in advance. Sean ___ 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: Combustible Construction Stair Ways
(1) the presence of the gypsum board does not change the construction to non-combustible. (2) good question, that one is not clear to me. My initial response would be yes, but the requirement is vague. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shawn Fenneran Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; Bob Caputo Subject: Combustible Construction Stair Ways To all: I am doing a Project 4 Story Residential building witch is designed per NFPA 13 and it is being built with Type V Construction. The Stairs are being sheet rock w/ 1 layer of 5/8 GWB underneath all landings, and all walls in the stair. It does state in NFPA 13 8.14.3, Combustible Construction. Sprinklers shall be installed beneath all stairway of combustible construction. (1) Does putting 5/8 GYB Sheet rock underneath the landing makes this a Non combustible stair? (2) If this is considered a combustible stair do we have to put sprinklers underneath all landings, not just underneath the entry on each floor, including underneath the intermediate landing between the floors Thanks Shawn Fenneran CET#105218 ___ 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: Cycling Systems
Are you referring to the Viking Firecycle system? If so, they seem to be most useful on projects with nervous electrical engineers. I have proposed them on data center projects just to get electrical engineers to stop hyperventilating at the thought of having a sprinkler system discharge in their space, but we have always settled on wet or preaction. The only place that I have seen them used in any volume is in the cable vaults of telephone central offices and in the electrical rooms of a large government data center. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brooks, Bill Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:59 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Cycling Systems Not the two wheeled type that have caused me some aggravation. Can anyone provide feedback on the usefulness of these systems? What is the ideal application if there is one? Bill Brooks Pittsburgh, PA ___ 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: Carpet Padding Commodity Classification
It is an expanded plastic, but you would need to know what materials are used to be any more specific. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Smith, Steven D. (CSFD) Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:41 AM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: Carpet Padding Commodity Classification Forum members, I couldn't find anything in the archives regarding this. (I noticed that the archives are limited to the most recent 6 mos) At any rate, how would carpet padding (by itself) be classified? I've got some thoughts but want to hear from others first. Thank you in advance. Steven Smith, CFPS Fire Protection Engineer II Colorado Springs Fire Department 719-385-7362 In Omnia Paratus Fire Engineering Saves Firefighters Lives ___ 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: Pockets or just plain Obstructions
Check your math, but first convert 14 to 1.167'. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coastal Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pockets or just plain Obstructions Hello sprinklerforum, I have a 2 story butler building where the center area of the 2nd floor is supported by 14 deep steel beams exposed to the floor below. The space between the beams are 24'-4 long x 4' Wide and the beams are 14 deep supported at each end by a 16 deep beam. IF I did my math right that figures to 1362.666 cubic feet in each space. Heads down the length of each space? Sidewall head at each end in each space? This is a light hazard building. The space under these beams will be a game room for a Youth Christian Center. I am open to suggestions to protect this area AND keep the pool cues away from the sprinkler heads.. -- Best regards, Charles Thurston Coastal Fire Protection mailto:[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) ___ 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[2]: Pockets or just plain Obstructions
So what you really have is just simple obstructed construction. Place the deflector 1 below the bottom flange of the beam and space them normally. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Thurston Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:57 AM To: Paul Pinigis Subject: Re[2]: Pockets or just plain Obstructions Hello Paul, Got my coffee and construction calculator working now and it looks like 113.5556 cubic feet Tuesday, May 15, 2007, 8:44:52 AM, you wrote: Check your math, but first convert 14 to 1.167'. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coastal Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pockets or just plain Obstructions Hello sprinklerforum, I have a 2 story butler building where the center area of the 2nd floor is supported by 14 deep steel beams exposed to the floor below. The space between the beams are 24'-4 long x 4' Wide and the beams are 14 deep supported at each end by a 16 deep beam. IF I did my math right that figures to 1362.666 cubic feet in each space. Heads down the length of each space? Sidewall head at each end in each space? This is a light hazard building. The space under these beams will be a game room for a Youth Christian Center. I am open to suggestions to protect this area AND keep the pool cues away from the sprinkler heads.. -- Best regards, Charlesmailto:[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) ___ 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: Article on Sprinkler Recall
