Re: [EXTERNAL] Ex cov under OH Door
I concur with your approach. I believe we say under doors in storage is a OH RH Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> Inspect. Test. Maintain. AFSA’s ITM Inspector Development Program provides OJT guidance, web and in-person instruction, hands-on learning, and more. Enroll now for October launch. Be NICET I ready by this Spring, with the goal of NICET II in just 20 months. Learn more. <http://www.firesprinkler.org/itm> > On Aug 23, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum > wrote: > > I agree with everything. This wasnt even my project. Was helping out a > customer of a colleague. > > My initial reaction was of course a single EC sidewall for LH is acceptable. > The installing contractor was pushing back saying you couldn’t do an EC HSW > for light hazard under the door. That was when I started to dig further and > noticed the missing wording in EC HSW. > > Installer was pushing back an ECOH HSW would cause the overhead to over > discharge and no longer work. I suggested to stop spending so much time and > $$ on this. Go with the ECOH HSW and pipe with same size as overhead branch > piping. That way there can be no push back. > > Just another fun Friday at the office. > > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > 480-505-9271 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Sprinkler Testing per NFPA 25 (2014)
Bullseye Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Aug 8, 2019, at 2:41 AM, Jussef Liban - GRUPO 3S > wrote: > > Dear Jay, my opinion is that you don’t need to test 1% of sprinklers on 7 > different rises, unless each riser or each sprinklers batch or zone were > subjet to a different environmental conditions. My opinion is that you need > to test only 1% of sprinklers per each environment condition to which they > are installed. > > In this case, If you have for example 3 different environment conditions > (warehouse, manufacturing and office), you can choose 3 different samples 1% > each > > Also you must consider that if you have different manufacturers, you need to > consider a different sample for each brand. > > But also if you have within an environment, different sprinklers produced by > the same manufacturer (for example upright and pendent sprinklers) you can be > considered all of them as part of the same sample. > > I would like to know other opinions in this forum about my opinion, because I > don’t have such experience to calculate this matter, since in our country we > don’t have the luck to have a testing laboratory, we only have one choice: > DISCARD ALL OF THEM. Very easy, no calculation to be done…! > > By the way, I don’t know if I can ask here, approximately how much each > sprinkler test cost . Just for curiosity > > > > Saludos Cordiales > > Jussef Liban > Gerente > > Sigueme en las redes para obtener información sobre temas relacionados con la > protección contra incendios. > GRUPO TELEGRAM: https://t.me/joinchat/JmalzBDcEYE8NDqSwbfrBg > <https://t.me/joinchat/JmalzBDcEYE8NDqSwbfrBg> > FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/seguridadcontraincendiosalalcancedetodos/ > <https://www.facebook.com/seguridadcontraincendiosalalcancedetodos/> > FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/grupo3speru/ > <https://www.facebook.com/grupo3speru/> > ARTICULOS TECNICOS COLECCIONABLES: https://grupo3s.pe/biblioteca/ > <https://grupo3s.pe/biblioteca/> > LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jussef-liban-114b56b9/ > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jussef-liban-114b56b9/> > YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/user/JussefLiban/featured?view_as=subscriber > <https://www.youtube.com/user/JussefLiban/featured?view_as=subscriber> > > > > > > De: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> En nombre de > jaycs7...@gmail.com <mailto:jaycs7...@gmail.com> > Enviado el: miércoles, 7 de agosto de 2019 10:55 > Para: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> > Asunto: Sprinkler Testing per NFPA 25 (2014) > > I have a facility with 7 risers. 6 of the risers cover a specific use, > mostly warehouse, but one riser covers warehouse, manufacturing and office. > There are approximately 300 to 350 in the warehouse area, maybe 75 in the > manufacturing area and another 50 to 75 in the office areas. All sprinklers > were manufactured in 1963. They are finally agreeing to testing per 25! I > plan on taking 1% or 4 sprinklers from each of the 6 risers. On the 7th > riser, I am wonderijng if I can take samples from each of the areas, test > them and if any in the specific area fail, they need to replace those > sprinklers. I would bet the house that the ones in the manufacturing area > will not pass, just from the gunk on them due to the manufacturing process. > The offices have Central model H that look new and the warehouse ones look > like they have mild dirt on them, but appear fine. Am I looking at this > correctly? > Thanks in advance for your opinions! > > Jay Stough > NICET IV LAYOUT > NICET III ITM > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Calc's
Zachery. Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jul 12, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Sean.VanGaal wrote: > > Assuming this pattern is repeated for multiple branchlines. No, branchline > stays the same size. Otherwise that smaller branchline would be the new > hydraulically remote line when 8 sprinklers flow on it and your system > wouldn’t work again (assuming you got it to work in the first place). > > Thanks, > Sean VG > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 11:45 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Calc's > > We still have the relatively symmetrical rectangle that the pattern falls > within so 3 relative lines of 4 with 2 lines feed by one BL. > > Round 2 of hypothetical : > > Would the second BL feeding only 4 be allowed to be a smaller diameter? > > Roland > > > <~WRD000.jpg> > Roland Huggins, PE > Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services > American Fire Sprinkler Association > p: > 214-349-5965 ext121 > w: > firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__firesprinkler.org=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=pc3dV322WKW7KhrUCJJkVUhCFhPyWFeqZxyMpcOy4dI=d3Lu_JTvIil1Nqy96a_vipB2La5UW9yUmdxCtlezS-Y=> > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_firesprinkler.org_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=pc3dV322WKW7KhrUCJJkVUhCFhPyWFeqZxyMpcOy4dI=biz34CmAnAy3gPaC4r839fprdAwiyvIY1vx-gQA6src=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_afsa_status_1039528345367732224=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=pc3dV322WKW7KhrUCJJkVUhCFhPyWFeqZxyMpcOy4dI=CP7sb6uepPoabRMO518gg5-mKoLyA5QiAR3ekez20L0=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_american-2Dfire-2Dsprinkler-2Dassociation-2Dafsa-2D_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=pc3dV322WKW7KhrUCJJkVUhCFhPyWFeqZxyMpcOy4dI=ZZvkD3IUrUQdSNNmczHHbbfdUoTlBBYyvmsccm1rBaI=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_firesprinklerorg_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=pc3dV322WKW7KhrUCJJkVUhCFhPyWFeqZxyMpcOy4dI=RBfyEScYdgkTYffCMsn9TI3Uf7UQu54p3oH0NxOotcw=> > 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. > AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's > largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in > beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > > > On Jul 12, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Kyle.Montgomery <mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>> wrote: > > Here’s a fun hypothetical: > > ESFR sprinklers with typical spacing (10’x10’) > Branchlines spaced at 20 feet on center, with 5 foot armovers to the ESFR > heads. (i.e. each branch line is feeding twice as many sprinklers as the > standard configuration where heads are on the line) > > Do you do what the book says and calculate an area with 4 sprinklers flowing > on each of three branch lines? Or, because of this funky arrangement, do you > flow 8 heads on one line and 4 on the next? Or can you meet in the middle and > flow 6 heads on each of two branch lines? > > > Kyle Montgomery > > Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co. > 21605 N. Central Ave. > Phoenix, AZ 85024 > Direct: 623.580.7820 > Cell: 602.763.4736 > kmontgom...@aerofire.com <mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com> > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 11:16 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:s
