RE: ESFR obstruction in non-storage
We deal with this all the time. Lacking any direction in 13 it just comes down to what the AHJ will accept? It's ridiculous to not allow standard SSP obstruction rules for ESFR's if there is no storage but that is my opinion as a contractor. We are just completing a demo and retrofit of a 450,000 sqft S1 occupancy. The previous tenant moved out and the owner decided to replace the existing FP systems. The old systems were from the early 70's and were badly corroded and fittings were constantly failing. Some mezzanines were removed but they left the existing lights, conduits, cable trays, unit heaters, insulated hot water supply and return pipes and some steel framing used to support equipment that was removed. The building is completely empty and retro fit with 16.8 ESFR's. The rational for this is to call the new ESFR systems core and shell so when the owner gets a tenant the obstructions can be dealt with based on the use of the building. Almost every light fixture is an obstruction per ESFR rules as are the unit heaters and hot water pipes. If the core and shell concept weren't allowed the owner would have to completely replace the heating and lighting systems in a vacant building. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 6:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR obstruction in non-storage Watch out for smoke vent and draft curtain requirements if you remove the ESFR. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 8:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR obstruction in non-storage If you're going to rework the existing ESFR system and respace the sprinklers why not just change them out to a non-ESFR sprinkler? Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:57 AM, sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org wrote: I'm did the research yesterday in FM 2-0 and in the AFSA informal interps, but I wanted to make sure I'm not missing something here... Can I get a confirmation that you are still required to meet obstruction criteria for ESFR (storage) sprinkler heads even when they're being used to protect a non-storage occupancy? I see nothing in 2-0 about the use of storage sprinkler in non-storage occupancies, but I know that NFPA 13 covers this. I think that the listing criteria of the ESFR heads is what drives the obstruction rules, so these must be complied with to use the heads for say, a manufacturing occupancy. Backstory: we have a customer that is converting rack storage to manufacturing, and they're putting in a lot of cable trays for the machinery. Wide cable trays, double stacked cable trays, offset trays, etc. Nothing over 10 feet wide, but very full cable trays that almost always are over 2 feet wide. The building is about 24' high, and the trays will be down at 12' so plenty of clear space. The customer is FM insured, so we're giving them the option to either install barriers under the trays and space the roof-level sprinklers every 8 ft or to leave the barriers out and put the roof-level heads under the trays every 4 ft (and also following the maximum square footage allowances in FM 2-0 of course). Before I deliver this great news, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something in my reading of 2-0. I'm guessing, as well, that I can simply ignore the obstruction rules relating to the placement of obstructions over flue spaces and other storage-specific items. Thanks in advance for any assistance with this! Benjamin Young ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Light or Ordinary Hazard
Wouldn't 8.3.2.1 ('13) apply? It allows ordinary and intermediate temperature
to be used throughout buildings. Doesn't 8.3.2.1 make it okay to use
intermediate temperature throughout the nursing home?
Ron F
-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On
Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E.
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 7:05 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Light or Ordinary Hazard
The related thread reminded me of this story of AHJ over-reach (some have read
this before):
Years ago in my contracting days we designed a system for an addition to
nursing home. It included a second floor 'mechanical room.' Out of habit we
designed this to OH-1. It proved a bit difficult to design given the sloped
ceiling and weak water supply, but we got it done. After the installation was
complete we were told by the owner that the State Dept. of Health came through
and instructed them to replace the intermediate temp sprinklers in this room
with ordinary temp heads. We intervened and explained we designed to OH-1 so
the int. temp heads were allowed by 13. They replied that the room is an air
handling space with no fuel-fired equipment and no storage allowed by state
rules. Therefore it is actually a Light Hazard space; and since it is a nursing
facility and life safety is paramount, the sprinklers must be replaced.
This remains the best personal example of an AHJ being technically correct but
missing the bigger picture. The 200 deg. QR sprinklers, as we know, do not
significantly delay sprinkler operation as compared to the 155 deg. QR heads.
This is an unoccupied space located upstairs from the not-so-mobile residents
of this otherwise one-story facility. We have designed 50% more water flow with
more closely spaced sprinklers. Replacing the sprinklers was a complete waste
of the owner's money.
Moral: sometimes the standards clearly tell you what to do; sometimes they
clearly don't tell you what not to do; and other times you just have to be able
to see the overall intent and act accordingly. This last point requires more
than a cursory knowledge of the standards in question. Don't be like the AHJ in
this example.
Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer |
Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 |
http://www.kfiengineers.com
__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Light or Ordinary Hazard
New in the 2010 Edition. It's explained very clearly in the 2010 Handbook. the
standard now groups ordinary and intermediate temperature sprinklers together
and allows intermediate temperature sprinklers throughout the building,
reducing the need for multiple types of sprinklers.
Ron F
-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 8:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Light or Ordinary Hazard
that is a relative recent change
Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/
On May 8, 2015, at 8:10 AM, rfletc...@aerofire.com rfletc...@aerofire.com
wrote:
Wouldn't 8.3.2.1 ('13) apply? It allows ordinary and intermediate temperature
to be used throughout buildings. Doesn't 8.3.2.1 make it okay to use
intermediate temperature throughout the nursing home?
Ron F
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Heat Tracing
Heat trace? Florida? Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Apr 22, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Pete Schwab pe...@waynefire.com wrote: I am searching for an installer of heat tracing (Listed for fire protection) in Florida If you have a contact you can share it is greatly appreciated. Thanks Peter Schwab VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, Fl 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 409 2011 6.1., 6.1.2, 7.2
My hard copy of 409-2011 edition is the same as Greg quoted. 6.1.2 Group I aircraft hangar storage and service area shall be provided with protection in accordance with 6.1.1 or with automatic sprinkler protection as specified in Section 7.2 and 7.8. When I pull up 409 go on line 6.1.2 is as you say for unfueled aircraft. I hate it when this happens. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Frans Stoop Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 5:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 409 2011 6.1., 6.1.2, 7.2 Gregg, 6.1.2 is about unfueled aircraft only. See the definition of Unfueled Aircraft in 3.3.15. Best regards, Frans Stoop TOS architecture fire protection Netherlands f.st...@tosfire.com Tel. +31-24-324 0112 At 17:08 16-4-2015 +, you wrote: That is the confusion on my part. By 6.1.2 stating OR I would assume that it is either a foam type system OR a standalone wet pipe system. Since 7.2 7.8 do not mention any type of foam requirements, the OR indicates to me that is one or the either. So you either go 6.1.1 for a foam type system or 7.2 for a wet pipe system. 7.2 indicates to me that you can do a Group I hangar without foam. Thanks, Gregg Fontes Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 209-334-9119 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 409 2011 6.1., 6.1.2, 7.2 I believe you are correct with exception that you then have to provide low level AFFF via monitors etc. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 16, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Gregg Fontes gr...@cen-calfire.com wrote: Chapter 6 - Protection of Group I Aircraft Hangars: 6.1.1 The protection of aircraft storage and servicing areas for Group I aircraft hangars shall be in accordance with any one of the following: (1), (2), or (3). All three of these are some type of foam application. Then comes 6.1.2; Group I aircraft hangar storage and service area shall be provided with protection in accordance with 6.1.1 or with automatic sprinkler protection as specified in Sections 7.2 and 7.8. 7.2 Closed-Head Water Sprinkler System for Aircraft Storage and Servicing Areas. So base on the above, if I am not missing something or skipping something, you are allowed to either design a foam type system 6.1.1 or a standard closed-head wet pipe fire sprinkler system (no foam) per the requirements of 7.2 and 7.8. Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks, Gregg Fontes Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 209-334-9119 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Bottom of elevator shaft protection
Just curious, do you have a code reference for mech rooms as OH1? Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Apr 1, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Matthew J Willis ma...@rapidfireinc.com wrote: I had the 10 in parenthesis, my apologies Also I forgot to add.., OH1 because it is a mechanical room after all. R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Project Manager Rapid Fire Protection Inc. 1805 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 7:28 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' Subject: RE: Bottom of elevator shaft protection What year is your reference? NFPA 13 - 2013? John -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bottom of elevator shaft protection Ordinary if not hydraulic. EHI if combustible hydraulic fluid is used. A.5.4.1 (10) R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Project Manager Rapid Fire Protection Inc. 1805 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 5:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bottom of elevator shaft protection Some AHJ's classify it as Extra Hazard because of the Hydraulic Fluid, I wouldsay ordinary hazard but never light hazard. Mike From: ssorr...@performancefire.com To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Bottom of elevator shaft protection Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:31:30 + Question, Would the bottom of the elevator shaft be considered light or ordinary hazard ? We have an elevator shaft 15-'4 wide, one head would be acceptable as light hazard but not as ordinary hazard. Stephen J. Sorrell, CET NICET# 77901 Level III E mail: ssorr...@performancefire.commailto:ssorr...@performancefire.com Performance Fire Protection, LLC Corporate Office 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 Mooresville, NC 28117 Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 Web: www.performancefire.comhttp://www.performancefire.com Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL Performance on Every Level. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Large pumping capacity
With 3 pumps, 2 needed and one backup the suction and discharge header should be sized for 2 pumps. 16 pipe would result in a suction velocity of less than 10 fps, I believe that is the recommended limit in NFPA 20. All common pipe subject to the full flow of two pumps should be sized accordingly. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:25 PM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: Large pumping capacity I am working on a project where there is a fairly large demand. The EOR has determined there are to be (3) 3000 gpm pumps. These are all installed parallel. One of the pumps is to be a backup pump. The design has not been finalized, but the system demand (overhead sprinklers and grate foam nozzles) is somewhere around 6000 gpm. That is why we have two 3000 gpm pumps in parallel to create a 6000 gpm pumping capacity. There were some errors in the EOR pump room design that led to a few other questions. We are getting conflicting information from the EOR and the pump guys. The arrangement is that the pumps share a common suction header and a common discharge header. Per NFPA 20, a 3000 gpm pump needs a 12 discharge. The EOR showed 10 discharge piping and equipment, so this is what flagged some questions with the pump room design. The questions are now: 1 - Should the test header be sized to accommodate a 6000 gpm pump, or a 3000 gpm pump? The pump guy says that the common discharge header must be sized for the combined pumping capacity. The EOR states that it is only based on 1 pump flowing. I seem to agree with the pump guy, in that you need to test with both pumps flowing so you can test your water supply as well to show you can get the full 150% flow from the water supply. It is easy to size the piping so that the recommended velocities in NFPA 20 are not exceeded. It is just a question as to what is the basis. 2 - Should the common discharge header that the pumps tie in to be sized based on 3000 gpm pump or 6000 gpm pump? I believe that the common piping (after the pump discharge valve) only needs to be sized based on hydraulic calculations. 3 - These are diesel pumps. The individual relief valves are tied into a common discharge header. How should this be sized? Based on 3000 or 6000 gpm pumps? We are awaiting input from the authority having jurisdiction as well on this topic. The biggest issue is the pump test header and relief valve discharge piping. There are more issues of now trying to fit 12 valves/pipe/fittings on the discharge side of a pump in a room that was tight to begin with and was designed for 10 discharge equipment. Part of the issue is that NFPA 20 only goes to 5000 gpm tables for sizing pump room piping/equipment. The EOR is stating that the NICET tech is to correct anything in the pump room and provide it per NFPA 20. However, since we have a 6000 gpm total capacity, it is not possible to size things based on the summary table in NFPA 20 if it is to be based on 6000 gpm. I am just interested as to the thoughts of the guys on this forum. -- Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com http://www.mfpdesign.com https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: ESFR Sprinkler Heads
We always split the systems where the K factor changes. However, if the addition is small the total area is under 40k sqft you would probably have to change all the heads on that system to K17. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of James Crawford Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR Sprinkler Heads Thanks Roland The AHJ has impose a greater reduction and if I use the new pressures the existing system is 3 psi short. My concern with using two different K factor heads is the overlap area where two different pressures would be required causing over discharge on the K17 heads. Thank you James Crawford Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. Phone 604-888-0318 Fax 604-888-4732 Cel 604-790-0938 Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Sprinkler Heads you can have multiple design basis covering different portions of a building. They could present different K-factors or types of sprinklers. There are explicit requirements that address the interface between them. What do you mean the AHJ has dropped the pressure? Does that mean the water purveyor has dropped the pressure to the area or that the AHJ has imposed a greater reduction on the actual supply as a safety factor. In other words, is the existing system still providing adequate protection (not an issue for imposed reductions) ? Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/ On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:40 AM, James Crawford jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca wrote: We are doing an addition to an existing warehouse, the existing warehouse is protected with ESFR K14 uprights, since the building was constructed the AHJ has dropped the water pressures in the area by 10 psi. Due to the pressure drop I cannot use the K14 heads for the addition, can you mix ESFR sprinkler heads in the same warehouse area, I would need K17 heads for the addition, The addition would be open to the existing warehouse space. Or do I need to change all the heads in the existing warehouse to match? Thank you James Crawford Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. Phone 604-888-0318 Fax 604-888-4732 Cel 604-790-0938 Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Underground Piping Under Slab
Makes it more fun proving to a contractor that it's a NEW change. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org wrote: NFPA has at least temporarily stopped flagging the sections that have changed. Not sure how long this will continue. IT has been expressed pretty loudly that having the changes identified is highly desirable. Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/ On Feb 20, 2015, at 11:45 AM, David Blackwell david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov wrote: When comparing NFPA 10.6.3.1 in my hard copy versions of the code and handbook, I noticed that while the language of 10.6.3.1 has changed in the 2013 edition to clarify the 10 ft distance, but the section was not marked as new in either the printed code, the handbook or the PDF version available through NFPA All-Access... Respectfully, David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFPE, CFI I Chief Engineer Office of State Fire Marshal SC Department of Labor, Licensing, Regulation, 141 Monticello Trail, Columbia, SC 29203 Telephone: 803.896.9800 [Office] 803.896.9833 [Direct] Fax: 803.896.9806 [Office] Email: david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov Website: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ Please note that you can sign up to receive automatic information on SC Division of Fire and Life Safety current events, policies, laws and procedures by visiting our Web site at: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Underground Piping Under Slab 10.6.3.1* (13 Ed.) The requirements of 10.6.2(2) and 10.6.2(3) shall not apply where fire service mains enter under the building no more than 10 ft (3 m) as measured from the outside edge of the building to the center of the vertical pipe. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Underground Piping Under Slab The new NFPA exception formatting is interesting. 10.6.1 categorically states not to do something, yet 10.6.2 allows it. Elimination of 10.6.1 seems the thing to do and would not change the intent. After all it's impossible to meet 10.6.1 unless you put the stub up in an exterior enclosure and route it through the exterior wall. Even the language in 10.6.3 is an exception to 10.6.1. How much inside the building is too much? If this is important it should be submitted as a Building, Plumbing, Mechanical Code change and removed from NFPA 13. So, like we see on TV, you should now clarify your meeting comments to say what you really meant was that as long as the plumbing inspector is OK with the special precautions so are you. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Underground Piping Under Slab I understand it's not typical to run the fire main under the building slab but if it's a must there are some precautions that must be taken as shown in 10.6.2 (2007). My question is are the (3) provisions that are mentioned all required or as a bare minimum? I'm working on a project and the architect has located the riser room in the center of the building, approximately 15' from the outside wall. I brought it to their attention that it's not the best idea and provided them the above code reference. Instead of appreciating the heads up I'm now the redheaded step child, go figure. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.comhttp://bvssystemsinc.com/ Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Underground Piping Under Slab
10.6.3.1* (13 Ed.) The requirements of 10.6.2(2) and 10.6.2(3) shall not apply where fire service mains enter under the building no more than 10 ft (3 m) as measured from the outside edge of the building to the center of the vertical pipe. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Underground Piping Under Slab The new NFPA exception formatting is interesting. 10.6.1 categorically states not to do something, yet 10.6.2 allows it. Elimination of 10.6.1 seems the thing to do and would not change the intent. After all it's impossible to meet 10.6.1 unless you put the stub up in an exterior enclosure and route it through the exterior wall. Even the language in 10.6.3 is an exception to 10.6.1. How much inside the building is too much? If this is important it should be submitted as a Building, Plumbing, Mechanical Code change and removed from NFPA 13. So, like we see on TV, you should now clarify your meeting comments to say what you really meant was that as long as the plumbing inspector is OK with the special precautions so are you. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Underground Piping Under Slab I understand it's not typical to run the fire main under the building slab but if it's a must there are some precautions that must be taken as shown in 10.6.2 (2007). My question is are the (3) provisions that are mentioned all required or as a bare minimum? I'm working on a project and the architect has located the riser room in the center of the building, approximately 15' from the outside wall. I brought it to their attention that it's not the best idea and provided them the above code reference. Instead of appreciating the heads up I'm now the redheaded step child, go figure. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.comhttp://bvssystemsinc.com/ Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 13 FM Mix
Many times we have done two submittals. One to the AHJ with all NFPA requirements and another to FM with their requirements. One example is the local AHJ may require a 10% reduction to the flow test and .2/1500 for OH2. FM does not mandate any reduction to the flow test but will require .2/2500 for HC2. The new FM data sheets have some rules that are contrary to NFPA but usually they are more restrictive. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 6:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13 FM Mix But in some-storage cases you not comply with both with out using NFPA's equivalency approach. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:25 AM, Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: You are most likely legally obligated to provide the minimums of NFPA 13. You may sign a contract to provide more, but not less. FM or silly PE requirements might be examples. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Fontes Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 6:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA 13 FM Mix I have a quick question that I need a fast answer to. Where is it in NFPA 13 2013 Edition that you cannot mix the two design standards? (I.E. you either design per NFPA 13 or FM Global. You cannot pick and choose.) Thanks, Gregg Fontes Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 209-334-9119 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Relocate sprinklers with drops RETORT
Like shipping, unpacking and installation only applies the proper and necessary stress for the sprinkler to operate as intended. Or maybe the engineering is so precise that the sprinkler can only stand the rigors of being threaded into a fitting once and then it's useless. Or maybe there are sprinkler manufacturers reps on the 13 committee that know how fragile and un-robust sprinklers are? Why would you build something could only be threaded in once? I'm glad they don't manufacture pipe or fittings. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Feb 6, 2015, at 4:43 PM, John Denhardt jdenha...@stricklandfire.com wrote: Mark - well said. I totally agree. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 6, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. masorn...@kfi-eng.com wrote: My two cents is that it is not only the potential stress to the sprinkler from removal/replacement, but the potential for damage during handling. This is especially true for QR sprinklers. From the EOR perspective, I have them replaced with new regardless of if it could be kept in a drop. I understand there may be differing perspectives when you are in a competitive bid that doesn't address the issue, or you have an owner griping about every dollar spent. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of accentf...@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 4:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Relocate sprinklers with drops RETORT Good afternoon, All: I thought a previous discussion revealed that currently IF the sprinkler stays in the RC, weld-o-let, fitting, etc., then it can be reinstalled if the sprinkler has not actually been removed from the original fitting/outlet. I believe the concern was the amount of 'stress' applied to the sprinkler when trying to remove it - and possible damage resulting from the 'torque'. Previously, everyone seemed to be on board with this approach. Cordially- Jerry _accentfire@aol.com_ (mailto:accentf...@aol.com) *Jerry D. Watts, SFPE President Co-Founder ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd.** Santa Fe, New Mexico USA (800) 503.1961 nationwide *New Mexico Journeyman Sprinklerfitter Lic. #08228 **Licensed Fire Protection Engineers - Architects/Inspectors/Fire Investigators: AZ CA CO NM NV NY TX UT KS MD MS In a message dated 2/6/2015 2:04:42 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, pe...@waynefire.com writes: Based on the 2nd draft, this is what the 2016 language will say unless it is Successfully NITMAM ed 6.2.1.1* When a sprinkler is removed from a fitting or welded outlet, it shall not be reinstalled except as permitted by 6.2.1.1.1. 6.2.1.1.1 Dry sprinklers shall be permitted to be reinstalled when removed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation and maintenance instructions. A.6.2.1.1 Sprinklers should be permitted to be reinstalled when the sprinkler being removed from the system remains attached to the original fitting or welded outlet, provided care has been taken to ensure the sprinkler has not been damaged. Flexible hose connections are considered a fitting. In new installations, where sprinklers are installed on pendent drop nipples or sidewall sprinklers prior to final cut-back, protective caps and/or straps should remain in place until after the drop nipple has been cut to fit to the final ceiling elevation. This is my opinion only and does not constitute the official opinion of the NFPA. Peter Schwab VP of Purchasing Engineering Technologies Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, Fl 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of michael G Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops I would have to agree with Richard, He is not pulling the head out of the piping, the Boss of the sprinkler is taking no extra strain and there is no extra stress added on the sprinkler head its self. Only the piping is being removed, cut threaded and reinstalled. We basically do this when we install a system We run the branch line, install a 0-2 and elbow, the drop and a head with the support ring installed already, so that when we do our initial testing for leaks, the drops are tested all the way to the sprinkler head. The reason for this is, 1) to eliminate the number of potential leaks at the end of the job while conducting the final pressure test. 2) if there is a bad head or
RE: foam delivery times