Really?!?!? I am actually a very nice person. I despise lawyers, but that doesn't make me a bad person. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Nadhazy Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Article on Sprinkler Recall Paul pinginis is one of those I wouldn't like to meet in the darkness. That is all! --Original Message-- From: Todd Williams - work Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org ReplyTo: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: May 4, 2007 11:05 AM Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Another purveyor of methinks. I always liked that word (and it's in my Spell Check). At 11:07 AM 5/4/2007, you wrote: Well, my dad was a corporate patent attorney, not salivating over much except getting a round of golf below 85 on Saturday. Methinks Shakespeare is taken out of context too often; I wouldn't be here otherwise. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall This is America, you can be sued by anyone for anything as long as there are scum-bag lawyers salivating at the prospect of making a dollar. We should have followed Shakespeare's advice and killed all of the lawyers. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Could you also be sued by a property owner by calling in enforcement when you're not legally obligated to? glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, M Peter Nadhazy 485 Pine Street Seekonk, MA 02771 (508)761-4695 ___ 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: Margarine
I would suggest storing the margarine with huge amounts of popping corn. It may not control the fire, but it would be mighty tasty. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Margarine The NFPA classification of margarine in storage is Class III if oil content is below 50% and Class A if between 50% to 80%, all regardless of packaging. Anybody knows if this is based on actual testing? Is ESFR suitable for this type of storage? In the catastrophic fire in Mont Blank tunnel fire a truck carrying margarine and flour got ignited. It was found later that in terms of HRR is would be similar to gasoline tanker (90% of). I would appreciate any info. Dan Arbel Tel: 972-4-8243337 Fax: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-2810593 ___ 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: Article on Sprinkler Recall
This is America, you can be sued by anyone for anything as long as there are scum-bag lawyers salivating at the prospect of making a dollar. We should have followed Shakespeare's advice and killed all of the lawyers. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Could you also be sued by a property owner by calling in enforcement when you're not legally obligated to? glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall But lets face it a letter to the government AHJ does more then simply notify someone. This notification unlike any other will result in the responsible party being compelled to resolve the issue, which mitigates the hazard, which reduces the chance of litigation, which protects property, which saves lives ! Check with your attorney ask him/her if that makes sense, ask him/her if a reasonable person would consider it prudent to notify the authority of jurisdiction responsible for public safety whenever a condition arose that could endanger that safety. If uncommon sense doesn't compel someone we have the Fire Codes reporting and notification requirements and the legal doctrines of ones duty of care and duty to act. Yours in Fire Safety John Drucker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall George, I would think that any professional, be it contractor, designer or whatever, who does not notify someone,(I opt for the owner, because they have a certain responsibility) of a dangerous condition they are aware of, could bear some responsibility if that condition leads to a loss. It may be criminal or civil, but the issue remains. I tend to equate them because they both involve something I don't like to dogive lawyers money. A letter to a building owner, which should take no more than 10 minutes to write, could save a lot of headaches down the road. Well worth the investment, IMHO. At 12:45 PM 5/3/2007, you wrote: While I'll certainly agree it's the right thing to do, I vehemently disagree that the sprinkler industry- at least we dumb installing contractors- have a legal or fiduciary duty to contact a fire official. I believe there is a higher standard for registered design professionals; but we work for the building owner in many cases, but we are in no way, shape or form obligated by any law I'm aware of to act as an enforcement entity, or snitch. That's NOT to say that a widow's lawyer wouldn't drag us in and state that we should have recognized a clear and present danger, and taken action- I just never heard of any legal requirement. Has anyone else heard of such a requirement, or case law (outside Calif) where a contractor was liable for