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Calc's
We still have the relatively symmetrical rectangle that the pattern falls within so 3 relative lines of 4 with 2 lines feed by one BL. Round 2 of hypothetical : Would the second BL feeding only 4 be allowed to be a smaller diameter? Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jul 12, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Kyle.Montgomery > wrote: > > Here’s a fun hypothetical: > > ESFR sprinklers with typical spacing (10’x10’) > Branchlines spaced at 20 feet on center, with 5 foot armovers to the ESFR > heads. (i.e. each branch line is feeding twice as many sprinklers as the > standard configuration where heads are on the line) > > Do you do what the book says and calculate an area with 4 sprinklers flowing > on each of three branch lines? Or, because of this funky arrangement, do you > flow 8 heads on one line and 4 on the next? Or can you meet in the middle and > flow 6 heads on each of two branch lines? > > > Kyle Montgomery > > Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co. > 21605 N. Central Ave. > Phoenix, AZ 85024 > Direct: 623.580.7820 > Cell: 602.763.4736 > kmontgom...@aerofire.com <mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com> > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 11:16 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Calc's > > Bullseye > > We IGNORE walls unless rated and using the room design approach is the > starting point > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE > Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services > American Fire Sprinkler Association > p: > 214-349-5965 ext121 > w: > firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__firesprinkler.org=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=t0B6Nh-NVdXy5YMigQV-x92eoqzPTqW30_2GSpzGwJE=hcUwM1F9jqHa2w_ktqftyeUHfUomltJCGkP0XAuyjzU=> > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_firesprinkler.org_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=t0B6Nh-NVdXy5YMigQV-x92eoqzPTqW30_2GSpzGwJE=m86MQHM2jZfpnDzhjk0BxiI3AJtbpXr7VXRBrla-8dQ=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_afsa_status_1039528345367732224=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=t0B6Nh-NVdXy5YMigQV-x92eoqzPTqW30_2GSpzGwJE=QAWFU-zVLpGHFTlDC-irArcytN5B9O4bm0ccofB1X4U=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_american-2Dfire-2Dsprinkler-2Dassociation-2Dafsa-2D_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=t0B6Nh-NVdXy5YMigQV-x92eoqzPTqW30_2GSpzGwJE=s7ZtnP5_b2gTlRkqoHU5wz9VgwGG25J6x2VDcg_HybM=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_firesprinklerorg_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=t0B6Nh-NVdXy5YMigQV-x92eoqzPTqW30_2GSpzGwJE=iCFLoA7ve5FFp9p8UdzMD6cms0xkr2U392FQ3ogEod8=> > 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. > AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's > largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in > beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > > > On Jul 10, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Sean.VanGaal <mailto:svang...@aerofire.com>> wrote: > > Do what Mike said but pick up the 12th sprinkler off the 4th line. I would > imagine the intent of NFPA 13 was to calculated 4 sprinklers on a line as > your worst case scenario to prove the line size. Then pickup 12 sprinklers > total to get an appropriate total flow. So the standard reference 3 lines to > do this as that is the common scenario. > > Applying this assumption to your scenario, your 1st two lines have at least 4 > sprinklers per line so those are easy enough. Your 3rd line only has 3 > sprinklers so pickup all 3 and then pick up th
Re: ESFR Calc's
Bullseye We IGNORE walls unless rated and using the room design approach is the starting point Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jul 10, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Sean.VanGaal wrote: > > Do what Mike said but pick up the 12th sprinkler off the 4th line. I would > imagine the intent of NFPA 13 was to calculated 4 sprinklers on a line as > your worst case scenario to prove the line size. Then pickup 12 sprinklers > total to get an appropriate total flow. So the standard reference 3 lines to > do this as that is the common scenario. > > Applying this assumption to your scenario, your 1st two lines have at least 4 > sprinklers per line so those are easy enough. Your 3rd line only has 3 > sprinklers so pickup all 3 and then pick up the 4th sprinkler on the 4th > line. You now have 12 total sprinklers flowing, and the last 4 of these > sprinklers are going to overflow more than they normally would if they were > on a single line (assuming tree/end fed system). So this should be a more > conservative design than what NFPA 13 requires. But you also aren’t forcing > yourself to go ultra conservative by calculating 5 or 6 sprinklers on a > single line which I do not believe was NFPA 13’s intent. > > Thanks, > Sean VG > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Brian > Harris > Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 7:44 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR Calc's > > Mike- > The lines on the other side of the wall only have (3) heads per line. > > Brian Harris, CET > BVS Systems Inc. > bvssytemsinc.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bvssystemsinc.com_=DwMFAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=AWdzKMSnfZTO1yzpl1Dd37Lrr1TeI1Fqx3BWjEHd-Zg=QGuUWxAksuh7c7L6oHoglZLzKjOOXn6OYIs8o4Fgsv4=> > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Mike > Hairfield > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 10:36 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: ESFR Calc's > > Why don't you use 2 lines on one side of the wall and 1 line on the other > side of the wall thus 3 lines with 4 heads? > > Mike > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> on behalf of Brian > Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 10:29 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: ESFR Calc's > > I have an ESFR system that I do not have (3) rows of (4) heads to calc. Due > to compartment wall layouts I have (2) rows of (6) heads and (6) rows of (3) > heads. What is the best way to grab (12) heads? > > Brian Harris, CET > BVS Systems Inc. > Design Manager > bvssystemsinc.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bvssystemsinc.com_=DwMFAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=AWdzKMSnfZTO1yzpl1Dd37Lrr1TeI1Fqx3BWjEHd-Zg=QGuUWxAksuh7c7L6oHoglZLzKjOOXn6OYIs8o4Fgsv4=> > Phone: 704.896.9989 > Fax: 704.896.1935 > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Attic sprinklers