I have always just done cowboy math to give them a rough idea of delivery time. Volume of system piping/demand gpm=approximate time (500 gallon volume/1000 gpm demand = .5x60=30 seconds) to get water to the last generator. There will typically be at least one timed discharge test with just water and another with foam so the calculated time is really of no consequence. They usually want to see the flow for the overhead sprinkler system simulated during the HEF test by discharging the calculated supply gpm from the test header. It can be a little tricky if the pull station used to activate the system also starts the pumps. We would flow the test header before the test and wire the valve handles in position after the required flow was achieved. Then close the test header control valve. When the deluge valve tripped for the test we would quickly open the test header control valve to simulate both HEF and sprinkler flow together. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fairchild, Jack Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: foam delivery times I met with Mike Mohomet and the rest of the sprinkFDT group while working on my Great Adventure analysis. They told me the programs listing limited them to four heads. Jack Fairchild ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Hot box or other types of exterior fire riser enclosures
We build what we call a pump in a box 10'X18' but it could be made smaller to house only risers. They are structurally designed for the conditions at the intended location, all metal siding and roof with a structural steel base. Pre-piped, insulated, heated, lighting, fire alarm conduit and an electrical breaker panel. Routinely we build 1,500 and 2,000 gpm diesel pumps, deliver them on a truck and crane into place. The riser only house could probably be pretty small, maybe 5'X5'. Can't say how serviceable they would be if a valve had to be replaced but I'm sure everything could made accessible enough to operate and test. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 9:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Hot box or other types of exterior fire riser enclosures Got an Industrial site, mix of flammable processes and non-hazardous processes. Multiple buildings, open sided structures, no walls. Location is in the south. Freezing is possible. Original scope has typical block buildings for the fire risers. Some buildings have two systems, others may have 3-5 systems. Space on the layout is tight and of course Fire Protection is the one that they are looking at to reduce footprint. They had three 12x10 buildings in estimate for the various areas. What was asked about is using a Hot Box or similar smaller heated enclosure to just house the system valves and riser components. No room inside for much more than that. Real tight and compact. To work on systems would require the box to be opened for access. Anyone used anything like this? My main concern is structural integrity against fire. This is a FM insured facility so that could play into the decision. My preference is a building, not a gingerbread house. Any info or experience or possible vendors of such would be appreciated. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Bracing for Pipe on Pipe Stands
We have started running the bypass line on the floor instead of over the pump as usual so that it can be braced to the floor. Sometimes there isn't anything around a pump to brace to other than the floor. We also brace the legs of the fuel tank to the wall or floor. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Mitchell, PE Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 8:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bracing for Pipe on Pipe Stands Doesn't NFPA 13 allow engineer certified bracing components to be used in lieu of listed components? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone div Original message /divdivFrom: Jerry Van Kolken jvankol...@mfpc.us /divdivDate:01/07/2015 4:43 PM (GMT-06:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Bracing for Pipe on Pipe Stands /divdiv /divI've been looking for an exception for installing bracing on pipe on a pipe stand with either a full clamp or U-bolt holding the piping to that stand. I can't find any references. The closest reference would be NFPA 13 9.3.5.5.11 (13ed), but the way its word make think only U-bolts that have the 30 deg bend would work. Is there another reference? Jerry Van Kolken Millennium Fire Protection Corp. 101 Copperwood Way, Suite H Oceanside, CA 92058 (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Pressure Relief Valve on Wet Pipe System
Things are a pain. They have to be plugged for the 200# test. Then drain the system to reconnect. We put a ball valve before the relief so we can test and reconnect without draining. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Aaron Peck amp...@me.com wrote: I wonder if I've been doing it wrong all along since 2010, but NFPA 13, 2013 Ed. 7.1.2.1 require a pressure relief valve on ALL wet pipe sprinkler systems? I can't tell you how many times in the past none have been installed. Granted they might not have been all designed according to 2010+, but just surprised this hasn't jumped out at me before. Looking back the 2007 code mentions only in gridded wet pipe systems then 2010 eliminates the word gridded as well as the 2013 code reads the same as 2010. What's strange is my 2010 Hand book doesn't denote that as a changed section, actually none show up. Does the Hand book remove those that are there in the standard version? Well I learned something knew. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Conveyor equipment in storage occupancies
What edition of 13 are you using? Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jan 5, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: So ... I get hired to write a tech report on an S-1 occupancy and it's pretty straightforward since the existing (brand new and never occupied) building is furnished throughout with ESFR. There are no complications and I get the report approved and ... the client just contacted me in a panic asking for a new report or an addendum to the previous one that addresses their conveyor equipment. That they somehow NEVER mentioned or showed on any of the plans that I was given for reference.I have a nagging suspicion that they may have been trying to sneak it into the building but ... it's also possible that I'm getting paranoid in my mid-life crisis. Anyway, besides the obvious regarding obstructions as they pertain to ESFR, can anyone tell me if there are any trap doors in this application that I might want to know about before taking a meeting with the client and the fire official? I came away from a brief telecon with the vendor for the equipment a bit concerned, as he couldn't offer me anything of substance regarding connection points for sprinkler piping under the widest belts and platforms (he's checking and will get back to me).In all these years I've never fire protected a system like this; have done rollers, push-backs, luggage handling systems at two major airports, dry cleaning handling systems, rotating retail clothing fixtures, etc., etc. but not a storage conveyor. Just want to be sure there's no ticking IED's that I haven't accounted for ... Happy New Year everybody! Steve Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING 2851 Camino del Rio South, Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92108 --- Ph: 619.255.8964 - ext. 102 Fax: 619.255.9364 Cell: 619.972.5696 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: A Poll of the Experienced
I did the flow test. S-170 R-155, 3950 gpm through a 4 diffuser. The best part was at a meeting when the Fire Marshall said that they may reject our plans because required fire flow is 4,000 gpm and the flow test was 50 gpm short. I am not kidding. Luckily we they approved our plans despite the short fall. They have responsibility for an industrial park with probably 20-30 ESFR buildings 400k sqft. The more I travel to new jurisdictions the more I learn. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: A Poll of the Experienced Through a 6 lead to the hydrant, right? LOL No problem, we can calculate that.. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 3:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: A Poll of the Experienced For the record, one jurisdiction we work in requires that the 4000 GPM fire flow be deliverable through a single 4 hydrant butt, and of course with 20 psi residual in the main. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPad On Dec 8, 2014, at 3:27 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.commailto:st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Chris - if I have a branch line with three 25K ESFR sprinklers and a similarly sized branch line (say it's 3 nominal) with three 5.6K sprinklers, which group of sprinklers will discharge more water at 75psi? Hydrants are supplied by a pipe of fixed size, which has inherent capacity as well as limits. If we accept that the lateral to the hydrant has an absolute maximum capacity, then the number of open ports won't facilitate more flow. But within that threshold, if there are two 4 ports then it affords the FD some options, such as taking 2,000 gpm (or more) from one hydrant without needing a high residual pressure to do that, whether it's one or two or three engines. My references to strategies and hydrant types was intended to be in that context. The point of site and infrastructure planning is, in part, to allow for as many eventualities as possible, which include some of what you allude to toward the end of your comment. Hydrants get damaged, aren't regularly maintained, can be obstructed countless ways, etc., etc. Overdesigning fewer hydrants proves a more demanding condition hydraulically and may be the only option if a site that requires 4K GPM only has three hydrants for whatever reason. SL -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orgmailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: A Poll of the Experienced If you have two 4 ports you can take a LOT of water from that hydrant at modest residual pressures. Huh? The number/size of openings don't have a correlation to the residual pressure. You are still stuck with the same curve of the available water supply. What you said is if I put in 6 connections I'd get more water at the same residual vs. 4? That's the way I read it anyway. I can almost say universally you don't get any more water out of a hydrant with 2-4 connections than 2-2.5 plus 1-4. The amount of water one can get out of a single hydrant is more limited by the fire truck connected to it. The only real exception is if two trucks connect to the same hydrant. Then 2-4 would be better but I'd bet not by a lot. IOW 10,000 gpm won't practically go through a 1,500 gpm fire truck. And fire flow provided grows with arriving trucks. In most cases the next truck goes to the next hydrant up the street to get more water. Otherwise, in most cases you have to shut down the first hydrant to connect the second truck. Are there exceptions, sure, a lot of varying scenarios. For example, you could run out of hydrants in practical proximity, some departments may be able to afford 4 valves they hook to the hydrant before they turn it on to allow a second connection if necessary, or things are burning down anyway and stopping flow to connect a second hydrant is NBD. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.commailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.comhttp://www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum
Re: transverse flue space clarification
If there are rack uprights with horizontal and diagonal bracing but no permanent fixed solid shelving I would say that you have transverse flue spaces. My 2 cents. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Greg McGahan g...@livingwaterfp.com wrote: Storage of non-typical objects - ie car parts of all different shape and sizes on wire rack shelves... There are no pallets or standard sized boxes etc therefore there is a lot of open spaces between items. What does this do to the definition and requirements for transverse flue spaces? Are the vertical frames automatically flue spaces or in this scenario is it possible that there just aren't any definable transverse flue spaces? Thanks, Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: A Poll of the Experienced
Absolutely agree with you about the non-value of extrapolating the flow test beyond the observed flow. The part I'm not so sure I would agree with is requiring the 20 psi minimum at the onsite hydrants. The IFC commentary notes that the 20 psi is used because it is the recommended minimum pressure for fire engine use by the water authorities in order to minimize the possibility of creating a negative pressure in the water main and the resulting damage to the water supply system. Many of the buildings we are involved in require 4,000 gpm. They have private fire loops around the property with usually two connections (with BFP's) to the city water system. Doing the hydraulics flowing 1,000 gpm @ 20 psi for the most demanding four hydrants usually requires a minimum pressure of around 45-50 psi at the city connections. I don't see how taking the pressure in the private fire loop below 20 would damage anything in the municipal system because the pressure would always be above 20 psi at the connection to the city mains. I don't know about the effect on the pumper truck but I think as long as they have water at any pressure they will continue pumping. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 6:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: A Poll of the Experienced Ah, Fire Flow. Now you will gets heads spinning. First, let's start with the basics. There are at least five methods used by various authorities to determine Fire Flow. So if you are dealing with this, be sure Appendix B is the correct method used by the local/state fire authority. Section 507 in the IFC states that Fire Flow is to be determined by an Approved Method. AHJ will provide or confirm that approved method. Appendix B is not part of the Code and is not always adopted through the legal adoption process, that's why you have to ask, you can't assume. But let's say we're past that and Appendix B is the approved method. The next step is you need to also verify that the local AHJ will permit the flow reduction rate based on sprinklers, do not assume that to be the case. I'm assuming that you might have a warehouse with a fairly high hazard level if you're using ESFR so in cases such as that or where chemicals or other high hazards are present I have had the AHJ deny the reduction. So be sure, don't assume you can apply the reduction. So you've gone down the chart and found your building requires 8000 gpm for 4 hours. The city supply or private fire service system needs to be able to provide that flow and duration to the fire loop serving the hydrants. A minimum of 20 psi residual needs to be available at every hydrant on the loop. This is will be the suction pressure for pumper apparatus. You can assume that in an event that would require 8000 gpm there will be multiple pumpers connected to multiple hydrants. The other issue when dealing with a municipal supply is make sure they can ACTUALLY supply the demand. I've had too many single outlet flow tests and the testing agency extrapolated the curve to show they can meet the demand. I reject those tests. When conducting follow-up tests involving multiple hydrants, more often than not was it proven that the municipality could not actually flow that much water through their system. Extrapolated tests are worthless. You need real data. So the 20 psi pressure needs to be at the hydrants. Fire flow is the water needed to actually fight the fire through the use of manual hand hose lines. This is totally separate and unrelated to sprinkler flow and hose stream allowance. I was involved with a project for a warehouse where the fire fight lasted 13 hours, needless to say they used a LOT of water. This is one topic where the majority of fire protection engineers and designers have not been educated. It is a Code requirement, not an option as most think. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: A Poll of the Experienced I think I agree with you, but to be very specific, let's assume I'm designing a new building on a greenfield site which is served by a public water system. The building is type V construction, 600,000 square feet and fully protected with ESFR sprinklers. Table B105.2 indicated a fire flow rate of 8000 GPM, reduced to 4000 GPM for sprinkler credit, at minimum 20psi. My question is, WHERE is this 4000 GPM at 20 psi measured? At the city water main connection? Or
RE: Balancing In-Rack Sprinklers
Sounds like you are K'ing the overhead system into the racks, if should the other way around. K the racks into the overhead system. Personally I would revisit the calc's and make them balance. A 15 psi difference is too far apart. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of B.J. Newlin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Balancing In-Rack Sprinklers To balance the demand pressure with an overhead system isn't all I need is to create a k-factor at the point the in-racks tie into the overhead system? I have done this, but the pressure demand for the in-rack system is still 15 psi less than the pressure at that junction point for the overhead system. Is that ok, or did I do something incorrectly? For example 203 is the junction node. At that point the overhead system demand is 99.09 psi with ~1450 gpm flowing. I come up with a k factor of 145.66 (1450/sqrt of 99.09). When I insert this K at the node and run my calcs, I end up with only 84.2 psi at node 203 for the in-racks. I assume this is acceptable since I think I'm doing everything properly, but I can't figure out how to explain it to the FM rep. Any help would be appreciated. (Below is what i believe is the applicable code text) 23.4.2.4 Hydraulic Junction Points. 23.4.2.4.1 Pressures at hydraulic junction points shall balance within 0.5 psi (0.03 bar). 23.4.2.4.2 The highest pressure at the junction point, and the total flows as adjusted, shall be carried into the calculations. 23.4.2.4.3 Pressure balancing shall be permitted through the use of a K-factor developed for branch lines or portions of systems using the formula in 23.4.2.5. 23.4.2.5 K-Factor Formula. K-factors, flow from an orifice, or pressure from an orifice shall be determined on the basis of the following formula: K Q P n = where: Kn = equivalent K at a node Q = flow at the node P = pressure at the node B.J. Newlin Service Sales Aegis Fire Protection LLC bjnew...@aegisfirepro.com P (913) 825-0343 F (913) 322-4475 C (913) 238-0035 Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters ― Albert Einstein ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Contradiction if FDC codes? NFPA 13 2013
noun: supplement; plural noun: supplements - something that completes or enhances something else when added to it. How can the possibly pressure be supplemented? Using enough pressure to open the FDC check valve will close the valve in the riser. The rule should be changed to either calculated or just require a 4 2-way FDC for everything. There are buildings in Phoenix with 12 - 2 1/2 FDC inlets because of an old amendment requiring one 2.5 inlet for every 250 gpm system demand. The rule was changed when the FD figured out that a pumper truck only carried enough equipment to connect to four inlets. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Stone Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Contradiction if FDC codes? NFPA 13 2013 NFPA 13 is a minimum design /installation Standard, NOT A CODE. Fire department Pump Trucks are equipped with variable pressure pumps which enables the pump operator to increase extra boost when needed. I don't see any contradiction. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cory Power Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:39 AM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: Contradiction if FDC codes? NFPA 13 2013 Could someone explain to me the intent behind this code and if the Annex is contradicting? 8.17.2* Fire Department Connections. 8.17.2.3* Size. The size of the pipe for the fire department connection shall be in accordance with one of the following: (3) For hydraulically calculated systems, the fire department connection shall be permitted to be less than 4 in. (100 mm) and no less than the size of system riser, where serving one system riser. A.8.17.2.3 The purpose of a fire department connection is to supplement the pressure to an automatic fire sprinkler system. It is not the intent to size the fire department connection piping based on system demand. For multiple system risers supplied by a manifold, the fire department connection need not be larger than that for an individual system. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
CA Title 8
We have been working in CA for some years now and it seems like something new and counterintuitive comes up every time we start a new project. A GC is telling us we have to get a CA Department of Industrail Relations, Division of Occupational Safety Health (CAL/OSHA) safety permit. It is apparently required for doing any work greater than 36' above the floor. The web site says that the permit is for Buildings/Structures, Scaffolding/Falsework, Demolition, Trenches/Excavations I commented to the GC that we were doing a sprinkler system and it shouldn't be confused with Falsework but he missed the pun and said we had to get a permit. Have anyone had experience with this permit requirement. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: FM Global requirements
If your contract requires you to meet both I would double check everything you do against the FM Global data sheets. We have come across some differences that are, let's say counterintuitive. For instance FM no longer seems to recognize concrete twin tee construction like NFPA does. FM limits the deflector distance to 22 max and doesn't allow 1 below the bottom of the tee like NFPA. Also the FM hazard classifications can result in some unusual area densities, like a parking garage at .30/1000. Recently we had to do two submittals, one to the AHJ using NFPA and one to FM with their requirements. It really gets interesting when a core and shell job done to NFPA becomes a FM Global property for TI. FM will write a review letter that lists deficiencies in the core and shell based on their base requirements. We are just finishing a job where FM even recommended moving the existing riser locations requiring new underground lead-ins. As Craig said most of FM's requirements are negotiable, they are not an AHJ. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: FM Global requirements What Craig said, but FM typically does not recognize QR sprinkler reductions. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) On Nov 10, 2014, at 11:40 AM, craig.pr...@ch2m.com craig.pr...@ch2m.com wrote: One thing that needs to be understood is that FM is not an AHJ, they make recommendations not requirements. FM should provide a letter or review of the project and provide recommendations to the owner. Then the owner takes those recommendations and tells you as the contractor which ones they want to consider. It's not a blanket set of requirements. You should not have to determine which Data Sheets to follow and which not and to what extent. I have had some clients that negotiate everything with the FM rep., others take all the recommendations at 100% so your results may vary. Also I have found that FM opinions and directions vary depending on which office and which individuals you deal with. This is not a slam or criticism of any of the FM people I've dealt with over the years. Just an observation. So you need to let the owner know there may be changes but he needs to get with the FM rep, receive FM's recommendations and then the owner directs which ones he wants you to employ. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: FM Global requirements I have a project that may be switching to FM global requirements. I haven’t worked with FM for a while so what are the main differences between NFPA 13 and FM? The plans have already been approved by the AHJ so the owner is looking for any potential cost impact. I know that the products used should be FM approved. I did take a reduced design area for my light hazard areas. Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Expansion Joint vs. Seismic Expansion Joint
I have always thought every USACoE project required seismic bracing no matter the location. I believe (going by memory) that a coupling is required within 2 ft. of an expansion joint and the 6 elbow thing at a seismic joint. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Peck Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Expansion Joint vs. Seismic Expansion Joint I seem to remember there's no difference. Except on this project I have an irregular expansion line and the USACoE plans only indicate expansion joints on the mains, allowing branch lines to cross it without a problem. This project doesn't require seismic bracing. So any thoughts if I should bring it up about the branch lines crossing it? They are 2 in size to 1. Sent from my iPhone Aaron M. Peck, SET Fire Protection Skype +1(202)407-9079 Cambodia +855(0)78700407 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill
1.7 New Technology Nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements... Based on the recently discussed conservative committee actions I would think that anything in the later editions of 13 should be allowed as an alternate arrangement. Say something in 2002 edition that was later proved to be wrong through full scale testing. Would you force a licensed contractor to install it wrong because the AHJ hasn't adopted the standard with the new data with the corrections? Or as a licensed contractor would you knowingly install something that has been proven to be wrong by today's standards because it was okay in the 2002 editionRon F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill There are two lines of reasoning I have seen on matters such as this: 1.We aren't following the newer NFPA 13 - period. 2.The newer standard may have what the NFPA committee believes to be the best criteria, but the ICC and our local codes folks have not weighed in on the changes to the standard. Therefore, we cannot accept those 'clarifications.' WE may KNOW that the changes won't affect the future code revisions; but the AHJ doesn't know and most times won't take the chance. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 7:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill We are bound to NFPA 13 (2002). We have an ECHSW above the door in a room. On the opposite wall is a window and sill that does not create an additional floor area. There is a built in cabinet that partially obstructs the window sill and creates a shadow of 2 sq.ft. between the cabinet and the window over the window sill. We informed the AHJ that per NFPA 13 (2007) 8.5.3.2.4 sprinklers are spaced to walls and not windows if they do not create additional floor area. We also pointed to NFPA 13 (2013) 8.1.1(3) A.8.1.1(3) which indicate shadow areas are acceptable so long as the other obstruction guidelines are followed. The AHJ stated they cannot accept the newer standard clarifications on this issue. Is there something I am missing in NFPA 13 (2002) that states this design is acceptable? Thanks, Sean ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill
I will more than likely be admonished for this, again. But it's more likely the hole occupied by an uniformed, unqualified or unreasonable AHJ. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 7:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill I see some worms peeking through the lid of the can. Is this going to spiral us down the EOR hole again or is this another hole occupied by sprinkler designers/contractors? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill 1.7 New Technology Nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements... Based on the recently discussed conservative committee actions I would think that anything in the later editions of 13 should be allowed as an alternate arrangement. Say something in 2002 edition that was later proved to be wrong through full scale testing. Would you force a licensed contractor to install it wrong because the AHJ hasn't adopted the standard with the new data with the corrections? Or as a licensed contractor would you knowingly install something that has been proven to be wrong by today's standards because it was okay in the 2002 editionRon F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill There are two lines of reasoning I have seen on matters such as this: 1.We aren't following the newer NFPA 13 - period. 2.The newer standard may have what the NFPA committee believes to be the best criteria, but the ICC and our local codes folks have not weighed in on the changes to the standard. Therefore, we cannot accept those 'clarifications.' WE may KNOW that the changes won't affect the future code revisions; but the AHJ doesn't know and most times won't take the chance. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 7:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill We are bound to NFPA 13 (2002). We have an ECHSW above the door in a room. On the opposite wall is a window and sill that does not create an additional floor area. There is a built in cabinet that partially obstructs the window sill and creates a shadow of 2 sq.ft. between the cabinet and the window over the window sill. We informed the AHJ that per NFPA 13 (2007) 8.5.3.2.4 sprinklers are spaced to walls and not windows if they do not create additional floor area. We also pointed to NFPA 13 (2013) 8.1.1(3) A.8.1.1(3) which indicate shadow areas are acceptable so long as the other obstruction guidelines are followed. The AHJ stated they cannot accept the newer standard clarifications on this issue. Is there something I am missing in NFPA 13 (2002) that states this design is acceptable? Thanks, Sean ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