not contacting an enforcement agency? Can you imagine an auto mechanic being charged with contributing to manslaughter if someone drove in, asked him to check their brakes, he discovers they are defective, the car owner refuses to allow him to fix them, and drives off- and the mechanic doesn't call the police and give licenses number, let alone follow in pursuit so as to be able to guide the police to the escaping vehicle? If this were the case, there would be standards requiring mechanics be located in areas with cel reception, have cel phones with charged batteries at the ready, and a pursuit vehicle parked so as to allow ready exit to pursue. Anyone aware of a parallel in sprinkler contracting? George Church Rowe Sprinkler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Todd, Its really quite simple. Notify your local fire official (AHJ) in writing of any known fire sprinkler systems where the replacement of sprinkler heads effected by the recall has not been accomplished. The sprinkler industry has a duty of care and fire officials have a duty to act. Besides all that it's the right thing to do. The last thing the sprinkler industry needs is a fire loss due to defective product where the integrity of the industry and fire sprinkler systems in general is brought into question. Lets seize this opportunity before it slips away. Yours in fire safety John Drucker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall
RE: Manual wet standpipes
If there is city water available, include it too. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:23 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Manual wet standpipes We have a discussion in our office on the correct way to calculate a manual wet standpipe. Our local fire department pumper trucks are set for 150PSI @ 1500 GPM and contain a 1500 gallon tank For calculating a manual wet standpipe back to the fire department connection, should we only use the rated capacity of the pumper truck or are we allowed to add in the city water pressure/flow available at the hydrant at which they hook up to? IE: Either treat it as a stand alone fire pump off a tank or as a standard fire pump w/ city water supply added in. 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: Roof Deck
I should have studied! I failed! Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Roof Deck Ok..this may be a stupid question, but here goes: If I have concrete tee construction, what can I use as the roof deck. I have an area with 28' to bottom of deck and 26'-2 to bottom of tee. If I can use the bottom of tee as the maximum ceiling height, then I can use 0.60 gpm density using Tyco k17-231 sprinklers. If I need to use 28', then the density goes to 0.80 gpm / sq ft. This is a retrofit, and the existing system works with 0.60, but does not work with 0.80. I am looking for something to justify the 0.60 gpm as being adequate. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 480-505-9271 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Examine yourselves to see if your faith is genuine. Test yourselves. Surely you know that Jesus Christ is among you; if not, you have failed the test of genuine faith. 2 Corinthians 13:5 NLT -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 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: C urious
I would suggest that you ask the AHJ for the section that you are violating. Are you violating Table 8.3.2.5(a)? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Minkel Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE:C urious We have an AHJ saying our center-of-tile recessed 155F sprinkler is too close to the HVAC supply diffuser in an A.T.C. (less than 2') I am curious as to what section or paragraph in NFPA-13, 2002 references this requirement? I can't find it, maybe one of y'all can hep me? ___ 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: Selecting Heads For a New System
I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but if you use a sprinkler with a k-factor of 8.0 then the optimum area per sprinkler (to minimize pressure demand) is 106 square feet. Maybe a 10 x 10.5 foot spacing. The approach that you take will differ depending upon the ALL of the factors associated with the project. A holistic approach to each project is needed. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Selecting Heads For a New System Let me start by saying I've only been in the sprinkler world for just over a year so if any thing I ask is rookie-ish please keep that in mind. I'm looking for ideas that some of you may use when starting a new project when it comes to selecting what heads (head spacing) to use. For example: I am starting a retail store (mercantile) that has a Static of 47 psi Residual of 42 psi, flow of 1090 gpm. What I do now to get me in the ballpark is take the density x area of operation x 1.4 (for overage) + hose allowance. That gets me roughly the system gpm demand. So .20 x 1500 = 300 x 1.4 = 420 + 250 (hose) = 670 gpm. I then plot that gpm on my water supply curve (N1.85) to get the psi for that gpm; in this case that's around 45psi. From that psi I take out for the BFP, elevation, 40% (friction loss etc) and whatever is left I find a head with an end head pressure that's slightly under that and away I go Any thoughts? Suggestions? Better Ideas? Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Selecting Heads For a New System