Bullseye Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G > wrote: > > Better ammo: Chap 5 – Light Hazard. Annex says unused attics are light > hazard. So, an attic used for storage would not be unused, nor light hazard. > > > Page 6 of 28 of the tyco data sheet says light hazard. Seems like the AHJ > missed the target on this one. > > <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > www.mfpdesign.com <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of > Fpdcdesign > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 10:49 AM > To: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> > Subject: Re: Attic sprinklers > > I agree with you, but I have an AHJ who is allowing a church to store in an > attic protected by Viking Attic Sprinklers (The occupancy was not part of the > original plan). Looking for some ammo and was hoping I could find something > specific in the literature. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > 860-553-3553 (fax) > 860-608-4559 (cell) > > > >> On Jun 28, 2019 at 1:46 PM, mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>> >> wrote: >> >> Based on talks I have had with Globe and Tyco reps on this issue, I think >> you are in a losing battle. These are specially listed for attic fire >> loads. These are not for any pitched roof that fits the slope requirements. >> >> <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> >> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET >> MFP Design, LLC >> 3356 E Vallejo Ct >> Gilbert, AZ 85298 >> 480-505-9271 >> fax: 866-430-6107 >> tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> >> www.mfpdesign.com <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> >> >> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> >> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> >> >> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low >> price is forgotten.” >> >> >> From: Sprinklerforum > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of >> Fpdcdesign >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 10:44 AM >> To: Sprinklerforum > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> >> Subject: Re: Attic sprinklers >> >> I have looked in both the Viking and Tyco literature and it just says >> “attic”. No reference to anythin
Re: ESFR Heads & Cartoned Expanded Plastics
There is minimal design criteria with CMSA and ESFR for cartoned, expanded plastic.I submitted a PI for when no guidance is provided that you can apply criteria for exposed, non-expanded. I’m not holding my breath but we'll see. Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jun 25, 2019, at 5:04 AM, Brian Harris wrote: > > Does anybody know of an ESFR head that will work for cartooned expanded > plastics up to 30’ storage? All my searches only allow up to 25’ storage. > > Brian Harris, CET > BVS Systems Inc. > Design Manager > bvssystemsinc.com <http://bvssystemsinc.com/> > Phone: 704.896.9989 > Fax: 704.896.1935 > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: [EXTERNAL] Welded outlets - Equivalent feet
Not completely worthless if it gets the monkey off his back Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jun 26, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote: > > Very possible but that would be kind of worthless info since your greatest > friction loss is going to be making the turn. > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: 5" DI pipe
Pete makes a good point. NFPA 20 has a minimum inlet pressure of 0 psi (gauge pressure which is conservative since it is absolute pressure when the pump has a problem). The wrinkle to the issue is that the water purveyor limits the minimum pressure in THEIR network. What I don’t know (never pursued it so asking this illustrious body of sprinkler geeks) is do they limit their exposure under the Clean Water act authority to the same minimum to system that are connected to their supply. I”d have to think that said exposure applies only to the portion of the private main upstream of the BFP. What say ye??? Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jun 14, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Ben Young wrote: > > Well it's become a moot point now. The calc kept going below 20 on the > suction side of the new pump so we have to run new underground in 8" > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:28 AM Mike Hairfield <mailto:fsl...@msn.com>> wrote: > Us old guys might have an answer, how about oversized cast iron pipe! > > I remember having to have a machine shop turn down sleeves when making a > connection > to the oversized pipe since the OD was larger than the new cast iron and > ductile iron pipe. > > Mike > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> on behalf of Parsley > Consulting mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net>> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 11:10 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: 5" DI pipe > > Ben, > > I don't have any information from the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association > which indicates that 5" ductile has ever been manufactured. > > I looking at the photograph you've provided I have the following observations: > I don't have any idea what type of pipe is coming through the floor, however > my guess is that it's cast iron with either a threaded or welded flange at > the base (floor level). > > Next is a ductile iron retainer gland with set screws > > This feeds into an MJ x Flange adapter of perhaps 12" in length. The t-bolts > you see attaching the adapter to the retainer gland are a good indicator that > this is an MJ fitting. > > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/350+West+9th+Avenue,+Suite+206+%0D%0A+Escondido,+California+92025?entry=gmail=g> > > Then, at the base of the control valve a grooved flange adapter. > I hope that helps. > > Ken Wagoner, SET > Parsley Consulting > 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/350+West+9th+Avenue,+Suite+206+%0D%0A+Escondido,+California+92025?entry=gmail=g> > Escondido, California 92025 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/350+West+9th+Avenue,+Suite+206+%0D%0A+Escondido,+California+92025?entry=gmail=g> > Phone 760-745-6181 > Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> > On 06/14/2019 5:46 AM, Ben Young wrote: >> I'm working on a project and the person who did the site survey for us is >> saying that the incoming water line is 5" DI pipe. >> >> He said he measured it (I asked how and didn't get a clear response if it >> was diameter or circumference, pipe or flange) and that the site contact >> also measured and confirmed it was 5" >> >> The problem is I cannot find 5" DI in any piping literature that I have or >> online. >> >> Has anyone ever seen 5" DI or know for a fact that it was ever made? >> >> The building is 40+ years old, and there is an odd looking adapter on the >> incoming flange. I have a picture of it but you can't really make anything >> out on it, but I'm happy to upload >> >> Benjamin Young >> >> >> >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Ammo Production
Step 1 is the bulk components such as primers and gunpowder: it’s outside the scope of NFPA 13 (see Table A.5.6) Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jun 7, 2019, at 8:14 AM, JD Gamble wrote: > > Anyone have some insight / guidance on Fire Sprinkler concerns for areas > dedicated to ammo production. > > TIA > > JD Gamble > 307-763-3361 > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Vertical Opening
UPDATE and yes I haven’t had enough coffee yet. The restriction to only one side was already addressed and DELETED from the 2019 edition. SO you dont protect the entire space above the ceiling. Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jun 7, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Roland Huggins wrote: > > Too big for a return air grill - look at 8.15.1.2.1.2. > > This is not an issue about protecting against the contents of the space ABOVE > the ceiling. It’s about protecting the steel against the temperature of the > fire plume and ceiling jet from the fire beneath the opening. (8.15.23 and > what a pain to find even when you know its SOMEWHERE in 13). As Mack said > it’s currently listed to openings on one side but that’s never made sense > since the sprinkler discharge still cools the ceiling jet when in more than > one direction. IT will be revisited this cycle but until then discuss this > with the AHJ. IF you’re a member, you can take an AFSA informal > interpretation on it to help offset the lack of logic regarding opening on > one side. > > Roland > > > > Roland Huggins, PE > Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services > American Fire Sprinkler Association > p:214-349-5965 ext121 > w:firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> > <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> > <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> > <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> > 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. > AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's > largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in > beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > > >> On Jun 4, 2019, at 6:50 AM, Jeff Normand > <mailto:jeff.norm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> It seems similar to a return air grill where the space above the ceiling is >> used as the return air plenum. >> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:38 AM Matt Grise > <mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>> wrote: >> Any chance this could be protected as a “localized exposed combustible” per >> NFPA 13 2016 8.15.1.5? >> >> >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> From: Sprinklerforum > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of JD >> Gamble >> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 8:25 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> Subject: RE: Vertical Opening >> >> >> >> John, >> >> >> >> I am interested in the thoughts on this as well. It’s my understanding that >> now the (typically concealed noncombustible) space above the lay in ceiling >> is adjoined space and must be protected in accordance with NFPA 13 8.15.23 >> (2016 Edition) because the space above the ceiling is no longer “concealed”. >> However, I believe that several people disagree and don’t think that you >> have to physically separate the space for it to qualify as concealed, hence >> you could apply 8.15.1.2. It’s my understanding that this is an unresolved >> grey area of 13. >> >> >> >> JD >> >> >> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of John >> Irwin >> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 5:13 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> Subject: Vertical Opening >> >> >> >> Client spring these openings on us just before final. Client says the >> building department OK’d the new plan so we should be good to go. I know I >> need upright protection up there, but can’t find the exact references t
Re: Vertical Opening
Too big for a return air grill - look at 8.15.1.2.1.2. This is not an issue about protecting against the contents of the space ABOVE the ceiling. It’s about protecting the steel against the temperature of the fire plume and ceiling jet from the fire beneath the opening. (8.15.23 and what a pain to find even when you know its SOMEWHERE in 13). As Mack said it’s currently listed to openings on one side but that’s never made sense since the sprinkler discharge still cools the ceiling jet when in more than one direction. IT will be revisited this cycle but until then discuss this with the AHJ. IF you’re a member, you can take an AFSA informal interpretation on it to help offset the lack of logic regarding opening on one side. Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jun 4, 2019, at 6:50 AM, Jeff Normand wrote: > > It seems similar to a return air grill where the space above the ceiling is > used as the return air plenum. > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:38 AM Matt Grise <mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>> wrote: > Any chance this could be protected as a “localized exposed combustible” per > NFPA 13 2016 8.15.1.5? > > > > Matt > > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of JD > Gamble > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 8:25 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Vertical Opening > > > > John, > > > > I am interested in the thoughts on this as well. It’s my understanding that > now the (typically concealed noncombustible) space above the lay in ceiling > is adjoined space and must be protected in accordance with NFPA 13 8.15.23 > (2016 Edition) because the space above the ceiling is no longer “concealed”. > However, I believe that several people disagree and don’t think that you have > to physically separate the space for it to qualify as concealed, hence you > could apply 8.15.1.2. It’s my understanding that this is an unresolved grey > area of 13. > > > > JD > > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of John > Irwin > Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 5:13 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Vertical Opening > > > > Client spring these openings on us just before final. Client says the > building department OK’d the new plan so we should be good to go. I know I > need upright protection up there, but can’t find the exact references to make > my case. Anyone? > > > > > > > > John Irwin > > West Coast Branch Manager > > www.quickresponsefl.com <http://www.quickresponsefl.com/> > Office: 844-9QUICKFL > > Cell: 727-282-9243 > > Main Office: 20545 Independence Blvd. Unit G Groveland, Fl. 34736 > > West Coast: 4500 140th Avenue North Suite E221 Clearwater, Fl. 33762 > > 24 Hour Emergency Service Available 1-844-9QUICKFL > > > > > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” – Benjamin Franklin > > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Fire Pump Question
It is common to have a pump serving an entire site or campus consisting of multiple separate buildings (all one owner - aka site). Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On Jun 5, 2019, at 6:46 PM, Larry Keeping wrote: > > To compound my question, what are the restrictions for a campus-wide type > fire protection, such as a cluster of 9 small one story buildings (~2,500 sq > ft each), all R-2 classification(sleeping quarters for the students) + one > larger bldg. (~10,000 sq ft one story), which has three classrooms , a > kitchen and dining area (I am not sure if that would be E or A > classification, but in any event it would be a NFPA-13 vs NFPA 13R for the > smaller buildings serving as sleeping quarters). All the buildings within a > say 150’ radius. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: "Uniform" Foam Coverage
Although I must confess that I only go to FM Data Sheets when all else fails, the last time I looked their answer for sloped ceiling was to install a drop ceiling Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. > On May 24, 2019, at 7:40 AM, Travis Mack wrote: > > I believe that factory mutual has some guidelines for storage in buildings > with slope exceeding 2:12. What about those guidelines as an alternative? > Just a thought that may make this issue go away. > > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > 480-505-9271 > MFP Design, LLC ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5
There is also the option to have a remote area with different hazard classifications within it (and the size of it is predicated upon whether there are walls around the smaller, higher hazard portion). Look at A.11.1.2. Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. Priority booth selection starts April 12. Get yours now. MORE INFO <https://www.firesprinkler.org/afsa38/Exhibit/afsa38/Exhibit.aspx?hkey=081fb565-5f80-42cb-bb17-4e359bdf4a73> > On Apr 23, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G > wrote: > > I’ve run into a few AHJs that have specifically thrown this section to us for > paint booths. We also had this thrown at us on a tire carousel storage. > This caused total havoc on the projects. > > The paint booth was in an existing facility designed to OH2. They paint > booth had 6 sprinklers. We had to run a 6” bulk across the facility to get > this paint booth. It seems like overkill, but following that section as it > is written, we had to flow 800 gpm for the area. > > <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > www.mfpdesign.com <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Bruce > Verhei > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 8:17 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 > > I read it as Ed notes. As well other example of paint spray booth I’d > question too. Paint spray booths can have sprinkler protection in an > otherwise unsprinklerd building. They’d all be dry chem total flood if we > drove an underground sized up that much. Just the cost of larger DDCVA would > be a big impact. > > Best. > > Bruce Verhei > > On Apr 23, 2019, at 08:01, Ed Kramer <mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>> wrote: > >> Steve, you don’t mention the edition of 13 you’re working with, but I’m >> looking in the ’16. >> >> 23.4.4.2.5 is a sub-section of 23.4.4.2 “Density/Area Method”. The section >> above that is 23.4.4.1.1 “Room Design Method”. I don’t see any similar >> requirement in that section. I’d argue that 23.4.4.2.5 doesn’t apply to the >> room design method. But some days I just feel like arguing. J >> >> Ed K >> Bamford Fire >> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Prahl, >> Craig/GVL >> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 7:33 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> Subject: RE: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 >> >> I feel your pain. This additional flow rate added to a small room has never >> made any sense and I’d love to understand the logic of being forced to flow >> 1,950 gpm into a room that is only required to deliver 150 gpm. >> >> Is there any actual benefit to this exercise? >> >> It’s amazing how buildings were assumed adequately protected when all that &