RE: Pressure Limiting Drivers
Very effective, we use them all the time. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 10:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pressure Limiting Drivers I've used them on numerous projects. Saves lots of water during the 30 minute weekly run. Mike Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:44:48 -0600 From: silva...@shaw.ca To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Pressure Limiting Drivers I have a diesel engine driven fire pump that will have a pressure of about 200 psi at churn, including the city supply. My first thought was using a pressure reducing valve downstream of the fire pump. But the pump supplier suggested using a pressure limiting driver on the fire pump. anyone used one before? Any NFPA restrictions? Thanks, Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Pressure Limiting Drivers
They add $3-5k to the price of a pump. Depending on static versus residual they can really payoff in usable pressure without having to be concerned with the churn pressure. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 11:57 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' Subject: RE: Pressure Limiting Drivers Very effective - makes a nice system. However, it does add cost. I personally see these types of systems be specified more due to their benefits. John -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 2:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pressure Limiting Drivers Very effective, we use them all the time. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 10:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pressure Limiting Drivers I've used them on numerous projects. Saves lots of water during the 30 minute weekly run. Mike Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:44:48 -0600 From: silva...@shaw.ca To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Pressure Limiting Drivers I have a diesel engine driven fire pump that will have a pressure of about 200 psi at churn, including the city supply. My first thought was using a pressure reducing valve downstream of the fire pump. But the pump supplier suggested using a pressure limiting driver on the fire pump. anyone used one before? Any NFPA restrictions? Thanks, Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: No Longitudinal Bracing
If it is in a seismic zone. We do 4 ways at the top of risers only even though Phoenix is not in a seismic zone. Maybe that is what he saw. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: No Longitudinal Bracing There isn't an exception for longitudinal bracing. The exception for lateral bracing is where the distance from the point of anchorage (concrete deck, in this case) to the top of pipe is 6 or less. The standard used to say where rods were 6 or less, but now it's the distance from the anchor to top of pipe, which means rods measurably less than 6. The scenario you describe requires at least longitudinal bracing. SML -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:35 AM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: No Longitudinal Bracing So I enter a new underground parking area and look up at the fire sprinkler piping hanging from a concrete deck. As I look I notice there is no bracing other than a 4X at the top of the riser. From the top of the riser it travels out about 4' feet and makes a 90 degree turn and travels about 15'. At that point it makes a 90 degree turn at a T and makes it's longest run of approximately 70'. From there it makes a 90 degree turn for a run of approximately 40'. All the hangers are less than 6 so that explains the no lateral bracing. My question is, what about longitudinal bracing? I looked in 13 chapter 9 and it appears that longitudinal bracing would be required. Am I missing something? I work exclusively with 13D systems, I don't do commercial but I am interested in this situation. Owen Evans First-In Residential Design ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Water Velocity
Ironic that the ETL also requires surge tanks. Belt and suspenders or ignorance? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, C.E.T. Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 10:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Velocity It isn't always engineer ignorance driving the 20 fps. Air Force ETL 02-15 requires it for one. Reed A. Roisum, C.E.T. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Lamar Vaughn Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 12:04 PM To: Sprinkler Forum Subject: Re: Water Velocity It would really be good if this thread could be shared with the engineering community at large. I STILL get specifications that require a maximum velocity of 20 fps. Very costly, especially when you have a good water supply. Lamar Vaughn, SET On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org wrote: actually the difference between the results for D-W and H-W does not vary consistently (alas there is not a linear relationship). To require using D-W at very high velocities is unnecessarily conservative. At these velocities the pressure loss is so high that it is self regulating so typically occurs only is limited sections of the system. With all the averaging etc that our process entails, why get anal on ONE piece of the puzzle? Having said that, one could argue that one should account for the velocity pressure in the discharge calc at high velocities BUT that is needed only when you really have such velocities (like in a water spray deluge) verses seeing an assigned value from our process. Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Sep 15, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Damien Shannon damshan...@gmail.com wrote: So purely along the lines of Andy Rooney's 'have you ever wondered why' :) ... FM Datasheet 2-0, while not limiting the allowable velocity, does require that when velocity exceed 30ft/sec, that the calculation be performed via the Darcy-Weisbach Method rather than the Hazen-Williams. Entertainment value only, but would seem that the variance between results in Hazen-Williams versus Darcy-Weisbach become more apparent with higher velocities. The 30ft/sec limitation (for application of Hazen-Williams calculations) in FM 2-0 is strangely close to the 10m/sec (32.8ft/sec) limitation in EN 12845 Rules for Automatic Sprinkler Installations (previously BS 5306). ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: flex-coupling at water tank
I have seen a gimbal type arrangement used above ground outside. I guess if freezing is an issue a hot box or putting it in a vault would be an option. I have some pictures if that would help. Sorry I don't have any manufacturer or model information. They were used on a COE job on an Army base. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 9:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: flex-coupling at water tank Is there any experience with review comments or specifications calling for a flexible coupling on a welded steel discharge pipe supplying water to a fire pump? 2010 IBC; 2010 NFPA: U.S. Government job: Category 4 Occupancy (essential) Two independent water supplies (municipal underground and above ground tank) Frequency of seismic events in this area: very low, and not strong 10% and 30% of gravity for the 1 and 0.2 second period spectral response acceleration. NFPA 22 is the hammer used to justify asking for the flexible coupling. The only mention of flexible coupling in NFPA 22 is at Figure Annex B.1.x, for underground fiberglass tanks. I have not seen a flex coupling for a water tank to separate steel piping-that-is-fixed-to-the-ground and steel-pipe-that-is-fixed-to-the-tank, whether the tank be for water, liquid petroleum or LNG tanks. Maybe the Japanese do it, but I have not seen it in California quake country, either. *Questions:* 1. Is there a nationally accepted practice whereby flex-joints are required between tanks and their ground based piping? 2. Are flexible connections listed for outdoor service where freezing and strong solar radiation are present? 3. Would not seismic bracing be sufficient (a method most of the OG industry engages) rather than a flex joint ? Bracing against seismic event is the approach taken by OG, and seems to be the intent of NFPA 22 (Sections 13.5.2.2. and for anchor bolts 5.3.2) 2. Since we are outside, not indoors, do the requirements of NFPA 13 bracing apply (there is no direct reference from NPFA 22 to NFPA 13 with regards to earthquake bracing) apply, since there is no structure with which to make a comparison of equivalence [3],[4]? [1]. IBC-2006-Figure1613_5(01) one second period spectral response [2]. 2013/2010 NFPA 24 12.2.5 To minimize or prevent pipe breakage where subject to earthquakes, aboveground pipe shall be protected in accordance with the seismic requirements of NFPA 13. [3]. 2010/2013 NFPA 13 Section 9.3.1.2 Alternative methods of providing earthquake protection of sprinkler systems based on a seismic analysis certified by a registered professional engineer such that system performance will be at least equal to that of the *building structure* under expected seismic forces shall be permitted. [4]. 2013/2010 NFPA 13 Section 9.3.3.1 An approved seismic separation assembly shall be installed where sprinkler piping, regardless of size, *crosses building seismic separation joints *at ground level and above. Additional references 2013 NFPA 22 4.12.4.1 Tank structures shall comply with the local building code for seismic requirements. 4.12.4.2 Specific design criteria shall be contained in the appropriate chapter for the particular tank, or in local codes, whichever is more stringent. 5.3.1 Tanks shall meet the requirements for resistance to earthquake damage in accordance with the earthquake design provisions of AWWA D100. Personally, I think corrosion, and not earthquake would have been a better focus of taxpayer money . Maybe the specification writers thought to include an internal tank liner AND a passive cathodic protection system, to extend the tank life to at least a hundredth of the 1000-year earthquake we are designing for . Scot Deal Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in?
Battlefield earth? -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:42 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? Brad, I had an AHJ like that: sprinklers are better than no sprinklers always make a customer sprinkler a building that contained a 1000F degree molten salt bath process. even though the manufacturer said that water and molten salt don't mix. The AHJ's solution was to shield the machine from the sprinklers. That comprised a $37,000.00 hood that left about three feet of floor on either side, and eight feet at the ends protected by the sprinklers. The machine itself had four levels of redundancy against thermostat failure and each thermostat was an electronic device that reported it's condition to a central processor that was also in a fail-safe mode. harder to get the thing to turn on than to shut down. Stupid, stupid rat creatures. A beer to the first one that can name the reference for the quoted materials (without using the internet). On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Just throw some heads in there like you knew they were required. If Woodrow Call was the AHJ he might say better to have heads and not need them than to need them and not have them On Sep 8, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Bill Brooks bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com wrote: Another case of the difference between when required and how to do it. The International Mechanical Code (2012) Sections 510 (Hazardous Exhaust Systems) and Section 511 (Dust, Stock and Refuse Conveying Systems) provide guidance on this. Again, it shouldn't be up to a sprinkler contractor to figure out whether sprinklers should be installed but only to install per the appropriate standard. As with most of these issues, we don't know if there is a design professional on this job or whether your regular customer has just installed a new process and has called you to do what's required. At a minimum you should have a copy of the IMC which is enforced for this location. So, someone (you??) must assess the installation per IMC Section 510/511 from end to end. There is a suppression system reference in Section 510.7. Some determination needs to be made as to whether the materials are nonflammable and noncombustible under all conditions and at any concentration then make the call on suppression. The entire exhaust system must be engineered to meet the performance characteristics in the IMC. Of course, local code amendments will govern as well as any local AHJ, insurance requirements etc. Sprinkler contractors have a long history of being the can-do guys, with no good way to transfer scope responsibility to the right place. 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 [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and ductwork? Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
RE: Seismic bracing
Some jurisdictions around here require what we call feel good bracing. They don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any seismic standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag we have to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do any calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Seismic bracing Stephen, I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision through very carefully. They seem to be equating seismic bracing with seismic protection, which includes such other features as flexible couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint of branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected against seismic damage. Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of the features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, longitudinal and riser bracing. It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which requires the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. Based on what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could not do so. And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the Ss value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of a building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and it's occupancy or use. While it isn't a complicated set of data to find and apply correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is certainly not your responsibility. This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. You did mention that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? *Ken Wagoner, SET* **Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/5/2014 8:31 AM, Steve Sorrell wrote: Sorry, should have read 2007 edition Stephen J. Sorrell, CET NICET# 77901 Level III E mail: ssorr...@performancefire.com Performance Fire Protection, LLC Corporate Office 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 Mooresville, NC 28117 Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 Web: www.performancefire.com Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL Performance on Every Level. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic bracing The AHJ can't just require it. His preference is not relevant. Also seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for quite a while. I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. Anyway back to seismic. Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors originating out of the Building Code Chapter 16. It's not just an arbitrary decision. There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be classified as to its use/function and you go from there. So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a requirement for bracing is established. I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it made no sense since the building structure wasn't design for the loading and the rest of the system was not protected but it was required by the code so it had to be done. Was it required on the original install, did someone just miss it assuming the site wasn't in the zone, who knows. There is a lot of misinterpretation on the part of design professionals regard when it's required and when it's not. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Sorrell Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Seismic bracing I need some help with a seismic problem. I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are using the 2000 ed of NFPA 13. There is no seismic bracing on this system. I have had to add some new main in various areas. The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler
RE: Seismic bracing
If I did I would have a pile of hold harmless up to the ceiling. We call them piping alignment braces, you know to help keep the piping in a straight line. Where's the liability in installing too many supports? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic bracing Ron, I hope you have a hold harmless letter from the building owner and or developer because the sprinkler contractor will be the one in the cross hairs of the legal system when something goes wrong. The AHJ has no liability unless you can prove gross negligence on the AHJ part. Why assume the liability. Have a fire safe day! Regards Jim DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 Code ConsultantsGreenville, DE 19807 (302) 994-9500 Fax (302) 994-3414 CONFIDENTIALITY This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any medium. Thank you for your cooperation. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic bracing Some jurisdictions around here require what we call feel good bracing. They don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any seismic standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag we have to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do any calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Seismic bracing Stephen, I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision through very carefully. They seem to be equating seismic bracing with seismic protection, which includes such other features as flexible couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint of branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected against seismic damage. Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of the features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, longitudinal and riser bracing. It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which requires the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. Based on what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could not do so. And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the Ss value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of a building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and it's occupancy or use. While it isn't a complicated set of data to find and apply correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is certainly not your responsibility. This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. You did mention that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? *Ken Wagoner, SET* **Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/5/2014 8:31 AM, Steve Sorrell wrote: Sorry, should have read 2007 edition Stephen J. Sorrell, CET NICET# 77901 Level III E mail: ssorr...@performancefire.com Performance Fire Protection, LLC Corporate Office 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 Mooresville, NC 28117 Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 Web: www.performancefire.com Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL Performance on Every Level. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic bracing The AHJ can't just require it. His preference is not relevant. Also seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for quite a while. I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. Anyway back to seismic. Seismic requirements are
RE: Seismic bracing
Seems to me the AHJ's need the education more than the contractors. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of wmens...@comcast.net Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:58 AM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Re: Seismic bracing Oh boy, here we go again. Every time the subject of seismic bracing / protection comes up, it shows that there is a general lack of understanding among contractors and designers (myself included) as to when it is required, what is required, and how to do it correctly. We need more education - just reading NFPA13 is not enough. Can anyone suggest any good classes available out there? Thanks Bill Menster - Original Message - From: rfletc...@aerofire.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:10:38 AM Subject: RE: Seismic bracing Some jurisdictions around here require what we call feel good bracing. They don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any seismic standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag we have to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do any calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Seismic bracing Stephen, I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision through very carefully. They seem to be equating seismic bracing with seismic protection, which includes such other features as flexible couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint of branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected against seismic damage. Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of the features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, longitudinal and riser bracing. It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which requires the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. Based on what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could not do so. And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the Ss value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of a building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and it's occupancy or use. While it isn't a complicated set of data to find and apply correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is certainly not your responsibility. This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. You did mention that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? *Ken Wagoner, SET* **Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/5/2014 8:31 AM, Steve Sorrell wrote: Sorry, should have read 2007 edition Stephen J. Sorrell, CET NICET# 77901 Level III E mail: ssorr...@performancefire.com Performance Fire Protection, LLC Corporate Office 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 Mooresville, NC 28117 Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 Web: www.performancefire.com Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL Performance on Every Level. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic bracing The AHJ can't just require it. His preference is not relevant. Also seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for quite a while. I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. Anyway back to seismic. Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors originating out of the Building Code Chapter 16. It's not just an arbitrary decision. There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be classified as to its use/function and you go from there. So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a requirement for bracing is established. I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it made no sense since the building structure wasn't design for the loading and the rest of the system was not protected but it was required by the code so it had to be done. Was it required on the original install, did someone just
RE: Seismic bracing
Since it is an existing building I doubt any of the things you have listed will be done. I guess I look at getting it done without doing any harm so the owner can use the building. The alternative appears to be telling the owner it's not their responsibility and that he has to get an architect, structural engineer, soils report and have as builts done for the whole building and so on and so on so that the sprinkler contractor can properly design a sway brace. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic bracing The seismic design classification should be determined by the structural engineer who determines the SDC of the site. Once the SDC is determined then you can go into either, ASCE 7 or Chapter 16 of the IBC, to determine the building's importance factor and other determining factors to decide when earthquake bracing is required. For example in most cases a building has a SDC of C then the mechanical and electrical systems with an importance factor of less than 1.5 do not have to seismically brace the systems however systems with an importance factor equal to or greater than 1.5 (fire alarm, sprinkler, fire pump, stair tower pressurization, etc) are required to be seismically braced. Then you can go to NFPA 13 or the IBC for the details on bracing and the zone of influence calculations required. Because of the soil and underground geological analysis the structural engineer will need to determine the SDC of the site. Regards Jim DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 Code ConsultantsGreenville, DE 19807 (302) 994-9500 Fax (302) 994-3414 CONFIDENTIALITY This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any medium. Thank you for your cooperation. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of wmens...@comcast.net Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:16 PM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Re: Seismic bracing Oh boy, here we go again. Every time the subject of seismic bracing / protection comes up, it shows that there is a general lack of understanding among contractors and designers (myself included) as to when it is required, what is required, and how to do it correctly. We need more education - just reading NFPA13 is not enough. Can anyone suggest any good classes available out there? Thanks Bill Menster - Original Message - From: rfletc...@aerofire.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:10:38 AM Subject: RE: Seismic bracing Some jurisdictions around here require what we call feel good bracing. They don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any seismic standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag we have to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do any calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Seismic bracing Stephen, I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision through very carefully. They seem to be equating seismic bracing with seismic protection, which includes such other features as flexible couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint of branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected against seismic damage. Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of the features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, longitudinal and riser bracing. It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which requires the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. Based on what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could not do so. And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the Ss value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of a building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and it's occupancy or use.