Ok, with the pressure that you have available, you can pretty much forget extended coverage sprinklers. The area per sprinkler that gave you will require the minimum end-head pressure of 7 psi. If you have a cushion, you can increase the area per sprinkler as long as you stay under the curve. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System I'm looking for a way to take the given information (static, residual, flow) for a given job and come up with a head spacing (standard or extended coverage) that will work. Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection Design Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but if you use a sprinkler with a k-factor of 8.0 then the optimum area per sprinkler (to minimize pressure demand) is 106 square feet. Maybe a 10 x 10.5 foot spacing. The approach that you take will differ depending upon the ALL of the factors associated with the project. A holistic approach to each project is needed. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Selecting Heads For a New System Let me start by saying I've only been in the sprinkler world for just over a year so if any thing I ask is rookie-ish please keep that in mind. I'm looking for ideas that some of you may use when starting a new project when it comes to selecting what heads (head spacing) to use. For example: I am starting a retail store (mercantile) that has a Static of 47 psi Residual of 42 psi, flow of 1090 gpm. What I do now to get me in the ballpark is take the density x area of operation x 1.4 (for overage) + hose allowance. That gets me roughly the system gpm demand. So .20 x 1500 = 300 x 1.4 = 420 + 250 (hose) = 670 gpm. I then plot that gpm on my water supply curve (N1.85) to get the psi for that gpm; in this case that's around 45psi. From that psi I take out for the BFP, elevation, 40% (friction loss etc) and whatever is left I find a head with an end head pressure that's slightly under that and away I go Any thoughts? Suggestions? Better Ideas? Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax ___ 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Selecting Heads For a New System
If your required density is 0.20 gpm/sq. ft., a 5.6 k-factor will require 21.55 psi minimum for 130 sq. ft. With the flow data that you described this may be a waste of precious pressure (say that three times fast!). Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System The smaller the K factor the lower the flow accumulation (based on equal spacing) and orifices smaller than 1/2 are verboten for OH. You could always develop a hydraulic pipe schedule using different EHP's to get an idea of the impact on pipe size. You wouldn't want to burn a lot of the available pressure on the end head and then have a 6 riser. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System Ron, What did you use to come up with 5.6k heads? Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection Design Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System I think your 40% overage is way too high based on the flow test. A good design oops, layout will limit the overage to less than 20%. Your not going to use 20 x 20 EC's because of the flow test and the smaller the K factor the lower the accumlation in the system so I would recommend 1/2 5.6K heads at 130 max. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Selecting Heads For a New System Let me start by saying I've only been in the sprinkler world for just over a year so if any thing I ask is rookie-ish please keep that in mind. I'm looking for ideas that some of you may use when starting a new project when it comes to selecting what heads (head spacing) to use. For example: I am starting a retail store (mercantile) that has a Static of 47 psi Residual of 42 psi, flow of 1090 gpm. What I do now to get me in the ballpark is take the density x area of operation x 1.4 (for overage) + hose allowance. That gets me roughly the system gpm demand. So .20 x 1500 = 300 x 1.4 = 420 + 250 (hose) = 670 gpm. I then plot that gpm on my water supply curve (N1.85) to get the psi for that gpm; in this case that's around 45psi. From that psi I take out for the BFP, elevation, 40% (friction loss etc) and whatever is left I find a head with an end head pressure that's slightly under that and away I go Any thoughts? Suggestions? Better Ideas? Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax ___ 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 ___ 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
RE: Selecting Heads For a New System