Re: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5
We DID nail that point down specifically by doing exactly what argumentative Mr. Kramer said. Location has meaning and the title of said location is what the criteria is applied too. Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. Priority booth selection starts April 12. Get yours now. MORE INFO <https://www.firesprinkler.org/afsa38/Exhibit/afsa38/Exhibit.aspx?hkey=081fb565-5f80-42cb-bb17-4e359bdf4a73> > On Apr 23, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: > > That’s a VERY good point. I spoke with a well-known and sometimes-respected > committee member last night (you know who you are) who told me that it wasn’t > the committee’s intent to apply this provision to a room design. I > questioned him about why they didn’t include that exception specifically and > we couldn’t really nail that down but I think you’ve hit on how they > organized the requirements hierarchically in that regard. > > SL > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Ed > Kramer > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 8:02 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 > > Steve, you don’t mention the edition of 13 you’re working with, but I’m > looking in the ’16. > > 23.4.4.2.5 is a sub-section of 23.4.4.2 “Density/Area Method”. The section > above that is 23.4.4.1.1 “Room Design Method”. I don’t see any similar > requirement in that section. I’d argue that 23.4.4.2.5 doesn’t apply to the > room design method. But some days I just feel like arguing. J > > Ed K > Bamford Fire > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Prahl, > Craig/GVL > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 7:33 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 > > I feel your pain. This additional flow rate added to a small room has never > made any sense and I’d love to understand the logic of being forced to flow > 1,950 gpm into a room that is only required to deliver 150 gpm. > > Is there any actual benefit to this exercise? > > It’s amazing how buildings were assumed adequately protected when all that > was used was the pipe schedule method. > > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Steve > Leyton > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 6:19 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Intent of 23.4.4.2.5 > > We have a building with fire rated and secure compartments that are less than > the NFPA 13 minimum design areas so we have calculated those areas using the > room design method where the compartments comply. Two are fire protected > with preaction sprinklers and 23.4.4.2.5 seems to imply that where a design > area is flowing less than what the density would be across the minimum > required design area, then a “kicker” needs to be added to raise the flow > rate to that figure. Since we’re in Light Hazard and the design area is > only about 1,000 sq. ft., we’re flowing about 150 GPM.But they’re coming > after us for 1,500 x 1.3 = 1,950 saying the required flow rate is 195. If > it’s LH, we can downward adjust and the demand drops to 117 which we satisfy. > In all my years I’ve never had this section thrown at us so could use any > help or opinion regarding exactly how this section should be applied. > > > > > > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Dry Pendents Required in Coolers?
You may want to chat with the AHJ since some interp 8.16.4.1.5 as a stand-along requirement (that being if the temp is below 40 a PE must perform calculations verifying it won’t freeze) and decoupled from 8.16.4.1.1 that points out it still must be SUBJECT TO FREEZING. I'll give you a really good price on calculations proving not maintain 40 F is ok if the minimum possible temperature is 38 F. LOL Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. Priority booth selection starts April 12. Get yours now. MORE INFO <https://www.firesprinkler.org/afsa38/Exhibit/afsa38/Exhibit.aspx?hkey=081fb565-5f80-42cb-bb17-4e359bdf4a73> > On Apr 3, 2019, at 7:34 AM, Kyle.Montgomery wrote: > > So, are we in agreement that the code allows wet sprinklers in this situation > (coolers maintained below 40 degrees but above freezing) but that the “safe” > approach is to use dry pendents? > > Step 1 for me is to establish (get comfortable with) the fact that NFPA 13 > allows this. Step 2 will be deciding if/when we choose to apply it. > > Thanks for your help, guys. > > -Kyle M > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of Roland Huggins > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 7:07 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Dry Pendents Required in Coolers? > > I would recommend treating the evaporators like we do heaters but in reverse > (short of speak). > > Roland > > > > Roland Huggins, PE > Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services > American Fire Sprinkler Association > p: > 214-349-5965 ext121 > w: > firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__firesprinkler.org=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=z1JufhqHP61pxHe3l-66AbH7VJgK1-ALGIQJCUxjWfk=KeyldMI20f3o8PRBMnWs_5yQTU1xOQ_8mDW-cifi5ik=> > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_firesprinkler.org_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=z1JufhqHP61pxHe3l-66AbH7VJgK1-ALGIQJCUxjWfk=Z_3Y9996D5hxIet99y0tBBAqDPsKp4oz3Xe78q1l4uw=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_afsa_status_1039528345367732224=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=z1JufhqHP61pxHe3l-66AbH7VJgK1-ALGIQJCUxjWfk=EoZWSGxvNVYNeD8Ekfox4mzM6w1VlzombyLdyNBN9es=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_american-2Dfire-2Dsprinkler-2Dassociation-2Dafsa-2D_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=z1JufhqHP61pxHe3l-66AbH7VJgK1-ALGIQJCUxjWfk=72RGGA155Xa-GoMLFPuO_rE3wfWm0z5ofVNrtiAB8b0=> > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_firesprinklerorg_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=z1JufhqHP61pxHe3l-66AbH7VJgK1-ALGIQJCUxjWfk=UZazj7F-yLT4AMQE_QLGJy5lOp3RpFkaYtZPPAhUwPI=> > 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. > AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's > largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in > beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. Priority booth selection > starts April 12. Get yours now. MORE INFO > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.firesprinkler.org_afsa38_Exhibit_afsa38_Exhibit.aspx-3Fhkey-3D081fb565-2D5f80-2D42cb-2Dbb17-2D4e359bdf4a73=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=z1JufhqHP61pxHe3l-66AbH7VJgK1-ALGIQJCUxjWfk=TiSB6N_pN2edm2xiApkiHZ_RmmW7dQYl3OPUcA3snTc=> > > > On Apr 3, 2019, at 6:25 AM, John Denhardt <mailto:jdenha...@stricklandfire.com>> wrote: > > We have not seen an issue. We try to keep the sprinklers away from the direct > air flow. If we are closer than we feel comfortable, we utilize dry > sprinklers in those locations only. > > John > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 3, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Ed Kramer <mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>> wrote: > > John – I’m pretty su
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Dry Pendents Required in Coolers?