RE: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013
I disagree. S-1 occupancies have roof slopes less than 2/12 so they are considered flat and I have seen many ceilings that are sloped greater than 2/12. Also there are warehouses with a couple high bays of 50-60' with the rest of the building at 40'-36'. Applying NFPA's interpretation would mean that the 40' area would have to be area density with in-racks because ESFR's could not be used in the high bays. Designing all systems for the highest roof area doesn't make any sense. Where does it stop? Do we have to use ESFR's under a 20' high mezzanine in a 40' warehouse? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013 Peak indicates sloped and I think that is what bothers the TC. If it was flat there would be no diff between a ceiling and a roof. Several months ago Mr Scandaliato (sp?) alluded to having some inside info about this. I offered up a case of beer if he could put it in a nutshell but it likely ended up in his junk mail, being from me and all. On Aug 21, 2014, at 9:04 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Wouldn't be the first time I thought the NFPA interp was wrong and I think that again now. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Steven P. Biship sbis...@pacificfireeng.com wrote: I actually called NFPA a couple weeks ago for an unofficial interpretation for this exact subject with regards to ESFR sprinkler installations. I was told that the term Maximum Ceiling/Roof Height found in the tables applies to the maximum building height of the structure, regardless of the area of storage. I personally don't agree but that was what I was told. Steven P. Biship, FPE, CFPS 4214 Floyd Drive Corona, Ca. 92883 P: 951-427-3781 F: 951-427-3655 C: 714-984-4346 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013 Greg, I would look at the definition of ceiling height in 3.3.3: 3.3.3 Ceiling Height. The distance between the floor and the underside of the ceiling above (or roof deck) within the area. It would seem to me that this definition backs up the perspective that Ron has added. Has nothing to do with the roof height, only the height of the ceiling in the area of storage. If a storage area in a high rise had an 28' ceiling, and yet the building was 22 floors high, you certainly would not design based on a 22 story ceiling height. Just one perspective. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, CA 92025-5053 *Phone 760.745.6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 8/21/2014 3:46 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: I would say the maximum height is meant to apply the area of storage and not the maximum height of the entire building. A.17.2.3 Storage in single-story or multistory buildings can be permitted, provided the maximum ceiling/roof height as specified in chapter 12 is satisfied for each storage area. If there were a high bay above 48' with in racks and the remainder of the building was at 40' would you use area density with in racks in the 40' area because there are no ESFR's listed for greater than 48'? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Fontes Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013 A question has come up that in Table 17.2.3.1 the column that states Maximum Ceiling/Roof Height applies to the maximum Ceiling/Roof height of the building, not the storage area. As an example, if a warehouse has cartoned expanded plastics storage to 25' high in a portion of the warehouse that has a roof/ceiling height of under 32', but the ridge height of the building is 33'-0, they are suggesting that the cartoned expanded plastic cannot be stored in the building because the ridge height (not the area of storage) is above 32'. There reasoning is that the table applies to the entire building, not the area of storage. Therefore if the highest point of the building exceeds the list table height, even though the storage area roof height is under the table height, the table cannot apply. Is this a correct assumption or is the maximum height meant to apply to the area of storage? Thanks, Gregg Fontes Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 209-334-9119 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
RE: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013
I would say the maximum height is meant to apply the area of storage and not the maximum height of the entire building. A.17.2.3 Storage in single-story or multistory buildings can be permitted, provided the maximum ceiling/roof height as specified in chapter 12 is satisfied for each storage area. If there were a high bay above 48' with in racks and the remainder of the building was at 40' would you use area density with in racks in the 40' area because there are no ESFR's listed for greater than 48'? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Fontes Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013 A question has come up that in Table 17.2.3.1 the column that states Maximum Ceiling/Roof Height applies to the maximum Ceiling/Roof height of the building, not the storage area. As an example, if a warehouse has cartoned expanded plastics storage to 25' high in a portion of the warehouse that has a roof/ceiling height of under 32', but the ridge height of the building is 33'-0, they are suggesting that the cartoned expanded plastic cannot be stored in the building because the ridge height (not the area of storage) is above 32'. There reasoning is that the table applies to the entire building, not the area of storage. Therefore if the highest point of the building exceeds the list table height, even though the storage area roof height is under the table height, the table cannot apply. Is this a correct assumption or is the maximum height meant to apply to the area of storage? Thanks, Gregg Fontes Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 209-334-9119 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013
Wouldn't be the first time I thought the NFPA interp was wrong and I think that again now. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Steven P. Biship sbis...@pacificfireeng.com wrote: I actually called NFPA a couple weeks ago for an unofficial interpretation for this exact subject with regards to ESFR sprinkler installations. I was told that the term Maximum Ceiling/Roof Height found in the tables applies to the maximum building height of the structure, regardless of the area of storage. I personally don't agree but that was what I was told. Steven P. Biship, FPE, CFPS 4214 Floyd Drive Corona, Ca. 92883 P: 951-427-3781 F: 951-427-3655 C: 714-984-4346 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013 Greg, I would look at the definition of ceiling height in 3.3.3: 3.3.3 Ceiling Height. The distance between the floor and the underside of the ceiling above (or roof deck) within the area. It would seem to me that this definition backs up the perspective that Ron has added. Has nothing to do with the roof height, only the height of the ceiling in the area of storage. If a storage area in a high rise had an 28' ceiling, and yet the building was 22 floors high, you certainly would not design based on a 22 story ceiling height. Just one perspective. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, CA 92025-5053 *Phone 760.745.6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 8/21/2014 3:46 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: I would say the maximum height is meant to apply the area of storage and not the maximum height of the entire building. A.17.2.3 Storage in single-story or multistory buildings can be permitted, provided the maximum ceiling/roof height as specified in chapter 12 is satisfied for each storage area. If there were a high bay above 48' with in racks and the remainder of the building was at 40' would you use area density with in racks in the 40' area because there are no ESFR's listed for greater than 48'? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Fontes Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: ESFR Table 17.2.3.1 NFPA 13 2013 A question has come up that in Table 17.2.3.1 the column that states Maximum Ceiling/Roof Height applies to the maximum Ceiling/Roof height of the building, not the storage area. As an example, if a warehouse has cartoned expanded plastics storage to 25' high in a portion of the warehouse that has a roof/ceiling height of under 32', but the ridge height of the building is 33'-0, they are suggesting that the cartoned expanded plastic cannot be stored in the building because the ridge height (not the area of storage) is above 32'. There reasoning is that the table applies to the entire building, not the area of storage. Therefore if the highest point of the building exceeds the list table height, even though the storage area roof height is under the table height, the table cannot apply. Is this a correct assumption or is the maximum height meant to apply to the area of storage? Thanks, Gregg Fontes Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 209-334-9119 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: ESFR Sprinkler in Racks.
It was an unusual condition. 8 ft deep ssingle rack against a wall, no flues, plywood barrier fit tight to the wall. Mattresses below and cartooned stge above. Added to existing ESFR Whse Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org wrote: You must some mighty skinny people to walk around within the flues. Amazed that approach was accepted considering its definition and leaves questions like ceiling height for the ESFR. Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Aug 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Last time we did one we called the solid shelf a mezzanine and put the correct density under with ESFR at roof. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org wrote: open ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: ESFR Sprinkler in Racks.
Last time we did one we called the solid shelf a mezzanine and put the correct density under with ESFR at roof. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org wrote: open ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Texas code set
Too funny. I once saw a set of plans reviewed by Andy that said Rejected - Do Not Resubmit until redrawn by an experienced designer. Or something to that effect. I went to his office one time, there were plans everywhere. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Texas code set Ya'll should have been around when the Texas State Board of Insurance ran things. Andy was one tough cookie to get plans approved. After a couple of tries you'd get this stamped on your drawings: Seek professional help David Autry Meininger Fire Protection Inc. 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 Lincoln, Ne 68522 Voice (402) 466-2616 Fax (402) 466-2617 da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Texas code set Did this guy make fertilizer in West? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com On Jul 29, 2014, at 8:12 AM, craig.pr...@ch2m.com wrote: What I found out from doing several projects in Texas is that there is no statewide adopted code except the Life Safety Code. Local jurisdictions are allowed to adopt and enforce as they see fit, or they may do nothing at all. So as stated before, you have to go to the local AHJ and see if they have adopted anything or enforce anything. What I was told in my cases was that as EOR we could choose to use whatever version of the Codes we wanted as long as we used the whole code and didn't cherry pick pieces and parts from different editions. Beyond that, no direction or reviews, or permits or inspections. A couple of projects I knew of had H occupancy bldgs. with corrosives over the MAQ, no flammables or combustibles. H requires sprinklers, but since there was no local code enforcement, the owner was able to declare themselves as AHJ. He didn't feel sprinklers were warranted for a bldg. that didn't contain any combustibles regardless of what any Code may have required and directed the EOR not to include any mention of them in his package. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:26 PM To: AFSA Sprinkler Forum (AFSA SprinklerFORUM) Subject: Texas code set Can someone please point me to a website or give me a run-down on current adopted codes and standards (13,14,20,24,72) in Texas? What edition of the code and is it called the Texas Building Code or IBC with amendments? I saw one website that referenced both IBC and UFC ... any help is appreciated. SL ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
Anything would be better than here's your badge and unlimited authority. One the biggest problems I find is that the higher up the chain of command we go the less they know about codes and plan review. The Chief tries to hire experienced people and is reluctant to overrule them because he/she doesn't know the codes and trusts that the reviewer does. We can appeal to the county board but they probably don't have a single person on it that knows what a sprinkler head looks like. Or we can go to the state fire marshal but he will probably tell us that so and so is autonomous and he can't tell him what to do. The king is never wrong. I hope I can find a way to make them accountable, I know I am going to try and try. The most ironic part of this whole mess. We can buy new 2000 gpm pump cases that will produce slightly less pressure that the 1500's. The net pressure at 2000 from the 2000 or 1500 will be within 1 or 2 psi of each other. Spend $50k for no tangible difference. This just pisses me off. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground or NCPCCI or ICC. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 David Autry da...@mfp-inc.com wrote: Don't you have to work for a contractor to achieve NICET Level III? At a bare minimum they should be NFPA Fire Plan Examiner AND NFPA Fire Inspector certified. David Autry Meininger Fire Protection Inc. 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 Lincoln, Ne 68522 Voice (402) 466-2616 Fax (402) 466-2617 da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 6:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground I prefer to have said it this way, government plan check inspectors should be certified to the same level or HIGHER than those they regulate. NICET III to have sprinkler license, NICET III to plan check or inspect. Chris -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 2:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground No. Government plan check inspectors should be state certified on all aspects of their job. A local fire inspector (who does not know what he is doing) approved at final a head pocking through a jagged hole in the stucco ceiling without an escutcheon. I brought this to the attention of the fire marshal, the fire chief, and the city council. The fire chief brought in an outside AHJ to review it. The outside AHJ advised that escutcheons are ornamental only and not even required by code. The fire chief advised the city council of what the outside AHJ had said and went on to say that it was erroneous of me to claim the escutcheon was required. I call this the Harry and Lloyed (Dumb Dumber) syndrome . Just because Harry (the dumb outside AHJ) says it, Lloyed (the dumber fire chief and fire marshal) believes it true. The original inspector, the fire marshal, the fire chief, and the outside AHJ never bothered to check the fire code or sprinkler listing. It was a semi-recessed head listed with its escutcheon. But guess who the city council believed? The big man with the g old badge...until I provided code reference and the sprinkler manufacturers listing. But guess what that got me? Everybody is pissed off because I (really they) made them(selves) look bad. Extremely frustrated, Owen Evans -Original Message- From: Bob b...@firebyknight.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sent: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 11:49 am Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground What does unwritten policy have to do with anything? If it's not an adopted code amendment can they enforce it legally? Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.comhttp://www.Firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think pressure is even a factor. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this
RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
To show how futile it is here is word for word the letter they wrote minus the names and places. Per our discussion on 7/14/2014 regarding the Fire Pumps at Blah Blah Parkway, Project Blah Blah, within Blah Blah industrial center, Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is exercising its right to withdraw the approval of the Fire Sprinkler Plans based on several factors.. 1. During previous discussion with Mr. So and So there was a mutual understand that Mr. So and So would provide Balh Blah Fire Protection District with contacts to a Fire Protection Engineer in which he did not do. 2. When the plans were submitted, we were led to believe that the pumps in the submittal were capable of supplying 2,250 GPM at 100% capacity, which would have exceeded our need for 4,000 GPM. Once the plans were submitted, the pump curve test, with the delivery of the pumps, we discovered they were 1,500 GPM not 2,250 GPM and that the 2,250 GPM that was supplies to us was at 150% of the capacity of the pump. 3. The building requires 8,000 GPM as a basic fire flow. Per Blah Blah Fire Protection Districts Adopted Fire Code Appendix B 105.2 Fire Flow Requirements for buildings: a reduction in fire flow of up to 50 percent. As approved, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. This would make the requirement 4,000 GPM or (a combination of two 2,000 GPM pumps that are capable of 4,000 GPM at 100 percent of the pumps rated capacity) 4. NFPA 20 A4.8 The performance of the pump when applied at capacities over 140 percent of rated capacity can be adversely affected by the suction conditions. Application of the pump at capacities less than 90 percent of the rate capacity is NOT recommended. The selection and application of the fire pump should not be confused with the pump operating conditions. With proper suction conditions the pump can operate at any point of is characteristic curve from shutoff to 150 percent of its rated capacity. 5. UFC-P1003.2.1.17.6 Pump Size states that Fire pumps shall be sized at their rated UL or FM capacity at 100 percent of the required flow. At this time, Blah blah Fire Protection District is denying said plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed IFC, UFC , and NFPA standards. Sincerely, The Badge To top it off UFC isn't even listed as an adopted code, they only list IFC. They did ask if I could get a registered FPE to write a letter about the pump size. I said yes and they said it won't help and that they want the pumps changed anyway. I'm not kidding. This is really how the conversation went. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground or NCPCCI or ICC. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 David Autry da...@mfp-inc.com wrote: Don't you have to work for a contractor to achieve NICET Level III? At a bare minimum they should be NFPA Fire Plan Examiner AND NFPA Fire Inspector certified. David Autry Meininger Fire Protection Inc. 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 Lincoln, Ne 68522 Voice (402) 466-2616 Fax (402) 466-2617 da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 6:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground I prefer to have said it this way, government plan check inspectors should be certified to the same level or HIGHER than those they regulate. NICET III to have sprinkler license, NICET III to plan check or inspect. Chris -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 2:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground No. Government plan check inspectors should be state certified on all aspects of their job. A local fire inspector (who does not know what he is doing) approved at final a head pocking through a jagged hole in the stucco ceiling without an escutcheon. I brought this to the attention of the fire marshal, the fire chief, and the city council. The fire chief brought in an outside AHJ to review it. The outside AHJ advised that escutcheons are ornamental only and not even required by code. The fire chief advised the city council of what the outside AHJ had said and went on to say that it was erroneous of me to claim the escutcheon was required. I call this the Harry and Lloyed (Dumb Dumber) syndrome . Just because Harry (the dumb outside AHJ) says it, Lloyed (the dumber fire chief and fire marshal) believes it true. The original
RE: Motor operated valve controller
Can you rig up something that uses whatever level sensing devices the tank already has? Otherwise they now make a sonic sensor that can mount to the inside top of the tank. You should be able to get a signal from it to operate a valve. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Craig Leadbetter Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 7:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Motor operated valve controller So it appears that Cal-Val is probably the right solution. Unfortunately the MOV's are already in place. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:44 AM, John Denhardt jdenha...@stricklandfire.com wrote: Same here. Cla-valve. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 8:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Motor operated valve controller Never used a motor operated one. I've always used a Cla-Val Altitude Valve. David Autry Meininger Fire Protection Inc. 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 Lincoln, Ne 68522 Voice (402) 466-2616 Fax (402) 466-2617 da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Craig Leadbetter Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 7:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Motor operated valve controller I am looking for a motor operated valve controller to automaitically fill a water tank. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks -- Craig Leadbetter Safeguard of Marquette PO Box 116 Marquette, MI 49855 (O) 906-475-9955 (F) 906-475-5474 (C) 906-362-5393 craigleadbet...@gmail.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.o rg http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink ler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- Craig Leadbetter Safeguard of Marquette PO Box 116 Marquette, MI 49855 (O) 906-475-9955 (F) 906-475-5474 (C) 906-362-5393 craigleadbet...@gmail.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Blazemaster CPVC Underground
I feel your pain. Ron F Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Tony Liddic tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com wrote: AHJ has spoken with Mfr Rep directly and has basically decided to forgo common sense. The only way he will approve it is if NFPA 13R includes this situation specifically, ie. CPVC piping shall be permitted to be installed underground below breezeways on system side of riser. Thanks, Tony Liddic, CET MRH Sprinkler Design LLC 356 Laurel Glen Dr. Springboro, OH 45066 937-369-7926 http://mrhsprinklerdesign.com tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Fairchild, Jack jfairch...@ballinger-ae.com wrote: Is it written somewhere that steel is allowed for underground use on the system side? Jack Fairchild -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Stone Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 4:43 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: FW: Blazemaster CPVC Underground FYI Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net mailto: tston...@comcast.net From: Lemire, Mark [mailto:mark.lem...@lubrizol.com] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:02 PM To: Tim Stone Subject: Fwd: Blazemaster CPVC Underground Good evening, Please review John's comments who us one of Lubrizol's Field Tech Specialist. Have a great weekend! Mark E. Lemire Piping System Consultant The Lubrizol Corporation Representing FlowGuard GoldR, BlazeMasterR and CorzanR CPVC piping systems 603-738-3101 603-934-3360 fax mark.lem...@lubrizol.com mailto:mark.lem...@lubrizol.com www.lubrizolcpvc.com http://www.lubrizolcpvc.com Begin forwarded message: From: Pritchard, John john.pritch...@lubrizol.com mailto: john.pritch...@lubrizol.com Date: July 18, 2014 at 10:06:15 AM EDT To: Lemire, Mark mark.lem...@lubrizol.com mailto: mark.lem...@lubrizol.com Subject: RE: Blazemaster CPVC Underground I e-mailed Peter because the original e-mail was from his territory. The AHJ is 100 wrong. CPVC is approved for underground. 13R allows any material approved for Underground water. The way the system is being run which is common in my part of the country the CPVC pipe is part of the sprinkler system and it is approved for underground installations. The AHJ needs to be educated John Pritchard Piping Systems Consultant The Lubrizol Corporation Representing FlowGuard GoldR, BlazeMasterR and CorzanR CPVC piping systems 224-735-3042 office 312-215-2089 cell 224-735-3043 fax mailto:john.pritch...@lubrizol.com john.pritch...@lubrizol.com http://www.lubrizolcpvc.com/ www.lubrizolcpvc.com From: Lemire, Mark Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:03 AM To: Pritchard, John Subject: Fwd: Blazemaster CPVC Underground Any comments! Mark Lemire Piping Systems Consultant The Lubrizol Corporation Representing FlowGuard Gold, BlazeMaster and Corzan CPVC piping systems 603-738-3101 cell 603-934-3360 fax Email: mark.lem...@lubrizol.com mailto:mark.lem...@lubrizol.com Website: www.lubrizolcpvc.com http://www.lubrizolcpvc.com Begin forwarded message: From: Tim Stone tston...@comcast.net mailto:tston...@comcast.net Date: July 18, 2014 at 10:00:55 AM EDT To: mark.lem...@lubrizol.com mailto:mark.lem...@lubrizol.com Subject: FW: Blazemaster CPVC Underground Mark, The attached email is from The AFSA Forum. Can you way in? Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net mailto: tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Blazemaster CPVC Underground That's a good one. I'll add that to my so you think you have heard everything list. Like saying it's approved below a valve but not above. Does he have a code reference or is this it just their opinion? Can you have someone from the manufacturer call them? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tony
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