If you have an ECOH with a k-factor of 14 it could be done. I like that approach. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:13 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System Paul, I was thinking that based on the test results .2/1500 x 1.4 + 250 hose = 670 GPM (45 psi from curve). 45 psi - 5psi for BFP - 5psi fro elevation (12') 40% (friction etc) = 17 psi. Why wouldn't 16x16 EC heads work (13.3 end head pressure)? Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection Design Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System Ok, with the pressure that you have available, you can pretty much forget extended coverage sprinklers. The area per sprinkler that gave you will require the minimum end-head pressure of 7 psi. If you have a cushion, you can increase the area per sprinkler as long as you stay under the curve. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System I'm looking for a way to take the given information (static, residual, flow) for a given job and come up with a head spacing (standard or extended coverage) that will work. Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection Design Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but if you use a sprinkler with a k-factor of 8.0 then the optimum area per sprinkler (to minimize pressure demand) is 106 square feet. Maybe a 10 x 10.5 foot spacing. The approach that you take will differ depending upon the ALL of the factors associated with the project. A holistic approach to each project is needed. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Selecting Heads For a New System Let me start by saying I've only been in the sprinkler world for just over a year so if any thing I ask is rookie-ish please keep that in mind. I'm looking for ideas that some of you may use when starting a new project when it comes to selecting what heads (head spacing) to use. For example: I am starting a retail store (mercantile) that has a Static of 47 psi Residual of 42 psi, flow of 1090 gpm. What I do now to get me in the ballpark is take the density x area of operation x 1.4 (for overage) + hose allowance. That gets me roughly the system gpm demand. So .20 x 1500 = 300 x 1.4 = 420 + 250 (hose) = 670 gpm. I then plot that gpm on my water supply curve (N1.85) to get the psi for that gpm; in this case that's around 45psi. From that psi I take out for the BFP, elevation, 40% (friction loss etc) and whatever is left I find a head with an end head pressure that's slightly under that and away I go Any thoughts? Suggestions? Better Ideas? Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Selecting Heads For a New System
Maybe. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System Now that's what I wanted to hear So maybe I ain't crazy... Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection Design Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System If you have an ECOH with a k-factor of 14 it could be done. I like that approach. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:13 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System Paul, I was thinking that based on the test results .2/1500 x 1.4 + 250 hose = 670 GPM (45 psi from curve). 45 psi - 5psi for BFP - 5psi fro elevation (12') 40% (friction etc) = 17 psi. Why wouldn't 16x16 EC heads work (13.3 end head pressure)? Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection Design Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System Ok, with the pressure that you have available, you can pretty much forget extended coverage sprinklers. The area per sprinkler that gave you will require the minimum end-head pressure of 7 psi. If you have a cushion, you can increase the area per sprinkler as long as you stay under the curve. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System I'm looking for a way to take the given information (static, residual, flow) for a given job and come up with a head spacing (standard or extended coverage) that will work. Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection Design Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Selecting Heads For a New System I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but if you use a sprinkler with a k-factor of 8.0 then the optimum area per sprinkler (to minimize pressure demand) is 106 square feet. Maybe a 10 x 10.5 foot spacing. The approach that you take will differ depending upon the ALL of the factors associated with the project. A holistic approach to each project is needed. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Selecting Heads For a New System Let me start by saying I've only been in the sprinkler world for just over a year so if any thing I ask is rookie-ish please keep that in mind. I'm looking for ideas that some of you may use when starting a new project when it comes to selecting what heads (head spacing) to use. For example: I am starting a retail store (mercantile) that has a Static of 47 psi Residual of 42 psi, flow of 1090 gpm. What I do now to get me in the ballpark is take the density x area of operation x 1.4 (for overage) + hose allowance. That gets me roughly the system gpm demand. So .20 x 1500 = 300 x 1.4 = 420 + 250 (hose) = 670 gpm. I then plot that gpm on my water supply curve (N1.85) to get the psi for that gpm; in this case that's around 45psi. From that psi I take out for the BFP, elevation, 40% (friction loss etc) and whatever is left I find a head with an end head pressure that's slightly under that and away I go Any thoughts? Suggestions? Better Ideas? Regards, Brian Harris First Defense Fire Protection mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 704.948.3506 phone 704.948.3507 fax ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list
RE: Seed Corn