I would recommend treating the evaporators like we do heaters but in reverse (short of speak). Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. Priority booth selection starts April 12. Get yours now. MORE INFO <https://www.firesprinkler.org/afsa38/Exhibit/afsa38/Exhibit.aspx?hkey=081fb565-5f80-42cb-bb17-4e359bdf4a73> > On Apr 3, 2019, at 6:25 AM, John Denhardt > wrote: > > We have not seen an issue. We try to keep the sprinklers away from the direct > air flow. If we are closer than we feel comfortable, we utilize dry > sprinklers in those locations only. > > John > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 3, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Ed Kramer <mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>> wrote: > >> John – I’m pretty sure we recently lost a moderate-sized cooler project >> because we bid it with dry pendents, so this is interesting. Let’s say the >> cooler is held at a constant temp of 38 F. That means the air coming from >> the evaporators has to be at a temp less than 38 F. In your experience, is >> the air from the evaporator less than 32 F ? Just wondering if there’s an >> issue with ‘wet’ sprinklers located where the evaporators are blowing air on >> them. >> >> Ed K >> Bamford Fire >> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of John >> Denhardt >> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 10:53 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Dry Pendents Required in Coolers? >> >> And do forget the 10 year test requirements for dry type sprinklers. The >> owner will need to cover that expense. >> >> John August Denhardt, P.E. >> Strickland Fire Protection >> >> On Apr 2, 2019, at 11:45 PM, Kyle.Montgomery > <mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>> wrote: >> >> Yeah, once you have to decide between buying 400 pendents or 400 dry >> pendents, it’s a little easier to find yourself on the unconservative >> (non-conservative? Liberal?)... the side that doesn’t want to spend that >> much money. >> >> I know that isn’t a popular opinion around here sometimes, but that’s how it >> is. Were trying to do the right thing, but I don’t know that there’s a good >> way to justify spending that kind of money just to be on the safe side. >> >> But that’s why I ask the question, to get some diverse feedback. >> >> -Kyle M >> >> On Apr 2, 2019, at 7:58 PM, Travis Mack > <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>> wrote: >> >> We see these installations in 40k sq ft areas and more. It is a huge cost >> impact. John has a great point. But I don’t have the PE letters behind my >> name so I tend to be a bit on the conservative side. >> >> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET >> 480-505-9271 >> MFP Design, LLC >> www.mfpdesign,com <http://www.mfpdesign,com/> >> Send large files to MFP Design via: >> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=KryIueb30FAd26l6mZm7ybtajJBrvtYT4CVj0Mtjr-I=V3Eiwc4ZZsRzGPRY80TQaO6x2N0LfjQnxcApcA1dh4I=> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Apr 2, 2019, at 7:27 PM, Fpdcdesign > <mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> John, >> >> I understand your position, but most of this type of installation I see is 8 >> sprinklers or less. I don’t think that dry vs standard sprinklers in this >> type of installation have a significant impact to fire protection. I would >> prefer to err on the side of caution. >> >> Todd G Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> Stonington, CT >> 860-535-2080 (ofc) >> 860-553-3553 (fax) >> 860-608-4559 (cell) >> >&
Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR and Baffles
What you missed is that the 2019 ed changed whereby ESFR can now be used with combustible obstructed construction. There is a hick-up. It’s explicitly stated in section 14.2.4 but the TC missed the N/A in Table 14.2.8.2.1. This is being fixed by a TIA currently being processed. Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> 4 days. 1,500+ attendees. AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019. Priority booth selection starts April 12. Get yours now. MORE INFO <https://www.firesprinkler.org/afsa38/Exhibit/afsa38/Exhibit.aspx?hkey=081fb565-5f80-42cb-bb17-4e359bdf4a73> > On Apr 1, 2019, at 11:00 AM, Kyle.Montgomery wrote: > > So, here’s a related question I’ve been pondering: What if you have Wood > Joist Construction (technically combustible obstructed, right?) but the depth > of the wood members is relatively short (like 2x6s or something)… are you > prohibited from using ESFR heads? > > It seems strange that you wouldn’t be able to use them in that case, since > you would be able to maintain the appropriate deflector distance (up to 18” > from deck is allowable for some ESFRs) and there would be no actual > obstruction to the sprinklers. Is there something that I am missing? > > Kyle Montgomery > > Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co. > 21605 N. Central Ave. > Phoenix, AZ 85024 > Direct: 623.580.7820 > Cell: 602.763.4736 > kmontgom...@aerofire.com <mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com> > > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Travis > Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 10:14 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR and Baffles > > Yes. There are things you can do to change the building to make it ESFR > compatible. But as it was described, you have a building that is not > compliant with ESFR. > > Too many people jump to ESFR as the panacea of storage. > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=k2MBYdoRIHA4uvwl6mWR_cQDUOKyc042SymYX5vDH0c=qPqzkIcYhJ2zI_RVIutELOG-iYAapNlejxRnE0NPE0M=> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > www.mfpdesign.com <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.hightail.com-252Fu-252FMFPDesign-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77-257C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511-257C0-257C0-257C636379016677342180-26sdata-3DeGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5-252BAZvlHhABSexWY-253D-26reserved-3D0=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=k2MBYdoRIHA4uvwl6mWR_cQDUOKyc042SymYX5vDH0c=pVNoNGO15npoGkdJGEdvCdcbHb0ycdOn-Ev_Ve3wDZw=> > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.linkedin.com-252Fin-252Ftravismack-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77-257C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511-257C0-257C0-257C636379016677342180-26sdata-3DtT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN-252BZodi-252FhbeCbHNRijI-253D-26reserved-3D0=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=k2MBYdoRIHA4uvwl6mWR_cQDUOKyc042SymYX5vDH0c=FzyuiGpfK7sj0dKauJx8rgpO0uhkg4LtRiTOtMBd6_c=> > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Steve > Leyton > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 10:11 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: ESFR and Baffles > > Corollary to The Perfect Answer:
Re: ESFR and Baffles
Perfect answer Roland Roland Huggins, PE Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler Association p: 214-349-5965 ext121 w: firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> > On Apr 1, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Shawn Foor wrote: > > I would say you are in a building that you can’t use ESFR heads > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:53 Cliff Whitfield <mailto:cl...@fire-design.com>> wrote: > What do you do when you have ESFR in a structure with W-Beams that are less > than 8’ apart but too deep to get the proper deflector distance beneath them? > > > > Cliff Whitfield, SET > > President > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Water Tank