I am filing an appeal, for all the good it will do. Have to get CofO then I can fight the the good but futile fight. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 20, 2014, at 5:10 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Actually you get a notice of violation, order to pay penalty, order to vacate and the building posted at each entrance. Disregarding the order may be chargeable as defiant trespass of a lawful order (which it is because the fact is you don't have a CO to occupy) which becomes a criminal matter, the hole is getting deeper. Keep in mind the CO notice of violation, penalty and vacate orders are a slam dunk for the code official since the first question at the hearing is; do you have a Certificate of Occupancy ?, which is the matter at hand. Of course the only answer other than lying is No. The next question will be did you appeal the code officials determination on the fire pump ? again the answer, other than lying is No to which the judge or board says; why not ? The appeal on the fire pump can't even be heard because there is no appeal since the aggrieved party never filed one. Typically judges or boards cant order a CO issued in violation of the regulations which require all inspections to be completed and signed off, especially for fire. Of course cooler heads will prevail and the directive will be to get everyone to solve the problem which is where we started. Besides all that we get requests from financial institutions, insurance companies and other vested interests every day for proof of certificate of occupancy prior to occupancy. Guys either get everyone together and solve it or FILE THE APPEAL it's not going to go away. Let me off this ride I'm getting dizzy. PS as for the public, the angst will turn against the person(s) who occupied without a CO not the code official simply by virtue that the public's response will be I had to get permits, inspections and a CO before occupancy why don't they, who do they think they are , special ? PSS, we agree to disagree but were still friends. John John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Theoretically at best If an owner occupies without the COO, he/ she is subject to arrest by armed marshals. Reality is you get a ticket for an ordinance violation. About the same as a ticket for your long grass. Getting a ticket is a GOOD thing if you are right. You get to a judge to put the executive branch in their place. If you wait for the obstinate official to issue a COO you may never get use of your building or in front of a judge. Chris -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The COO is more than just a formality. If an owner occupies without the COO, he/ she is subject to arrest by armed marshals. It doesnt matter if its a mall owner or a small homeowner out in the middle of nowhere. If she/he resists arrest or removal they may be killed, and at the very minimum imprisoned. Why would any sensible owner risk that over a piece of paper? A friend of mine is a roofing contractor. They had a regional contract with a fast food chain; one of the projects was in the greater Chicago area. They needed a sign off but the AHJ would not schedule the inspection. Finally he went down to her office and she told him: WE dont like you here (he was non union) and dont want you here. He agreed to never do business in her jurisdiction again; in return she went out and signed off on the roof inspection. Since you are the out of town contractor, have you considered that perhaps the AHJ is sending you a similar message of staying out of town and not biting into the locals work? On 7/19/2014 6:54 PM, John Drucker - Home wrote: Bob, Unfortunately they can indirectly by withholding a certificate of approval, compliance or occupancy. Most property owners need this document for closing, insurance or tenancy and or their attorney advises them that they will or have now broken an adopted law or regulation. So despite the illegitimacy of the code officials claim the property owner or tenant has now legitimately broken the rules by occupying without a certificate of occupancy and or certificate of approval. In other words the enforcing agency holds the cards. Code Enforcement is a legal process and like all or most legal
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think pressure is even a factor. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this work regardless. Did you take your 75% reduction in fire flow based on the fully sprinklered exception in B105.2? If you are starting at 4000 gpm, the required flow can be reduced to 1500 gpm if fully sprinklered. Doesn't that work with your pumps? Duane - Original Message - From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:51 AM Eastern Standard Time To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Has Annex B been adopted? See 101.2.1? Duane - Original Message - From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:35 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Hi John, What Ron didn't say is that the AHJ is trying to connect chapter 5 of the IFC and table B105.2 fire flow requirements to our sprinkler system pumps. We conceded early on to furnish a redundant pump because it was specified that way, but the FM is expecting the fire pumps to provide the 4000 GPM from B105.2 at the sprinkler (ESFR) demand pressure (165 PSI) and do so at the 100% design point of the fire pump. We submitted our design with two 1500 GPM pumps piped in parallel along with calcs for the storage sprinklers flowing at around 165 PSI at the pump discharge. The city water system which supplies the project flow tested at 5700 GPM at 74 PSI from two 4 hydrant butts. No one at the AHJ's office understands how to read a fire code, or any other code for that matter. They are Code Alchemist, taking a paragraph from chapter 5, table from the annex, and numbers from our calcs, mix 'em all together in an AHJ beaker and BOOM!! Minimum code requirement. See? This stuff ain 't all that hard. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPad On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:24 AM, John Drucker jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org wrote: Like how you wrote; everything is per code except we have. Except ?, Are you/they saying that having two pumps rather than one is a violation; I.e. 4000 GPM at 160 vs 4000 at 165 and you're short 5 psi ? So two code violations, two pumps and short 5 psi. Now before you chop my head off, consider two things wheres the one pump and 165 psi coming from ? Somehow apparently this has been planted in the ahjs head, I'm certain he/she didn't come up with it on there own. Now you're stuck. Frankly and using common sense are you hitting demand, does everything fit and work together, is the principal designer and owner ok with it ? Move forward. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 rfletc...@aerofire.commailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.netmailto:john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Ron, et.al. I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation. There's got to be something driving this. Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall mounted smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the illustration in the annex is worded differently than the code. 29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on walls shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the adjoining ceiling surface. Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes; Measurements shown are to the closest edge of the detector. According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface. It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following statement; Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
It's a mystery. An AHJ in a different jurisdiction but in same metro area said she didn't know if she would accept our flow test for the sprinkler Sys because we only flowed 3871 gpm and that they require 4000. The civil engineer had already modeled 4000 gpm for there drawings. Must be something in the water (hehe). Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:32 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: The question still stands why 4000? Duane - Original Message - From: rfletc...@aerofire.com [mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:15 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think pressure is even a factor. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this work regardless. Did you take your 75% reduction in fire flow based on the fully sprinklered exception in B105.2? If you are starting at 4000 gpm, the required flow can be reduced to 1500 gpm if fully sprinklered. Doesn't that work with your pumps? Duane - Original Message - From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:51 AM Eastern Standard Time To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Has Annex B been adopted? See 101.2.1? Duane - Original Message - From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:35 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Hi John, What Ron didn't say is that the AHJ is trying to connect chapter 5 of the IFC and table B105.2 fire flow requirements to our sprinkler system pumps. We conceded early on to furnish a redundant pump because it was specified that way, but the FM is expecting the fire pumps to provide the 4000 GPM from B105.2 at the sprinkler (ESFR) demand pressure (165 PSI) and do so at the 100% design point of the fire pump. We submitted our design with two 1500 GPM pumps piped in parallel along with calcs for the storage sprinklers flowing at around 165 PSI at the pump discharge. The city water system which supplies the project flow tested at 5700 GPM at 74 PSI from two 4 hydrant butts. No one at the AHJ's office understands how to read a fire code, or any other code for that matter. They are Code Alchemist, taking a paragraph from chapter 5, table from the annex, and numbers from our calcs, mix 'em all together in an AHJ beaker and BOOM!! Minimum code requirement. See? This stuff ai n 't all that hard. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPad On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:24 AM, John Drucker jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org wrote: Like how you wrote; everything is per code except we have. Except ?, Are you/they saying that having two pumps rather than one is a violation; I.e. 4000 GPM at 160 vs 4000 at 165 and you're short 5 psi ? So two code violations, two pumps and short 5 psi. Now before you chop my head off, consider two things wheres the one pump and 165 psi coming from ? Somehow apparently this has been planted in the ahjs head, I'm certain he/she didn't come up with it on there own. Now you're stuck. Frankly and using common sense are you hitting demand, does everything fit and work together, is the principal designer and owner ok with it ? Move forward. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 rfletc...@aerofire.commailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.netmailto:john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Ron, et.al. I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation.
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
The AHJ told me I don't care what the codes say. Do it my way or no CofO. I am appealing to the State FM while arranging to change the pumps to 2000 gpm. We have a written notice from the GC to get our plans approved. The GC has tried to reason with the badge. That's when he was told they would accept a fire watch until the pumps are changed. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:57 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: And A.4.8. Duane - Original Message - From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:56 AM Eastern Standard Time To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground See NFPA 20:4.8.1. Duane - Original Message - From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:42 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The project is a 700k sq ft type Vb construction. B105.2 calls out 8000 GPM fire flow. The locally adopted reduction is 50%, so 8000 x50% =4000 GPM. They are correct about the flow rate. They just don't understand that that is what is required from the municipal water system to the site for manual fire fighting. They believe that out sprinkler booster pumps need to produce 4000 GPM at their 100% design point, and feel that operating a fire pump in excess odors design point of 100% is somehow bad. Mark at Aero Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:32 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: The question still stands why 4000? Duane - Original Message - From: rfletc...@aerofire.com [mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:15 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think pressure is even a factor. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this work regardless. Did you take your 75% reduction in fire flow based on the fully sprinklered exception in B105.2? If you are starting at 4000 gpm, the required flow can be reduced to 1500 gpm if fully sprinklered. Doesn't that work with your pumps? Duane - Original Message - From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:51 AM Eastern Standard Time To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Has Annex B been adopted? See 101.2.1? Duane - Original Message - From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:35 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Hi John, What Ron didn't say is that the AHJ is trying to connect chapter 5 of the IFC and table B105.2 fire flow requirements to our sprinkler system pumps. We conceded early on to furnish a redundant pump because it was specified that way, but the FM is expecting the fire pumps to provide the 4000 GPM from B105.2 at the sprinkler (ESFR) demand pressure (165 PSI) and do so at the 100% design point of the fire pump. We submitted our design with two 1500 GPM pumps piped in parallel along with calcs for the storage sprinklers flowing at around 165 PSI at the pump discharge. The city water system which supplies the project flow tested at 5700 GPM at 74 PSI from two 4 hydrant butts. No one at the AHJ's office understands how to read a fire code, or any other code for that matter. They are Code Alchemist, taking a paragraph from chapter 5, table from the annex, and numbers from our calcs, mix 'em all together in an AHJ beaker and BOOM!! Minimum code requirement. See? This stuff a i n 't all that hard. Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPad On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:24 AM, John Drucker jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org wrote: Like how you wrote; everything is per code except we have. Except ?, Are you/they saying that having two pumps rather than one is a violation; I.e. 4000 GPM at 160 vs 4000 at 165 and you're short 5 psi ? So two code violations, two pumps and short 5 psi. Now before you chop my head off, consider two things wheres the one pump and 165 psi
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
Wouldn't say the GC is sitting with the badge. He took a run at, found it to be futile and is now rightly concerned about turning the bldg over on time. I'm sure at this point that we will change the pumps to 2000's and wait for the badge to go away before going back. We don't want lose money and customer. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 6:27 AM, John Drucker jdruc...@redbanknj.org wrote: It doesn't help, the public doesn't understand codes and a smart media relations person will point out public and firefighter safety being compromised over money which in the end is what this is all about. When refuted the point will be made to the contractor that if the pump manufacturer was willing to provide the pumps for no charge and pick up the labor most would install just like they did after Tyco ponied up for o ring sprinkler replacement. Money changes everything. Like I said everyone needs to sheath their swords and work this out, apparently the GC has already conceded, so he's sitting with the FM. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: Ever thought about you and a few other contractors getting together with a reporter? Nice little article about the abuses of government should help. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: mphe...@aerofire.com Date:07/19/2014 8:09 AM (GMT-06:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground This is where the universe starts to wobble, and then slip into a black hole. I sent them this very section to show that our design MEETS their code. They sent that section back to me to show that it DOESN'T. Then told us to do it their way, or appeal to the State Fire Marshal. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:57 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: And A.4.8. Duane - Original Message - From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:56 AM Eastern Standard Time To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground See NFPA 20:4.8.1. Duane - Original Message - From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:42 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The project is a 700k sq ft type Vb construction. B105.2 calls out 8000 GPM fire flow. The locally adopted reduction is 50%, so 8000 x50% =4000 GPM. They are correct about the flow rate. They just don't understand that that is what is required from the municipal water system to the site for manual fire fighting. They believe that out sprinkler booster pumps need to produce 4000 GPM at their 100% design point, and feel that operating a fire pump in excess odors design point of 100% is somehow bad. Mark at Aero Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:32 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: The question still stands why 4000? Duane - Original Message - From: rfletc...@aerofire.com [mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:15 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think pressure is even a factor. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this work regardless. Did you take your 75% reduction in fire flow based on the fully sprinklered exception in B105.2? If you are starting at 4000 gpm, the required flow can be reduced to 1500 gpm if fully sprinklered. Doesn't that work with your pumps? Duane - Original Message - From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:51 AM Eastern Standard Time To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Has Annex B been adopted? See 101.2.1? Duane - Original Message - From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:35 AM Eastern Standard Time To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
Had a FPE registered in the state call the badge. They talked for an hour and the FPE thought he was making some headway. Badge said he would email something outlining their unpublished policies. 15 minutes later he called back and said the chief told him not put a anything in writing. End of conversation. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 7:08 AM, John Drucker jdruc...@redbanknj.org wrote: Now we're talking but instead of a letter ask the pump mfg to press the flesh with the AHJ. The rep is fresh viewpoint and will bring technical expertise to the table and typically some handout material. The FM saves face and gets a way out. PS just the FM and the pump rep, since others will by human nature blurt out I told you so which will undo gained ground. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 Ben Young derblitzkrie...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know the specifics of the pumps you're using, but my understanding is that normally its more efficient for most pumps to run from 100% to 150% and better for the long-term life as well. Would a letter or discussion with the pump manufacturer have any impact on their reasoning do you think, or would it just be fuel on the fire? I feel for you guys, and hope there's something you can do to work this out. We have our fair share of issues with AHJs in PA where there's no state FM to go to. Sometimes it feels like the wild west. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
That's what I've been doing. The worst part besides the money is the wasted time and resources. I should be doing something productive, instead I'm trying to fix stupid. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Rod DiBona r...@rapidfireinc.com wrote: As I have watched this thread too many stories have come to mind. At the end of the day there is only one explanation Ron, and I suppose you know this well. A cost benefit analysis done by those that you have to make the explanation to. Weighing the schedule impact, future political impact, time it would take to appeal and potential attorney fees vs the $50k. Really too bad that this even has to be considered, but I have had to do it all too often. One tack is to prepare the paperwork and make the first step with the appearance that the decision has been made to take it to the top regardless of the previously mentioned impacts. Sometimes this forces the same type of cost / benefit from the other side and is a catalyst for compromise. Ughhh. Hope you can get this one worked out. Rod at Rapid -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Okay you explain the $40-50k hit to the bottom line Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:32 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Best not to dwell on any one project too much On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:28 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Can't say how much this pisses me off. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: You're alright like most of us the psychology part of sprinkler work just makes you want to throw up in your mouth a little bit , right? On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:09 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Ron, et.al. I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation. There's got to be something driving this. Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall mounted smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the illustration in the annex is worded differently than the code. 29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on walls shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the adjoining ceiling surface. Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes; Measurements shown are to the closest edge of the detector. According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface. It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following statement; Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only. This annex contains explanatory material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs Yet when brought to NFPA's attention the answer from the NFPA representative was interpreted from the Annex material. This is clearly incorrect, the annex and the illustration are not part of the code. In either case fix the code language or the annex. The same happens in I Code Commentaries and various subject matter books that often interpret, amend or supplement the actual code language. In a nutshell our codes and standards have become a maze of requirements, exceptions and interpretations. This should be a warning flag to the code community. Perhaps the code official has just reached his limit and is instead relying on empirical experience in the face of confusion. I have situation at this very moment on two different projects that impose an operational issue for the fire department, one that the code is not considering. However my approach is to get everyone around the table do some brainstorming and come up with an equitable technical solution. Perhaps by finding the root cause of your situation the stakeholders will put down their swords and solve the problem. Food for thought. Best wishes, always available should the need arise. Sincerely, John John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
Certainly it has occurred to me but I would hope that isn't the case. There are some union and some non in the area. While some may not like that we are in their backyard I prefer to think that this issue is just a lack of sophistication on ths part of the badge. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 19, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Forest Wilson cherokeefire...@aol.com wrote: The COO is more than just a formality. If an owner occupies without the COO, he/ she is subject to arrest by armed marshals. It doesnt matter if its a mall owner or a small homeowner out in the middle of nowhere. If she/he resists arrest or removal they may be killed, and at the very minimum imprisoned. Why would any sensible owner risk that over a piece of paper? A friend of mine is a roofing contractor. They had a regional contract with a fast food chain; one of the projects was in the greater Chicago area. They needed a sign off but the AHJ would not schedule the inspection. Finally he went down to her office and she told him: WE dont like you here (he was non union) and dont want you here. He agreed to never do business in her jurisdiction again; in return she went out and signed off on the roof inspection. Since you are the out of town contractor, have you considered that perhaps the AHJ is sending you a similar message of staying out of town and not biting into the locals work? On 7/19/2014 6:54 PM, John Drucker - Home wrote: Bob, Unfortunately they can indirectly by withholding a certificate of approval, compliance or occupancy. Most property owners need this document for closing, insurance or tenancy and or their attorney advises them that they will or have now broken an adopted law or regulation. So despite the illegitimacy of the code officials claim the property owner or tenant has now legitimately broken the rules by occupying without a certificate of occupancy and or certificate of approval. In other words the enforcing agency holds the cards. Code Enforcement is a legal process and like all or most legal processes in the United States the aggrieved must petition for relief, in code enforcement parlance by filing an appeal. The appeal allows the appellant to present his/her position to an independent body who will render a decision in favor of the appellant or the government. I cant speak for other states but in New Jersey decisions of boards of appeals are binding on the enforcing agency, but this is important they don't set precedent and or amend the code. In other words one could win an appeal in one jurisdiction only to have to go through the process in another. As for the state level unless theirs maleficence the state cannot overrule a local enforcing agency since the local enforcing agencies appointment bestows approval authority to the local enforcing agency. There is good reason for this, to avoid undue political influence, approve this project but not this one. So what's a contractor to do, file an appeal, that's the proper route, but keep in mind that boards of appeal typically set aside cost of compliance issues much like requests for variations cannot be based on financial hardship. So be sure the code official is imposing above and beyond the adopted code including any interpretive authority bestowed to the code official. Those in the electrical field know all too well about NEC; NEC 90.4 Enforcement. This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules. By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety. This Code may require new products, constructions, or materials that may not yet be available at the time the Code is adopted. In such event, the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products, constructions, or materials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction. So there you have it in a nutshell, I'm not siding with either party just presenting information. Best wishes. Sincerely, John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
RE: Blazemaster CPVC Underground
That's a good one. I'll add that to my so you think you have heard everything list. Like saying it's approved below a valve but not above. Does he have a code reference or is this it just their opinion? Can you have someone from the manufacturer call them? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tony Liddic Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 6:18 AM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Blazemaster CPVC Underground I have a client that does a lot of typical apartment building in various jurisdictions. The buildings are 3 stories with breezeways 1/3 of the way down the length of the building. They are 13R systems and the client has always used Blazemaster CPVC. They run a main down the center of the 1st floor, drop below the breezeway underground then back up in a wall on the other side. This has never been an issue until now. An AHJ is stating that the CPVC is not approved for underground use on the system side of the riser, only the supply side. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tony Liddic, CET MRH Sprinkler Design LLC 356 Laurel Glen Dr. Springboro, OH 45066 937-369-7926 http://mrhsprinklerdesign.com tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Blazemaster CPVC Underground