I would simply consider these to be a plastic commodity to start with. The fire is going to be initially fuelled by the totes without regard to what is inside them. The fire is only going to see plastic as the fire begins to grow. Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:26 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Seed Corn Seed corn stored in high-density polyethylene totes. The totes are approximately 5'x5'x5', completely enclosed (with lid) and are stacked 3 high (15 ft total height). My first thought is NFPA 13 (2002) 5.6.2.3 where if reinforced high-density polyethylene pallets are used, move up 2 commodity classes. These totes have roughly 5 times as much plastic than a pallet, so I'm not sure moving up 2 classes would be adequate protection. Anyone out there seen any of these? Any thoughts? 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: owners information certificate
Don't fool yourself into believing that you can escape liability. His lawyers will claiming that you are the expert and you knew about their future plans and still put in an inappropriate system. Everything changes after a loss. Paul Pinigis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: owners information certificate Part A: What do we (as an industry) do when an owner completes the Owner's Information Certificate incorrectly to deliberately mislead an AHJ? Part B: What do we do when they technically tell the truth as in building a warehouse that has no storage above 12' initially but they have every intention (because they tell you so) to store PODS 24' high after they get a CO? BTW, the reason I have been unsuccessful in convincing the owner of the proper level of protection is because there have 2 of these buildings built within 200 miles in the last few months and both of them had minimal systems. The installing contractor on one of the jobs told me that they were told the building was a spec warehouse and to protect it as an empty building and after they were done the owner would lease it to the PODS franchisee. His comment was I don't know if that protects me or not Legally? Morally I feel bound to walk away from this project but that just means that they will find someone else to do the job incorrectly and although there is no liability involved, there is still the knowledge that the building (Ord. Group II) will be grossly under protected. I know the argument that we are not police of the industry nor can we 2nd guess what the potential future occupancy of a building is or may be one day, but this is different and one of the 2 scenarios listed above is going to happen on this project. Thanks for your input, Greg Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: owners information certificate
The difference is in what you know at the time of the sale. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: owners information certificate I sell cars. Family of 4 walks in, wants ot buy an F150 2 door, no backseat. I throw them out on their ear since I KNOW they will be strapping the baby in the middle seat belt and there's no belt left for the 12 year old. I feel so used. What if the husband had come in alone? I might have sold them a means of breaking the law, albeit inadvertently. I feel better now, their family is now safe. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: owners information certificate Don't fool yourself into believing that you can escape liability. His lawyers will claiming that you are the expert and you knew about their future plans and still put in an inappropriate system. Everything changes after a loss. Paul Pinigis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: owners information certificate Part A: What do we (as an industry) do when an owner completes the Owner's Information Certificate incorrectly to deliberately mislead an AHJ? Part B: What do we do when they technically tell the truth as in building a warehouse that has no storage above 12' initially but they have every intention (because they tell you so) to store PODS 24' high after they get a CO? BTW, the reason I have been unsuccessful in convincing the owner of the proper level of protection is because there have 2 of these buildings built within 200 miles in the last few months and both of them had minimal systems. The installing contractor on one of the jobs told me that they were told the building was a spec warehouse and to protect it as an empty building and after they were done the owner would lease it to the PODS franchisee. His comment was I don't know if that protects me or not Legally? Morally I feel bound to walk away from this project but that just means that they will find someone else to do the job incorrectly and although there is no liability involved, there is still the knowledge that the building (Ord. Group II) will be grossly under protected. I know the argument that we are not police of the industry nor can we 2nd guess what the potential future occupancy of a building is or may be one day, but this is different and one of the 2 scenarios listed above is going to happen on this project. Thanks for your input, Greg Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Fill times
(Volume of the pipe) / (pumper truck pump rate in GPM) = time in minutes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Fill times Does anyone know where I can find information on how to calculate fill times on an exterior dry manual standpipe? It's installed along elevated roadways and bridges and will be filled by a pumper truck. Thanks, Tom Duross FGOL ___ 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