AS the specifying engineer, there is another approach since you are not laying-out and calculating the system and yet you’re required to size the tank (THUS MY REASON FOR TRYING TO CHANGE IT). Use the curves along with a modifier then spec that the system shall be designed with a maximum overage of X amount such that the system demand does not exceed the amount reflected by the modifier you used in your tank calculation. Ba-Da-BOOM,Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 25, 2019, at 1:54 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote: > > Well Okie Dokie then. 99% of the time I am just estimating tank capacity > since we’re not providing final calcs. But that estimate typically is on the > conservative side of what the final calcs usually end up requiring. Plus > when having to provide for Fire Flow, the tank sizes will always exceed what > the sprinkler demand requires. > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Roland Huggins > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:40 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Water Tank > > But they HAVE said that. > Start with 11.1.4.1 - the water demand shall be determined (occupancy hazard > approach etc) > Staying with the occupancy hazard approach (to minimize the number of > referenced section), section 11.2.1 - The water demand requirements shall be > determined by either pipe schedule or hydraulic calculation method. > Section 11.1.5.2 tanks shall be sized to supply the equipment they serve. > > Since the tank is the water supply that must meet the system demand, then > there you go in black and white. > > Roland > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.firesprinkler.org_=DwMFaQ=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=A1aSZLxw_0z8oJjzXuv2Hyny-XXah9O6aXha2-X5gC8=q8QWKnv9OL33pzKnOtvcWM9AY528GeHcwnbubo4N5yc=> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>> wrote: > > Well I look at it this way. If you used the curves and factored the value up > by an additional 15 – 20% you should be fine considering the mantra is that > most fires are controlled by only 1-3 sprinklers not the entire calculated > hydraulically remote area. But, if the committee believes it should be done > a certain way then put it in black and white and eliminate any confusion and > guessing. > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:03 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Water Tank > > The NFPA 13 committee believes the tank size is indeed based on the > CALCULATED volume of water. I know this because I attempted several cycles > ago to state we should simply use the curves with a modifier. I was almost > burned at the stake for uttering such blasphemy. > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.firesprinkler.org_=DwMFAg=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=LSitVO9kRtffCU2_Kq1AFwMHMwU4R9POZX1mHsm-XJo=ECrKtTShUpl6Us21CbW8dwSOVQYGFhIkaRkmw0MtKKQ=> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP <mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Tank sizing for some situations presents an uncomfortable dilemma because > there are pressures from all sides to minimize the tank size yet we all know > the tank contains the single most important item. Some codes can be argued to > say the size is for sprinkler demand only. The code might also qualify that > by implying the actual system calculated sprinkler demand is used for sizing. > So in this case the OH-2 sy
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Water Tank
But they HAVE said that. Start with 11.1.4.1 - the water demand shall be determined (occupancy hazard approach etc) Staying with the occupancy hazard approach (to minimize the number of referenced section), section 11.2.1 - The water demand requirements shall be determined by either pipe schedule or hydraulic calculation method. Section 11.1.5.2 tanks shall be sized to supply the equipment they serve. Since the tank is the water supply that must meet the system demand, then there you go in black and white. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote: > > Well I look at it this way. If you used the curves and factored the value up > by an additional 15 – 20% you should be fine considering the mantra is that > most fires are controlled by only 1-3 sprinklers not the entire calculated > hydraulically remote area. But, if the committee believes it should be done > a certain way then put it in black and white and eliminate any confusion and > guessing. > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Roland Huggins > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:03 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Water Tank > > The NFPA 13 committee believes the tank size is indeed based on the > CALCULATED volume of water. I know this because I attempted several cycles > ago to state we should simply use the curves with a modifier. I was almost > burned at the stake for uttering such blasphemy. > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.firesprinkler.org_=DwMFAg=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=LSitVO9kRtffCU2_Kq1AFwMHMwU4R9POZX1mHsm-XJo=ECrKtTShUpl6Us21CbW8dwSOVQYGFhIkaRkmw0MtKKQ=> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP <mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Tank sizing for some situations presents an uncomfortable dilemma because > there are pressures from all sides to minimize the tank size yet we all know > the tank contains the single most important item. Some codes can be argued to > say the size is for sprinkler demand only. The code might also qualify that > by implying the actual system calculated sprinkler demand is used for sizing. > So in this case the OH-2 system might have a 1.8 overage at its most > demanding location. But then what happens if the fire event occurs at the > least pressure demanding part of the system where the overage is higher than > 1.8? Here we can only hope that more water in less time is better and perhaps > not so many sprinklers open and someone is present to manage the run time. > The same pressures to limit the tank size might also work against installing > a more water efficient sprinkler system for that OH-2 space. > > > > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged > information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, > copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended > recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in > error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting > it from your computer. > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <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 Tank
The NFPA 13 committee believes the tank size is indeed based on the CALCULATED volume of water. I know this because I attempted several cycles ago to state we should simply use the curves with a modifier. I was almost burned at the stake for uttering such blasphemy. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP wrote: > > Tank sizing for some situations presents an uncomfortable dilemma because > there are pressures from all sides to minimize the tank size yet we all know > the tank contains the single most important item. Some codes can be argued to > say the size is for sprinkler demand only. The code might also qualify that > by implying the actual system calculated sprinkler demand is used for sizing. > So in this case the OH-2 system might have a 1.8 overage at its most > demanding location. But then what happens if the fire event occurs at the > least pressure demanding part of the system where the overage is higher than > 1.8? Here we can only hope that more water in less time is better and perhaps > not so many sprinklers open and someone is present to manage the run time. > The same pressures to limit the tank size might also work against installing > a more water efficient sprinkler system for that OH-2 space. > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Cartoned Group A Plastics