I wish there was a way to deal with abusive AHJ's. It seems like every time we go into a new jurisdiction we have to waste time and money proving what we already know to be a fact. Then their ego gets hurt and they get stubborn. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tony Liddic Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 6:52 AM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Re: Blazemaster CPVC Underground Bonus Points for this AHJ: Just heard from the client that they did another project exactly like this 10 months ago in the same jurisdiction. Same argument came up and AHJ approved the installation then!!! Apparently he doesn't want to approve it again. Thanks, Tony Liddic, CET MRH Sprinkler Design LLC 356 Laurel Glen Dr. Springboro, OH 45066 937-369-7926 http://mrhsprinklerdesign.com tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Tony Liddic tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com wrote: He tried to claim NFPA 13R (2010) 5.3 5.3* Underground Pipe. Any type of pipe or tube acceptable under the plumbing code for underground supply pipe shall be acceptable as underground supply for the system when in- stalled between the point of connection and the system riser. I replied that this section of NFPA 13R simply allows the pipe between supply and system riser to be anything allowed in the plumbing code instead of having a dedicated chapter for underground as in NFPA 13. This does not, however, have any effect on materials after the system riser. I also sent him the section from Tyco's Installation manual that applies to Underground installations. He must not have liked my response because now he is simply stating that CPVC is only allowed underground before the riser. His argument is that the Tyco Manual mentions underground service and not sprinkler system piping. Thanks, Tony Liddic, CET MRH Sprinkler Design LLC 356 Laurel Glen Dr. Springboro, OH 45066 937-369-7926 http://mrhsprinklerdesign.com tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:47 AM, mphe...@aerofire.com wrote: How would the pipe know which side of the riser it's on? Mark at Aero Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Tony Liddic tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com wrote: I have a client that does a lot of typical apartment building in various jurisdictions. The buildings are 3 stories with breezeways 1/3 of the way down the length of the building. They are 13R systems and the client has always used Blazemaster CPVC. They run a main down the center of the 1st floor, drop below the breezeway underground then back up in a wall on the other side. This has never been an issue until now. An AHJ is stating that the CPVC is not approved for underground use on the system side of the riser, only the supply side. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tony Liddic, CET MRH Sprinkler Design LLC 356 Laurel Glen Dr. Springboro, OH 45066 937-369-7926 http://mrhsprinklerdesign.com tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink ler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink ler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum. To set the stage, prior to the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted drawings from the AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we received from that same AHJ. At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying said plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed IFC, UFC, and NFPA standards. Nowhere in the body of the letter does he say exactly how we are to EXCEED IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the letter they basically outline that what was submitted meets the all of the codes. I was told by the author of the letter at a meeting the day before that he didn't care what the code said because he is the AHJ and per Section 104 of the IFC he can make us do whatever he wants. Then he said do it my way or there will be no Certificate of Occupancy. We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO and the change involves increasing the size of two new diesel pumps that are being installed. The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
Yikes, that isn't very encouraging. The chief told us to go to the State FM is we wanted to appeal so there might be some hope. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The last discussion I was around regarding a local AHJ and the State FM, the local effectively told the State that their opinion had no bearing on the outcome. Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:03 AM, rfletc...@aerofire.com rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
I told him that IFC didn't give him the power to do what he thinks. That's when he gave me the ultimatum. Can you believe he wrote a letter saying that we have to EXCEED the adopted codes? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Wow, and he doesn't even know what that section says. The fire code official is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this code and shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code, and to adopt policies, procedures, rules and regulations in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies, procedures, rules and regulations shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code. Enforce THIS code... shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of THIS code. I don't see where he gets HIS code in place of THIS code. And interpretation are only allowed to CLARIFY. What's not clear is the issue. Private contractor AHJ or gov't employed AHJ? Reason being is the contract doesn't have the same liability protections usually. IOW you can sue a contact AHJ easier than the gov't. I'd suggest you have your attorney reply. Hope you have an owner willing to tell them they are moving in without CofO. 'Cuz that's the way it really gets in front of a judge. He's right in that he can hold the CofO. That's a powerful tool. Only the owner can push this and move in. Then the AHJ writes a ticket and you get to go to the judge (assuming the City attorney doesn't squash it) to explain how the gov't is wrong on the basis of denying the CofO. I've had a few AHJ's cave when an owner tells them we'll see you in court. But sadly most owners cave and write a check for the unlawful requirement. And consider this, the local sprink chapter in MN hired a lawyer a few years ago to write a white paper about the law and legal limits of what AHJ's can actually do. It was mailed to every AHJ in the State. I'm out of contracting now so I don't know how effective it was but at least it made them aware we weren't a bunch of dumb contractors that will fall for their every whim. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 12:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum. To set the stage, prior to the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted drawings from the AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we received from that same AHJ. At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying said plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed IFC, UFC, and NFPA standards. Nowhere in the body of the letter does he say exactly how we are to EXCEED IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the letter they basically outline that what was submitted meets the all of the codes. I was told by the author of the letter at a meeting the day before that he didn't care what the code said because he is the AHJ and per Section 104 of the IFC he can make us do whatever he wants. Then he said do it my way or there will be no Certificate of Occupancy. We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO and the change involves increasing the size of two new diesel pumps that are being installed. The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
All too true and I really enjoyed your metaphor with compost. I am trying give the badge what he wants. Schedule is the biggest issue. I just found out thAt I can buy two new pump cases keeping the same engines and have them re- labeled as 2000 gpm. Cost without labor $20-25k. The badge did tell the GC that there is no way they will allow two 1500 gpm diesel PLD's on temp basis but he will accept a 24 hour fire watch. It's like doing fire protection on crack. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:30 PM, Forest Wilson cherokeefire...@aol.com wrote: I just returned from a month long vacation; when I was gone the city Lawnmower cop issued a ticket for not mowing the grass in my yard. When I returned, I met with the Lawnmower Cop and another Code cop (who just issued a ticket to a business friend for flying a flag in front of his convenience store without a flag permit). The Lawnmower Cop also demanded that I remove plants that I planted between the city sidewalk and the street; However, last year I ased if there was a regulation against planting there and was given the green light by his partner. Fortunately, I saved this in an email and showed it to the lawnmower cops. It was at that point that Lawnmower cop explained to me that your compost bin in the back is too much and we dont like your mulch and on and on. He made it very clear that I could fight him on one thing but then he would harass me non stop and never go away, all with the power of government at his command. So...I dropped the subject and did with the Lawnmower Cops asked of me. The recent post about an owner taking occupancy without a COO: Most would not do this because if they do, they are subject to arrest by armed officers. It is safer to just do whatever the government agent says to. There used to be a fire inspector in the Cleveland area that insisted on accompanying contractors on EVERY NFPA 25 inspection. The man was a racist and I had to endure listening to his garbage (as did the owner reps) talk about minorities while just trying to do an inspection and move on to the next job. If either of us complained we would of just had problems doing work in his jurisdiction. Same thing with contracting. As a licensed contractor, there is immense potential liability. Yet AHJ are immune from liability (from an old English law doctrine that the king can do no wrong. ) So why argue with someone that is immune from legal consequences? Why spend the money (which cant be recovered) to fight something he wants done? It's better to just do what he says and move on to the next job...and NEVER bid work in that jurisdiction again. On 7/18/2014 5:04 PM, Taylor, Galen wrote: Speaking as an AHJ, WE expect architects, engineers, land developers and contractors to comply with all applicable laws, codes, regulations and ordinances relative to your project. YOU have every right to expect the same from us. You should not shy away from expressing your concern/complaint to the next higher authority until you've reached the top of the food chain. At the end of the day everyone will have gained from the experience. It only takes one of you to make life easier for the next guy. Occasionally, I have been able to educate an architect, engineer or contractor; but I have been privileged countless time to learn from them. On behalf of AHJ's everywhere, I apologize for the difficulties you all have endured. Galen Taylor County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Engineering 323-890-4339 galen.tay...@fire.lacounty.gov -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Frazier Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The best way to fight that is to look up the law that adopts the adopted code. See if the law even gives the power to exceed the adopted codes. Then go to the town/city council talk and have a chat. (changes per state) Be honest, tell the financial impact of such a decision and there is no basis in the code, the fmo is exceeding his scope and show them a letter. I've seen FMOs steamrolled this way, when they actually were 100% right(which is disappointing), so I imagine it would work the same way if they are 100% wrong. Of course a pissing match with the AHJ will never end well. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground I told him that IFC didn't give him the power to do what he thinks. That's when he gave me the ultimatum. Can you believe he wrote a letter saying that we have to EXCEED the adopted codes?
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Ron, et.al. I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation. There's got to be something driving this. Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall mounted smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the illustration in the annex is worded differently than the code. 29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on walls shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the adjoining ceiling surface. Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes; Measurements shown are to the closest edge of the detector. According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface. It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following statement; Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only. This annex contains explanatory material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs Yet when brought to NFPA's attention the answer from the NFPA representative was interpreted from the Annex material. This is clearly incorrect, the annex and the illustration are not part of the code. In either case fix the code language or the annex. The same happens in I Code Commentaries and various subject matter books that often interpret, amend or supplement the actual code language. In a nutshell our codes and standards have become a maze of requirements, exceptions and interpretations. This should be a warning flag to the code community. Perhaps the code official has just reached his limit and is instead relying on empirical experience in the face of confusion. I have situation at this very moment on two different projects that impose an operational issue for the fire department, one that the code is not considering. However my approach is to get everyone around the table do some brainstorming and come up with an equitable technical solution. Perhaps by finding the root cause of your situation the stakeholders will put down their swords and solve the problem. Food for thought. Best wishes, always available should the need arise. Sincerely, John John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum. To set the stage, prior to the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted drawings from the AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we received from that same AHJ. At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying said plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed IFC, UFC, and NFPA standards. Nowhere in the body of the letter does he say exactly how we are to EXCEED IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the letter they basically outline that what was submitted meets the all of the codes. I was told by the author of the letter at a meeting the day before that he didn't care what the code said because he is the AHJ and per Section 104 of the IFC he can make us do whatever he wants. Then he said do it my way or there will be no Certificate of Occupancy. We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO and the change involves increasing the size of two new diesel pumps that are being installed. The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
Can't say how much this pisses me off. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: You're alright like most of us the psychology part of sprinkler work just makes you want to throw up in your mouth a little bit , right? On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:09 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Ron, et.al. I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation. There's got to be something driving this. Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall mounted smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the illustration in the annex is worded differently than the code. 29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on walls shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the adjoining ceiling surface. Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes; Measurements shown are to the closest edge of the detector. According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface. It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following statement; Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only. This annex contains explanatory material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs Yet when brought to NFPA's attention the answer from the NFPA representative was interpreted from the Annex material. This is clearly incorrect, the annex and the illustration are not part of the code. In either case fix the code language or the annex. The same happens in I Code Commentaries and various subject matter books that often interpret, amend or supplement the actual code language. In a nutshell our codes and standards have become a maze of requirements, exceptions and interpretations. This should be a warning flag to the code community. Perhaps the code official has just reached his limit and is instead relying on empirical experience in the face of confusion. I have situation at this very moment on two different projects that impose an operational issue for the fire department, one that the code is not considering. However my approach is to get everyone around the table do some brainstorming and come up with an equitable technical solution. Perhaps by finding the root cause of your situation the stakeholders will put down their swords and solve the problem. Food for thought. Best wishes, always available should the need arise. Sincerely, John John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum. To set the stage, prior to the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted drawings from the AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we received from that same AHJ. At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying said plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed IFC, UFC, and NFPA standards. Nowhere in the body of the letter does he say exactly how we are to EXCEED IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the letter they basically outline that what was submitted meets the all of the codes. I was told by the author of the letter at a meeting the day before that he didn't care what the code said because he is the AHJ and per Section 104 of the IFC he can make us do whatever he wants. Then he said do it my way or there will be no Certificate of Occupancy. We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO and the change involves increasing the size of two new diesel pumps that are being installed. The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
Okay you explain the $40-50k hit to the bottom line Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:32 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Best not to dwell on any one project too much On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:28 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Can't say how much this pisses me off. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: You're alright like most of us the psychology part of sprinkler work just makes you want to throw up in your mouth a little bit , right? On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:09 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Ron, et.al. I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation. There's got to be something driving this. Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall mounted smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the illustration in the annex is worded differently than the code. 29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on walls shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the adjoining ceiling surface. Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes; Measurements shown are to the closest edge of the detector. According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface. It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following statement; Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only. This annex contains explanatory material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs Yet when brought to NFPA's attention the answer from the NFPA representative was interpreted from the Annex material. This is clearly incorrect, the annex and the illustration are not part of the code. In either case fix the code language or the annex. The same happens in I Code Commentaries and various subject matter books that often interpret, amend or supplement the actual code language. In a nutshell our codes and standards have become a maze of requirements, exceptions and interpretations. This should be a warning flag to the code community. Perhaps the code official has just reached his limit and is instead relying on empirical experience in the face of confusion. I have situation at this very moment on two different projects that impose an operational issue for the fire department, one that the code is not considering. However my approach is to get everyone around the table do some brainstorming and come up with an equitable technical solution. Perhaps by finding the root cause of your situation the stakeholders will put down their swords and solve the problem. Food for thought. Best wishes, always available should the need arise. Sincerely, John John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum. To set the stage, prior to the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted drawings from the AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we received from that same AHJ. At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying said plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed IFC, UFC, and NFPA standards. Nowhere in the body of the letter does he say exactly how we are to EXCEED IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the letter they basically outline that what was submitted meets the all of the codes. I was told by the author of the letter at a meeting the day before that he didn't care what the code said because he is the AHJ and per Section 104 of the IFC he can make us do whatever he wants. Then he said do it my way or there will be no Certificate of Occupancy. We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO
Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground
I call ittroglydite infeztation Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:56 PM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: My favorite is home rule (aka we can make up whatever the heck we want) places like Texas. Did a small job for a company in a place around Houston. Was supposed to be a small group home designed to 13D. A new Fire Marshal came in half way through the project and changed the requirements to 13R and rejected the previously approved plans. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:43 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: I was just thinking about that and all I got is , out of nowhere pops a brilliant young engineering intern, on a Spring Morning in Kansas, barefoot, w/ her blue jeans rolled up to her knees, hollering out pump pitot readings, so, sorry Ron. On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:35 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Okay you explain the $40-50k hit to the bottom line Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:32 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Best not to dwell on any one project too much On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:28 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Can't say how much this pisses me off. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: You're alright like most of us the psychology part of sprinkler work just makes you want to throw up in your mouth a little bit , right? On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:09 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Ron, et.al. I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an issue with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation. There's got to be something driving this. Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall mounted smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the illustration in the annex is worded differently than the code. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: FM Approved 8.0 K spray nozzle
8K spray nozzle is pretty odd device if you can't use standard spray sprinklers. Tyco D3's only go to 7.2K. I would talk to the FM rep about an alternative. I don't see why they would object If you can prove the impingement at the required density with smaller K Factor nozzles. Especially if none exist at 8K. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Hinson, Ryan Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:22 PM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Cc: Hathaway, Bryan Subject: FM Approved 8.0 K spray nozzle A project we are working on appears to require FM approved 8.0K spray nozzles in a deluge system for protection of a boiler feed pump per FM Data Sheet 7-101 Steam Turbines and Electric Generators Section 2.4.2.C. This was mandated by a FM rep. The only one we can find is the BETE Type N. Its spray pattern diverges too quickly for us to provide the necessary density over the footprint of the unit when using the cutsheet info over the area of protection at the axial distance required. The use of standard sprinklers would require location over the top of the protected unit. This is not an option. Are there any other FM approved 8.0K nozzles out there with a narrower spray profile? Thank you, Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Fire Protection Engineering Group Burns McDonnell Direct: 952-656-3662 Mobile: 320-250-5404 Fax: 952-229-2923 www.burnsmcd.comBLOCKED::www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Cooler Calc
We did a 45' high 40k sq ft beer cooler with ESFR's. After it was up and running we put temp recorders in front of reefer units. 30' up, 15' up and on floor. Recorded every 30 minutes for 5 days. Nothing varied more than one degree. Some one told me that the reefer units could not produce the BTU's needed to lower the temp to 30F. We have done many coolers with wet systems. The only incident I remember is a head went off when a unit went into defrost. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Scott A Futrell sco...@ffcdi.com wrote: How cold is the air conditioning the space? Are pipes and sprinklers in front of, or near colder air used to maintain 38 degrees? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001 x 12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Cooler Calc Maybe that's where John D's AND READILY MAINTAINED thinking comes in-- even after a failure like that you would have several hours before the pipe froze solid. On Jun 28, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Richard Mote rich...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: I was told about 20 years ago by someone that installs walk in coolers and freezers, that the only difference between was the setting on the thermostat. If the thermostat malfunctions a 38°F cooler can very quickly become a freezer. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Cooler Calc
38F. Yes an ESFR wet with 2 drops through the deck. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Bobby Gillett bo...@livingwaterfp.com wrote: What temp was your beer cooler? You put a wet system in with ESFR's? Thank you, Bobby Gillett Living Water Fire Protection Cantonment, FL Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2014, at 2:52 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: We did a 45' high 40k sq ft beer cooler with ESFR's. After it was up and running we put temp recorders in front of reefer units. 30' up, 15' up and on floor. Recorded every 30 minutes for 5 days. Nothing varied more than one degree. Some one told me that the reefer units could not produce the BTU's needed to lower the temp to 30F. We have done many coolers with wet systems. The only incident I remember is a head went off when a unit went into defrost. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Scott A Futrell sco...@ffcdi.com wrote: How cold is the air conditioning the space? Are pipes and sprinklers in front of, or near colder air used to maintain 38 degrees? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001 x 12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Cooler Calc Maybe that's where John D's AND READILY MAINTAINED thinking comes in-- even after a failure like that you would have several hours before the pipe froze solid. On Jun 28, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Richard Mote rich...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: I was told about 20 years ago by someone that installs walk in coolers and freezers, that the only difference between was the setting on the thermostat. If the thermostat malfunctions a 38°F cooler can very quickly become a freezer. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Cooler Calc
A couple questions. If it is a cooler why do you need dry pendent heads? And if it has to be dry heads and they are on a wet system the RA could still be reduced couldn't it? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Cooler Calc Ron, Yes this is a remodel adding only the cooler. The existing ceiling demand was well above the .2 need in the cooler. Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Cooler Calc If the job is just the cooler then I think all the heads is sufficient within the perimeter of the cooler. If it's a part of the larger job you need to calc all the possible design areas. Not knowing the layout I can't say but maybe the ceiling somewhere is a design area, the cooler is potentially a design area, etc. But he's nuts if he thinks you need to add other sprinklers not in the fire area to make the fire area be 1500 sqft. Real is real. Math is math. Often the twin don't meet. On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mike Hill mi...@phoenixfp.net wrote: I don't suppose that you are lucky enough to have a fire rated cooler. Common sense would say that you calculate the cooler. Common practice would say calculate the cooler and/or a 1500 sq. ft. area outside of the cooler. Mike Hill -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Cooler Calc His stand is that I have one of three options that I have not used: (1) Density/area curves of Figure 11.2.3.1.1 in accordance with the density/area method of 11.2.3.2 (2) The room that creates the greatest demand in accordance with the room design method of 11.2.3.3 (3) Special design areas in accordance with 11.2.3.4 Keep in mind that this is a jurisdiction that has told me in the past that you can't use the exceptions in 13 (this was before they became part of the body), and that they can't use common sense. Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Stone Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Cooler Calc The Cooler is a closed in room with a space above. You calculate all the heads inside the cooler if less than 1500 SF. If the area outside the cooler is fully sprinklered then you probably have performed calcs already. I'd ask the AHJ to review NFPA 13. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Cooler Calc I have a 1,392 sf cooler. I calc'ed the entire area of the cooler and submitted. The AHJ is telling me that I need to calc additional sprinklers at the ceiling to have a 1500 sf design area. I don't think I need to do this, I was looking at this as a separate fire area, and I don't see it being much different than not adding heads below ducts or other large obstructions. Do I need to calc additional sprinklers at the ceiling for this application? Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College
RE: Cooler Calc
Exactly, we do 38F coolers with ESFR's. Never had a ..., I better not say that might jinx it. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Cooler Calc If the area is not subject to freezing, no need for dry sprinklers. NFPA 13 only requires dry sprinklers or other method when the area is subject to freezing AND can not be readily maintained above 40 degrees F. The above is my personal opinion . John Fire sprinklers save lives Sent from my iPad On Jun 27, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Bob b...@firebyknight.com wrote: Ron, The temperature is maintained at 38F. The sprinklers used were EC OH SR dry sprinklers. Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Cooler Calc A couple questions. If it is a cooler why do you need dry pendent heads? And if it has to be dry heads and they are on a wet system the RA could still be reduced couldn't it? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Cooler Calc Ron, Yes this is a remodel adding only the cooler. The existing ceiling demand was well above the .2 need in the cooler. Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Cooler Calc If the job is just the cooler then I think all the heads is sufficient within the perimeter of the cooler. If it's a part of the larger job you need to calc all the possible design areas. Not knowing the layout I can't say but maybe the ceiling somewhere is a design area, the cooler is potentially a design area, etc. But he's nuts if he thinks you need to add other sprinklers not in the fire area to make the fire area be 1500 sqft. Real is real. Math is math. Often the twin don't meet. On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mike Hill mi...@phoenixfp.net wrote: I don't suppose that you are lucky enough to have a fire rated cooler. Common sense would say that you calculate the cooler. Common practice would say calculate the cooler and/or a 1500 sq. ft. area outside of the cooler. Mike Hill -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Cooler Calc His stand is that I have one of three options that I have not used: (1) Density/area curves of Figure 11.2.3.1.1 in accordance with the density/area method of 11.2.3.2 (2) The room that creates the greatest demand in accordance with the room design method of 11.2.3.3 (3) Special design areas in accordance with 11.2.3.4 Keep in mind that this is a jurisdiction that has told me in the past that you can't use the exceptions in 13 (this was before they became part of the body), and that they can't use common sense. Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Stone Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Cooler Calc The Cooler is a closed in room with a space above. You calculate all the heads inside the cooler if less than 1500 SF. If the area outside the cooler is fully sprinklered then you probably have performed calcs already. I'd ask the AHJ to review NFPA 13. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Cooler Calc I have a 1,392 sf cooler. I calc'ed the entire area of the cooler and submitted. The AHJ is telling me that I need to calc additional sprinklers at the ceiling to have a 1500 sf design area. I don't think I need to do
RE: Underground Piping
In the friction loss formula found in 13-23.4.2.1.1 (13 Ed) I would use Q squared rather than Q to 1.85. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rahe Loftin - 7PMC Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 3:50 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Underground Piping In the Hydraulics chapter of the 3rd edition of the SFPE Handbook, the following verbiage occurs “It has been noted, however, that in rough pipes head loss varies with flow (and velocity) to the power of 2 rather than the power of 1.85 characteristic of smooth pipes.” The question is, shouldn't we use a water supply testing graph based on an exponent of 2 instead of 1.85 since we do not know the condition of the underground pipe? Rahe Loftin ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Location of Flow Test in Calc's
We do completely different drawings for the install crews. They don't need the hyd nodes or remote areas. Submittal plans have lots of info that isn't needed for installation. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Jun 19, 2014, at 6:38 AM, craig.pr...@ch2m.com craig.pr...@ch2m.com wrote: It would really depend on how close the test point was to the point of connection of the run-in to the main. If the test point is 100 feet away and there's nothing between, then no biggie. I take my calcs back through the UG main to the test point. What does it hurt, be sure of your calcs and there's no question on accuracy. If the test point was back at a pump across the campus, his theory is blown. I'm constantly amazed at the quality of shop drawings lately. The field crews must do a lot of cussing at the designers based on some of the junk that's produced. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Location of Flow Test in Calc's Was just told by one of our new designers that he was taught that it didn't matter where the flow test was taken on the underground that you just need to take it back to the tie in point at the main that everywhere he's worked does it that way. News to me, any of you guys do it that way? If so how do you account for the loss in the underground to the test hydrant, elevation, etc ? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.comhttp://bvssystemsinc.com/ Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: High Pressure ESFR
I have not heard one. Be great if there was though. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Richard Mote Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: High Pressure ESFR I am in need of some ESFR K=16.8's with a high pressure rating. Headed out the door to look at a job so I haven't got time to search, I am hoping someone will know off the top of their head. Please don't anyone take the time to research, if I don't get an answer I'll look it up tonight when I get back. Richard Mote ET Design Manager Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407 Middleburg, PA 17842 P- 877-324-ROWE F- 570-937-6335 rich...@rowesprinkler.commailto:rich...@rowesprinkler.com www.rowesprinkler.comhttp://www.rowesprinkler.com/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: DRY HUMOR from NFPA
I can hear it now, the book says, shall be internally galvanized so there can't be any galvanizing on the outside of the pipe. The stuff we get is coated on the outside as well. How would an inspector tell if it was only galvanized on the inside? Maybe the next edition of 13 they can add a requirement for a sight glass every some many feet so an inspector could verify the pipe is internally galvanized. Happy Friday. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: DRY HUMOR from NFPA Richard is correct. This numbering system is known as a decimal outline (as opposed to the more common alphanumeric style) and follows Topic, Subtopic, Sub-subtopic, etc. Each lower entry refers to the next higher entry, etc. If a specific topic type falls under two different higher topics or subtopics then it must be noted in both places, and with a see also reference. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Richard Mote rich...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: It has always been my understanding that any specific requirements in a sub section refer the that section only IE: 8.4.7.2.1 only applies to section 8.4.7 Large Drop Sprinklers. I have had some AHJ's try to apply things like this across the board, but I can usually get a clarification from NFAP to settle the matter. Richard Mote ET Designer Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407 Middleburg, PA 17842 P- 877-324-ROWE F- 570-937-6335 rich...@rowesprinkler.com www.rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Vince Sabolik Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 11:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: DRY HUMOR from NFPA 8.4.7.2* Galvanized Pipe. 8.4.7.2.1 Where steel pipe is used in preaction and dry pipe systems, piping materials shall be limited to internally galvanized steel. Please straighten me out! This applies to CMSA heads only? Galvanized pipe, where used in a normal dry system must be figured at a C=100?? Thanks! West Tech Fire Protection, Inc. 11351 Pearl Road / Strongsville, Ohio 44136 Phone 440 238-4800Fax 440 238-4876 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: telecom rooms
I'd tell the engineer to site the code section that prohibits the pipe passing through. It's ridiculous but I have seen AHJ's interpret the thing about no unnecessary equipment to mean the pipe can enter but not leave an electrical equipment room. I don't think there is any code at all about pipe in a telecom room. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: telecom rooms I only have a copy of 08' NEC 110.26, but according to that any elec. Panels you need to be 6'-0 above, or clear the equipment, unless there is a ceiling in the room. I don't know if that applies to telecom panels. The only time I've been told I can't run through a telecom room is military projects so it might be a UFC requirement. Jerry Van Kolken Millennium Fire Protection (760) 722-2722 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:18 AM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: telecom rooms Is there anything in any code/standard that prohibits sprinkler piping from passing through telecom rooms? I don't have access to the NEC right now. I can't locate anything in NFPA 13 that would prohibit it. I am on a project where due to phasing, I have to run a branch line through the telecom room to supply 2 sprinklers on the other side of it for this phase. The engineer says you can't do it. I thought I remember something in the NEC saying that sprinkler piping was acceptable to pass through these electric and telecom rooms. I just can't run over panels. -- Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Mixing EC-QR and SC-QR sprinklers in the same area
Yes, they can be mixed. We do it all the time. SC in entry and EC in sleeping room. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Pete Schwab Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 8:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixing EC-QR and SC-QR sprinklers in the same area Did you mean to say EC Standard response with QR elements mixed with standard coverage QR? Peter Schwab VP of Purchasing Engineering Technologies Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, Fl 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com We're hiring great people at all of our locations! Please check out our website for the details! -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Sean Lockyer Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixing EC-QR and SC-QR sprinklers in the same area Can Extended Coverage Quick Response Sprinklers and Standard Coverage Quick Response Sprinklers be mixed in the same compartment ? Even though QR and SR cannot be mixed within the same compartment (I.E.-Room) there is no rule precluding the mixing of EC-QR and SC-QR heads as far as I know. Does anyone here have any experience in this area ? Sean Lockyer Project Designer 4617 Parkbreeze Court Cell 386-279-1197 Orlando, Florida 32808 slock...@aitlifesafety.com Phone: 407-816-9101 www.AITLifeSafety.com Fax: 407-816-9104 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Sheet Metal Pipe Sleeves
Have you tried Grainger? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Richard Mote Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Sheet Metal Pipe Sleeves Someone missed the spec that called for sleeves when passing through gyp board walls, pipe is installed. In the past I have gotten sheet metal wraparound sleeves that can be install after the fact. GC says they will except those now I can't find anyone that carry's them. The last job I used them on was in Memphis about 15 years ago. Richard Mote ET Designer Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407 Middleburg, PA 17842 P- 877-324-ROWE F- 570-937-6335 rich...@rowesprinkler.commailto:rich...@rowesprinkler.com www.rowesprinkler.comhttp://www.rowesprinkler.com/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Thermal Barrier for Bathrooms
Seems like something that makes sense for wood frame buildings but not so much for noncombustible construction. The runaway shower enclosure fire had never occurred to me, guess I lack the imagination. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 8:49 AM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Thermal Barrier for Bathrooms Roland, Isn't the concern that fire will spread to the unprotected concealed space, spreading heat and smoke to other parts of the building - potentially igniting other shower enclosures leading to mass hysteria and dogs and cats living together? Whereas, the open door adjacent to the unprotected bathroom leads to a sprinkler-protected space. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:48 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Re: Thermal Barrier for Bathrooms That is my understanding (despite the fact that a door is not required to the adjacent room). Never said it ad to be logical. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Test Header Calc
Why not just read the gauges on the pump? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Test Header Calc I'm running a theoretical calc on a pump test header to try and determine if the existing pump is running at or near its rating, there are (4) 2-1/2 hose valves flowing 375 gallons each. The question I have is what pressure would be plugged into the calc's for each valve? I have a test chart that shows me a 2-1/2 orifice flowing roughly 400 gpm will have a 5 pitot reading. I've searched for threads on converting pitot to a residual pressure and it doesn't seem there is any direct correlation. I've also seen post that say a pitot reading and the residual are pretty close at pressure under 40 psi. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.comhttp://bvssystemsinc.com/ Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Test Header Calc
Okay, what am I missing? There are gauges on the suction and discharge sides of the pump, right? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Stone Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:36 AM To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test Header Calc Brian, I just performed this on a warehouse project with a diesel fire pump taking suction from a municipal water supply. The EOR wanted to know the pressures on the Suction Flange of the pump. I started off with 375 GPM on each test header valve and assigned a pressure of 47 PSI to one of the valves with just a flow on the rest. Adjust the starting pressure for your needs. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Test Header Calc I'm running a theoretical calc on a pump test header to try and determine if the existing pump is running at or near its rating, there are (4) 2-1/2 hose valves flowing 375 gallons each. The question I have is what pressure would be plugged into the calc's for each valve? I have a test chart that shows me a 2-1/2 orifice flowing roughly 400 gpm will have a 5 pitot reading. I've searched for threads on converting pitot to a residual pressure and it doesn't seem there is any direct correlation. I've also seen post that say a pitot reading and the residual are pretty close at pressure under 40 psi. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.comhttp://bvssystemsinc.com/ Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Test Header Calc
Tim, So based on 47 psi at one test valve and just a flow on the rest, what was the pressure on the suction flange of the pump? Can't you just plot 1500 gpm on flow test curve and subtract the friction and elevation losses between the supply and pump? Brian, Pitot the discharge for each outlet, adjust the valves to control the required gpm, record the total gpm, read the discharge gauge on the pump and subtract the pressure on the suction gauge from the pressure on the discharge gauge? I'm glad tomorrow is Friday. Ron F -Original Message- From: Tim Stone [mailto:tston...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:51 AM To: Ronl.Fletcher; Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test Header Calc Ron, In my case the EOR was worried about negative pressures on the suction flange before the sprinkler contractor ordered the pump. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:43 AM To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test Header Calc Okay, what am I missing? There are gauges on the suction and discharge sides of the pump, right? Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tim Stone Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:36 AM To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Test Header Calc Brian, I just performed this on a warehouse project with a diesel fire pump taking suction from a municipal water supply. The EOR wanted to know the pressures on the Suction Flange of the pump. I started off with 375 GPM on each test header valve and assigned a pressure of 47 PSI to one of the valves with just a flow on the rest. Adjust the starting pressure for your needs. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Test Header Calc I'm running a theoretical calc on a pump test header to try and determine if the existing pump is running at or near its rating, there are (4) 2-1/2 hose valves flowing 375 gallons each. The question I have is what pressure would be plugged into the calc's for each valve? I have a test chart that shows me a 2-1/2 orifice flowing roughly 400 gpm will have a 5 pitot reading. I've searched for threads on converting pitot to a residual pressure and it doesn't seem there is any direct correlation. I've also seen post that say a pitot reading and the residual are pretty close at pressure under 40 psi. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.comhttp://bvssystemsinc.com/ Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Thermal Barrier for Bathrooms
I just ran this very thing by the forum. The consensus was the barrier has to isolate the shower enclosure from the wall cavity so the sheet rock would have to be on both sides of the stud. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Born Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:18 PM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: Thermal Barrier for Bathrooms I'm looking for a quick sanity check. We are an A/E firm designing new college dormitories. These dorms typically contain four bedroom suites with two bathrooms in each suite. The 1987 edition of 2013 is applicable, and the bathrooms are less than 55 square feet. In order to omit sprinklers from the bathrooms, 13:8.25.8.1.1 requires walls and ceilings to be noncombustible or limited combustible materials with a 15 minute thermal barrier, including walls and ceilings behind shower enclosures and tubs. The buildings are noncombustible construction, with concrete floors, metal studs and drywall, etc. If the shower enclosure abuts metal studs and there is drywall on the other side of the studs, does that satisfy the requirement or does the drywall have to separate the shower enclosure from the studs? I think I know the answer/intent, but I'm interested in opinions or specific references because I either have to convince the AHJ or the general contractor (design-build project). Christopher Born, P.E. Director, Fire Protection Engineering Clark Nexsen Norfolk, VA Sent from my iPad ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ?
2012 IFC - APPENDIX B: B201.1 Definitions FIRE-FLOW. The flow rate of a water supply, measured at 20 PSI residual pressure that is available for fire-fighting. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker - Home Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:09 PM To: 'Fyremarshal34'; 'Mark A. Sornsin, P.E.' Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M31 provides the 20 psi residual reference. John John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank Red Bank, New Jersey Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fyremarshal34 Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:41 AM To: Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? The 20 PSI limit is actually based on the federal Clean Water Act and some states have also adopted as law or regulation. I know NJ has it as regulation. Dave Herbert Retired from NJ Fire guy in the Sunshine State Guest Sent from my iPhone On May 14, 2014, at 9:53, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. masorn...@kfi-eng.com wrote: Craig, it has been my understanding that the 20psi number represents the lowest residual pressure fire departments 'generally' want to see when drawing from a municipal supply - to avoid the potential for collapsing mains at some higher elevation than where the water is being drawn. There are exceptions such as in flat areas like Fargo where they can safely drop below 20 psi in most circumstances. So the flow at 20psi generally represents the maximum flow rate they can safely achieve at that point on the system. It is a 'fictional' number since in most cases they are using extrapolation to get to it. On the other hand, it's not all that fictional if your test from which the extrapolation is run produced a 25% pressure drop from the static. That drop helps define an accurate 'slope' on the N^1.85 graph. Determining the flow at 20 psi does not warrant multiple significant digits - certainly fewer than in sprinkler design (which should use a couple at most). The extrapolation won't be that far off from reality. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com [mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:42 AM To: Mark A. Sornsin, P.E.; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? And there's another point of discussion, how about that extrapolation at 20 psi. What is the value of that number in reality? I've seen 20 psi flow rates that we knew without any doubt were unachievable by the municipal water supply yet when trying to convince an owner that the water supply would not meet his system demand and the site would require a pump and tank, they would quickly point to the 20 psi flow rate and say there, see we've got lots of water! It just confuses the uninformed. I've also seen the additional data point of how much flow you get when at 0 psi. I'm still trying to get my head around that one. Maybe someone can explain it. So why put these fictional numbers on a test report? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? Steve - you seem to be off on a tangent and did not understand the question. Its o.k. - that happens at your age. I agree with Travis. I have done several water flow tests using the 4-1/2 port. Apply the proper coefficients and life is good. Of course, flowing that port can have logistical problems due to the large amount of water and/or damage cause by the discharge - so be careful, plan accordingly, or find an alternative approach if necessary. But he raises another peeve of mine. Further to Ron's comments, why do we have to reduce residual pressure to the point of being at least 25% lower than the static? If my
RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ?
We use the 4 pumper connections for flow tests all the time. In Phoenix we have to calculate the 4,000 gpm fire flow onto the site and out of the private hydrants and I don't like doing hydraulic calc's out to 4,000 gpm using a graph from a 1,300 gpm flow test. The city water supply tends to compensate for greater demands by opening PRV's. The standard 1.85 curve we use is not accurate beyond the actual flow point (my opinion) from the test so we request flow tests with two or three 4 pumpers running. It's the desert so we have lots of free water? Had an interesting comment from an FPE with Phoenix the other day about the 25% minimum between the static and residual. The Fire Dept. wasn't going to accept a flow test taken by the city water dept. because it didn't comply with the 25% pressure drop. The gpm from flow test was greater than our system demand. The problem seems to have gone away. Maybe the FPE hit his forehead with the palm of his hand and the light came on. I have never paid any attention to the 25% requirement. When calculating system demand only I always try to get a flow test with a flow that is above the system + hose demand. No surprises then. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? Are you asking if you can do a flow test from the pumper connection? If so, then sure you can. You just need to modify the coefficient based on your pitot. How are you inflating the gpm? If you measure 1200 gpm from the 2½ and you measure 2000 gpm from the 4.5, how is that inflating flow? You should typically have a lower residual pressure when flowing the pumper connection than the 2½ connection. If you are looking to 291 for direction, are you getting the required 25% drop in static and residual from your 2½ flow? If not, what do you do? You are required to open up additional hydrants to get the flow. So, to get additional flow, you can also flow from the pumper connection. Maybe I am misunderstanding your question. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com On 5/13/2014 1:47 PM, Sean Lockyer wrote: Here is an interesting question: In the event that you do not have an adequate amount of water flow (in terms of GPM) is it acceptable to flow the 4-1/2 pumper connection in lieu of the standard 2-1/2 connection on the side ? I know that in NFPA 291 it is recommended to only blow off the 2-1/2 outlet but when you blow off the pumper connection there is a formula used to reduce it. However, even after the formula reduction you still have a far higher amount of water (once again, in terms of GPM). My question is this, can you use that GPM in your hydraulic calculations ? I would have to think that most AHJ's would be hesitant to allow this to be used since you are artificially inflating the water supply. What does everyone else think ? Sean Lockyer Project Designer 4617 Parkbreeze Court Cell386-279-1197 Orlando, Florida 32808 slock...@aitlifesafety.com Phone: 407-816-9101 www.AITLifeSafety.com Fax: 407-816-9104 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
8.15.8.1.1 Bathrooms (2013)
States in part a 15 minute thermal barrier rating, including the walls and ceilings behind any shower enclosure or tub. Questions is, can there be a steel stud between the shower enclosure and the 15 minute barrier? Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
CA Title 19 Chapter 5
Anyone know if California Title 19 requires an inspector to write up spacing and placement issues or is it just for operation of the system per NFPA 25? Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: CA Title 19 Chapter 5
Thanks Steve. Thought you would know. Ron f Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Many local AHJs want you to inform, but the state did not amend the NFPA 25 separation of design deficiencies from the ITM tasks. Steve Original message From: rfletc...@aerofire.com Date:04/18/2014 3:19 PM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: CA Title 19 Chapter 5 Anyone know if California Title 19 requires an inspector to write up spacing and placement issues or is it just for operation of the system per NFPA 25? Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Obstructions against wall EC's
Just noticed Figure 8.8..1.2(c), 2013, it's new. It is also added for standard and residential heads. I tried to look up the ROP/ROC's but I lost my link and I can never find them through the menu system. The figure indicates a minimum depth of 18 for an obstruction (soffit) against a wall. I'm curious because there is no minimum distance listed for the sprinkler away from the side of the obstruction. Doing the math in Figure 8.8.5.1.2)(b) a 17 deep by 24 wide obstruction would require an A dimension of 33. The counterintuitive part for me is that some obstructions 18 deep and 24 wide could require a sprinkler beneath if with the minimum A dimension in Figure (b) isn't met but if the obstruction were 1 deeper it wouldn't require a sprinkler. Maybe I'm over analyzing or am I missing something. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Obstructions against wall EC's Fig. 8.8.5.2.2(c)
Glad you have submitted the comment. It will make more sense with those changes. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larry Keeping Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 9:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Obstructions against wall EC's Fig. 8.8.5.2.2(c) For the next (2016) edition I filed a Public Input asking for the 18 minimum be dropped and for the S dimension to be changed to 1/2 S. As per the First Draft Report, that was accepted, but of course it is susceptible to change during the Second round of deliberations. Larry Keeping, P.Eng. Professional Loss Control 3413 Wolfedale Road, Suite 6 Mississauga, Ontario L5C 1V8 Phone: 905-949-2755, ext. 204 Fax:905-949-1752 E-mail:lkeep...@plcfire.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: April-11-14 10:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Obstructions against wall EC's Just noticed Figure 8.8..1.2(c), 2013, it's new. It is also added for standard and residential heads. I tried to look up the ROP/ROC's but I lost my link and I can never find them through the menu system. The figure indicates a minimum depth of 18 for an obstruction (soffit) against a wall. I'm curious because there is no minimum distance listed for the sprinkler away from the side of the obstruction. Doing the math in Figure 8.8.5.1.2)(b) a 17 deep by 24 wide obstruction would require an A dimension of 33. The counterintuitive part for me is that some obstructions 18 deep and 24 wide could require a sprinkler beneath if with the minimum A dimension in Figure (b) isn't met but if the obstruction were 1 deeper it wouldn't require a sprinkler. Maybe I'm over analyzing or am I missing something. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Diesel fuel tank
Is there.no exception in 20 if A double wall uL 142 tank. Ron f Sent from my iPhone On Apr 9, 2014, at 7:27 AM, Richard Mote rich...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: We had the builder layup 3 or 4 courses of 8 CMU block and had them coat the inside with a fuel proof coating. On one job they basically had the inside fiber glassed. We just told the GC what was required in terms of cubic feet of containment, and put back on them to build it. Richard Mote ET Design Manager Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Martinez, Dewayne Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 8:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Diesel fuel tank Was the containment nothing more than concrete curbs around the tank? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Diesel fuel tank The last couple FM projects I did also required both, and the containment dike had to contain 130% of the capacity of the tank. Bobby Gillett *Living Water Fire Protection, LLC* 1160 McKenzie Rd. Cantonment, FL 32533 (850) 937-1850 livingwaterfp.com http://livingwaterfp.com/ On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Richard Mote rich...@rowesprinkler.comwrote: The last couple of FM jobs I've done required both a double wall tank and a containment dike. NFPA 20, 2010 11.4.1.2.4 Fuel tansk shall be enclosed with a wall, curb or dike sufficient to hold the entire capacity of the tank. This isn't in the 2007 edition at least not in the fuel tank section, so it must be new. Richard Mote ET Design Manager Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Martinez, Dewayne Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:45 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Diesel fuel tank We have an existing system with a diesel fuel pump and tank(280gpm) that was installed back in 1991. The insurance carrier is requesting that either a new duel wall tank or a dike containment system be installed. I have looked through NFPA 20 and didn't see anything requiring either. Should I be looking in a different place? Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: pump test header valves
Or, if possible keep headed in the pump room without valves, run hoses out to a truck mounted test rack with hose gates on the rack. This way the person reading the pitot can adjust the valves, Sent from my iPhone3200 USA Parkway McCarran NV 89434 United States On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:49 PM, John Denhardt jdenha...@stricklandfire.com wrote: Funny but true story: I had a client who was worried about security with the test header penetrating the exterior of the building. They had us remove the test header after each test and store in the fire pump/mechanical room. We were instructed to install a blind flange using sealant on the bolts so the blind flange would not be easily removed. Well, the client decided to have the area cleaned up. To everyone surprise, when showed up for the annual fire pump system test, no test header was in the room. After the investigation, the employee that cleaned the room said he did not know what it was but it was big, heavy and had brass valves. He made the decision to throw it away. Amazing - you can not make this stuff up! John John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE 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 - Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 2:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: pump test header valves LOL, I was think of one that I did, that had sixteen (16) valves. David Autry Meininger Fire Protection Inc. 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 Lincoln, Ne 68522 Voice (402) 466-2616 Fax (402) 466-2617 da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 12:43 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: pump test header valves Too bad, I was liking the 2 1/2 plastic pipe caps idea a lot. The removing the entire test header is Ok but that has to be at least two and probably three guys on anything bigger that a couple of three valves. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Bobby McCullough bo...@atlantasprinkler.com wrote: My mistake. The 2.5 plastic caps are hose threads installed on the valve where only the caps were stolen, which is common. I only have a few projects with valves stolen there we used threaded ductile caps on the nipples locked the valves in the pump room. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 12:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: pump test header valves Bobby, Do you mean screw-on PVC caps, or the plastic break caps for FDC snoots? Thanks for the feeback everyone, I didn't realize this was so common. I'll have to start recommending this to some of our clients in high theft areas from now on. Benjamin Young On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Bobby McCullough bo...@atlantasprinkler.com wrote: We use 2.5 plastic caps. Not much value at the scrap yard. Take the valves in the pump room and use a bicycle cable lock to keep them from wandering off. Bobby McCullough Atlanta Sprinkler -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Morey, Mike Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 8:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: pump test header valves They make test header outlets with male threaded outlets (basically the opposite of an FDC) with hose caps that you remove and then screw on hose valves that have a female swivel on the inlet side. Of course there's still the risk of someone stealing the hose caps and/or brass adapteer fittings that provide the male hose thread, but at least the valves aren't sitting out there too. Mike Morey, CFPS, SET Planner Scheduler/Designer BMWC Constructors, Inc. 1740 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46222 O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 mo...@bmwc.com | www.bmwc.com From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of Ben Young derblitzkrie...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 8:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: pump test header valves Last week I was at an ASCET meeting where a pump presentation was given. Someone asked the presenter if it was allowed to remove the test header valves and keep them in the
RE: heat collector vs heat director
Love engineer humor. Ron f From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf of Todd - Work [t...@fpdc.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: heat collector vs heat director Slightly disagree; I think 98.2399875875% of the time. :) In theory Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re:
We use intermediate for everything unless specifically forbiden. Have to watch out cuz some heads not available in intermediate. - Original Message - From: Jim Adams [mailto:tfscolor...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 01:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Ifyou have a closet solely with a washer/dryer should you put a standard temp orintermediate temp head in it ? FCU and hot water heater rooms are veryclear to use intermediate temp heads.. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 1978 NFPA 13 question
NFPA #13, 1978, A-1-7.3.3 Warehouses having moderate to higher combustibility of content, such as household furniture , paint, general, a=storage, whisky etc. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Autry Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 1978 NFPA 13 question In my 1983 Edition, .26/4000 is above the Extra Hazard Group 1. It may have come from 231C? David Autry Meininger Fire Protection Inc. 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 Lincoln, Ne 68522 Voice (402) 466-2616 Fax (402) 466-2617 da...@mfp-inc.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: 1978 NFPA 13 question I'm looking for the definition of what was covered by an Ordinary Hazard Group 3 classification based on the 1978 NFPA 13. I have a warehouse designed at .26/4000 with 600 gpm hose stream allowance, Ordinary Hazard Group 3. It was a preaction system with area heat detection. (non-heated whse). Trying to figure out what the EOR was basing the design on as far as anticipated type of storage. 25 ft high piled (no racks), 35 ft high ceiling. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
P-A System Pendent Sprks
Here is a new one, for me anyway. Had a designer ask if it was okay to use exposed pendents on a pre-action system. He had it designed with uprights but due to field conditions the pipe was installed higher than designed and the foreman changed the heads to pendent. 13 says pendents have to be on return bends but there is no ceiling. No freezing to worry about here in Phoenix. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: P-A System Pendent Sprks
No drops just a 1/2 head in a threaded tee or elbow. We are not us nitrogen. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: P-A System Pendent Sprks There could be a corrosion issue if there is water trapped in the drops - are you using nitrogen supervision? Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: P-A System Pendent Sprks Here is a new one, for me anyway. Had a designer ask if it was okay to use exposed pendents on a pre-action system. He had it designed with uprights but due to field conditions the pipe was installed higher than designed and the foreman changed the heads to pendent. 13 says pendents have to be on return bends but there is no ceiling. No freezing to worry about here in Phoenix. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
The interchangeable one I like most is expansion joint and seismic joint. Can't tell you how many times I have had AHJ's and EOR's write us up for not having a seismic joint in our pipe where it crossed an expansion joint. Actually had a structural engineer tell me there was no difference between the two. Sorry for going off topic. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Tower Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard It seems that semantics are everything in this industry; however, certain terms tend to be used interchangeably by certain people. Code vs. Standard, hazard occupancy vs. IFC occupancy group, etc. I've had very heated discussions with GC's and MEP's concerning the differences. I once had a full blown argument with an individual over a community center project in a small Texas town which was blanket classified as IFC Group A-3. As we later found out, every third weekend, this community center, which had a large, multi-court gymnasium would be hosting a swap-meet inside. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what would have been considered a light hazard occupancy per the standard is being utilized as an IFC Group M or S-1 occupancy which would necessitate a higher density requirement per the standard. Given that it's a swap-meet there is absolutely no telling what sort of commodities might be present. I imagine that the commodities would not exceed 8'0 under most any circumstance and the majority of the merchandising would be on collapsible tables, but I was attempting to apply a conservative approach by implementing an ordinary hazard II density. Curtis Tower -Original Message- From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard Humble enough, Sir Roland. I will have to think quite a bit more about everything else you said, however. On Mar 10, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org wrote: I would encourage not embracing the defining examples that residential is life safety and storage is property protection and everything else is mushy in-between ground. It’s the system type that dictates the objective. All NFPA 13 systems for all sprinkler types and for all occupancies and uses are considered both life safety and property protection. As for the confusion over 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, that text has been in the standard since Napoleon was a corporal. That means if one wanted an exact explanation of what was meant, the folks that crafted this sentence are gone and the current batch could / might / probably (pick one) will have something different assigned to those words. My interpretation has always been that the phrase occupancy hazard is a sprinkler term and does not address or influence the building design as dictated by the building code and their associated use of terms. The text in the annex has nothing to do with the issue of comparing what these 2 sections are trying to say. Notice the asterisk is on the title 5.1. so it’s discussing the assignment of an occupancy classification. It rightly points out that an office is generally a light hazard occupancy but there can and will be areas that exceed the fuel load for LH. As such, that area would be a higher occupancy hazard classification. As Galen commented, it is unfortunate that the term occupancy was included. Calling it simply X hazard classification would have worked just fine but changing it now would take an act of congress. Ummm they may actually be willing to look at this since they aren’t doing anything else of significance. As a member of NFPA 13, I probably should add the TC caveat that this is not to be considered a formal interpretation of NFPA or any of its technical committees but just my humble opinion. Well opinion anyways. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Yups. If it's not Residential or Storage, it's too mushy. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
Nor do we usually receive the bid package early enough to ask questions and get answers. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steven Cook Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard Dave - I find when submitting pre-bid RFIs regarding non-applicable requirements in the bid packages, most are not addressed, and some engineers (will not name them) got offended about being called out on some of it. One we see frequently - applying hanger rod diameters and hanger spacing required for plumbing (assuming) to sprinkler specs. Disregarding specs made me think of a funny story from a project a long time ago - I had a general contractor insert a note in the middle of his weekly meeting minutes that were emailed to the team, stating if anyone actually is reading these and calls me stating so, I will give them $50. Not a single person called. STEVE COOK TG Gallagher -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Sornsin Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard I worked for Rapid Fire last year and when putting together a bid, I found it interesting that the spec for an elementary school had verbiage that I had written 9 years prior while doing the FPE thing with Mark Sornsin. An engineering firm had subbed out a High Expansion Foam job to us, and our spec apparently then became the basis for their standard sprinkler spec. Contractors in this industry are so used to schlock spec's that they too often ignore items added by legitimate EOR's. If all contractors actually questioned the ME's prior to bid, and copied the Architect, it would put pressure on the ME's to clean up their act and actually modify the spec as needed by the current job. But few contractors have time, and the ones who are used to bidding off certain EOR's 'know' what's enforced and what isn't, thereby giving them a competitive advantage versus anybody not familiar with that particular engineer. When I worked with Mark we used to joke about adding a clause at the beginning of each spec: Note: We really, really, really, really mean what we say in this spec. David M. Sornsin Sornsin Fire Design Consulting Fargo ND 701.371.0643 david.sorn...@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. masorn...@kfi-eng.com wrote: Agreed. Though these questions are best asked during the bidding process, not during shops review. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard When you have to specify a non-standard design criteria it's best to provide some clarification in the documentation as to why you chose what you did. It could help prevent these types of questions (or at least minimize them somewhat). Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard My comparable story relates to a small town community wellness center. It included Gymnasium spaces, swimming, etc. We were hired only to provide a 'performance specification', but we thought it might be novel to include performance criteria... For the gymnasium we talked with the architect about potential uses beyond athletics, and he confirmed that there could be trade shows, receptions, etc. We specified OH II. The contractor submitted shops to the Fire Marshal who commented that the Gymnasium didn't require OHII, just Light haz., so naturally the contractor wanted us to allow the LH design. I don't blame them, but this highlights what we're discussing on this thread: classification and hazard are different animals. Sometimes a gymnasium, is just a gymnasium; sometimes a banana, is just a banana; and sometimes the engineer has done his homework and specifies a
RE: Diesel Pump Generic Questions
I have never heard of a soft start diesel. I guess they could put a damper on the governor to prevent the throttle from opening quickly but I don't know what good it would do. Any pressure surge would be negligible unless there was a big air pocket in the system somewhere. For me it depends on the application. For big distribution centers, 500,000 sqft, I prefer diesel pumps with a pressure limiting drive. We can size the pump to produce 175 psi at the discharge flange. ESFR's don't yet come rated to 250 psi (Tyco, Viking, Reliable, are you listening?). For almost any other application electric is good enough. When larger pumps are required, say 2500 gpm the motors can get so big the cost of the electric service into the pump room can be quite pricey. High horsepower electric pumps with an automatic transfer switch and a wye delta closed transition start can cost as much as a diesel pump. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Diesel Pump Generic Questions Is there a way or such a thing as soft starting a diesel? I seem to recall a LONG time ago FM had a report out concluding 25%+ of diesel pump would fail during a fire. Now I could be wrong on the long, FM, 25%. Does anybody else recall something along these lines current or old? I admit I am biased against diesel pumps, cost more, require more maintenance and I believe are less reliable mostly due to the maintenance that rarely gets done properly. I suppose I'd agree they are more reliable IF maintained. I also have a surge pressure issue. But the most important thing is I'm open minded either way for someone to school me. I could be off base or there is supporting justification. And no, we have yet to delve into the reliable power question officially. I was told by the PM and other discipline leads we're using diesel but no one can tell me why exactly. So I'm making a case for either contingency. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.commailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.comhttp://www.burnsmcd.com/ *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Modifying sprinklers
It's done all the time. Do the hydro test then knock out the links. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Modifying sprinklers Received a shop drawing stating that for the deluge system, the contractor would purchase standard fused sprinklers and remove the fusible link. Now I can't find specific NFPA verbiage that would prohibit this but seems to me that a sprinkler that is listed for LH or OH occupancies would not be acceptable for an EH deluge system just by popping the link out. Wouldn't this also be modifying the sprinkler post production? Maybe this is done all the time, but what say ye? I found this statement in 13, 8.4.4 Open Sprinklers. 8.4.4.1 Open sprinklers shall be permitted to be used in deluge systems to protect special hazards or exposures or in other special locations. Seems kind of like a DUH, statement. What other type of sprinkler would you use for deluge other than open? Craig L. Prahl ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