AS indicated this is NOT the definition for cartoned. It is the allowance to reduce the commodity classification based on this particular type of carton. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 14, 2019, at 11:42 AM, Mark Eckard > wrote: > > Found it: > Note: Cartons that contain Group A plastic material are permitted to be > treated as Class IV commodities under the following conditions: > (1) There are multiple layers of corrugation or equivalent outer material > that would significantly delay fire involvement of the Group A plastic. > > Thank You > > Mark E. Eckard SET > > Fire Protection Services, LLC > 2126 US Hwy. 41 North > Perry, GA 31069 > Office: 478-987-7319 (Perry) or (770) 702-0965 (Metro Atlanta) > Mobile: 478-244-6653 > SYL-216 > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Travis > Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:35 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Cartoned Group A Plastics > > Looking back to 2010, the definition is unchanged. Maybe it was an insurance > requirement or something you are thinking. > > <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Mark > Eckard > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 11:31 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Cartoned Group A Plastics > > I see the “cartooned” in the storage definitions but it looks like: A. it has > changed, B. the double corrugation requirement has been removed, or C. the > definition isn’t in Chapter 3. > > > Thank You > > Mark E. Eckard SET > > Fire Protection Services, LLC > 2126 US Hwy. 41 North > Perry, GA 31069 > Office: 478-987-7319 (Perry) or (770) 702-0965 (Metro Atlanta) > Mobile: 478-244-6653 > SYL-216 > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Travis > Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:26 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Cartoned Group A Plastics > > When needing definitions, Chap 3 of the 2016 is where you want to start. > > 3.9.1.1 gives your definition of Cartoned. > > <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Mark &
Re: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems
Larry We’ve also seen wet system where the uprights have pivoted due to water hammers. The question is how prevalent is it? So will this be one of you PI’s for this cycle? Seems like a good idea but actively addressing corrosion seemed like a good idea too and the prevalence aspect whacked that movement. BTW (for the rest of the gang) - The cut-off date for submitting public proposals on NFPA 13 is June 10. Yep - already starting on the 2022 edition. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 12, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Larry Keeping wrote: > > I wouldn’t agree that it isn’t a real-world issue. Years ago, I had a deluge > system in an air craft hanger bend the hangers/supports on the risers during > the trip testing. Bracing against the impact forces is strongly recommended. > > I’ve even seen wet pipe systems mains that shifted out of position, due to > the client wheeling open control valves and filling them to quickly. > > Larry Keeping > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Skyler > Bilbo > Sent: March-12-19 10:56 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems > > Craig, > > I have run into a very similar scenario. I had a real concern with so much > water hitting every change in direction and dead end with a lot of force. > All of the deluge valves that I know of go from being closed to open full > bore, as quickly as the clapper can open (fast). Also, it is important to > realize that the water will not move through at the designed minimum flow > rate, but probably much faster. In our case, we installed seismic bracing at > every elbow and near any dead ends. This wasn't engineered, as I'm not aware > of any guidelines or requirements for designing this bracing. It seems to me > that this is a similar concept to thrust block design for underground piping > (where the forces in a 6" elbow can easily exceed 5,000 lbs and substantially > higher than this in larger sizes), but there are definitely some differences. > If nothing else, the braces provided me with some peace of mind. I felt it > was important to make sure that the braces were installed and oriented > correctly. I also made sure that no one entered the area when we did the > startup testing, and everything went well. The bracing definitely helped. > > Thinking about this more - hopefully someone will chime in... The total > pressure (velocity pressure + normal pressure) should never exceed your > initial static pressure. If you design braces to handle this full initial > static pressure times the area of whatever size pipe you have (pi * r^2), I > would think this would be a safe calculation. Again, I hope someone chimes > in on this. I have been wrong more than once, so don't just take my word for > it. > > I just read Roland's response. It's good to know it hasn't been a real world > issue. I know that I was pretty nervous about it when my name was attached > to it. The cost of the braces was worth it to me. > > > - Skyler > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:59 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>> wrote: > So, I’ve got an FPE and ME questioning about water hammer in a deluge system. > > We have a unique installation where we have two levels of hose connections > (one array at 12 ft AFF and one at 60 ft AFF) for manual firefighting in an > unconditioned assembly building which is 145 ft high. > > Due to the non-heated condition, one proposed concept for a semi-automatic > system is to use an electric release deluge valve to charge the system from > manual pull stations. > > Flow rate will be 1,000 gpm at somewhere near 150ish psi though 600-800 ft of > pipe inside the bldg. > > The FPE and ME are concerned with water hammer in the piping when the deluge > valve opens based on how fast the valve opens. > > Has anyone dealt with or had to provide calcs for this? NFPA 13, 14, etc. > are fairly silent on the issue. Is it even an issue? I’ve never had this > brought up before on an interior system. > > Anyone have any data on how fast a solenoid operated deluge valve opens? > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged > information that is f
Re: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems
The force of the impact is a function of mass x velocity (a momentum issue). Since it isn’t slamming into a dead-end then reversing directions, there must a constant for reduction as an additional variable but I haven’t looked into that deeply. If anyone is inclined to take a nose dive into this pool, it would make an interesting article for Sprinkler Age. Contact me off line if the water looks tempting. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 12, 2019, at 7:56 AM, Skyler Bilbo wrote: > > > Thinking about this more - hopefully someone will chime in... The total > pressure (velocity pressure + normal pressure) should never exceed your > initial static pressure. If you design braces to handle this full initial > static pressure times the area of whatever size pipe you have (pi * r^2), I > would think this would be a safe calculation. Again, I hope someone chimes > in on this. I have been wrong more than once, so don't just take my word for > it. > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems
I doubt if vents will have any noticeable impact. Besides, vents if anything will increase the water velocity. The first time I was standing next to a 6 inch pipe downstream of the deluge valve, the amount of pipe movement amazed me (sounds better than I nearly crapped my pants). It’s not a new phenomena that when water filling pipe hits and elbow, things move. Since it has been that way forever and has not been revisited in the 23 yrs that I’ve been on 13, I cant say what the TC original said about it. Not aware of any engineering studies on it (since it is allowed and things are NOT blowing apart). I have to assume that the movement reduces the potential for failure though to what degree I cant say. Just because the standard is silent on it, by no means translates to its an unknown issue and that we need to be concerned about it. Tell the engineers to spend time worrying actually problems. Oh and NOT to stand next to big mains when they trip to system. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 12, 2019, at 7:19 AM, Matt Grise wrote: > > I don’t know if “trying it out” is the ideal option, but if the vents can be > adjusted, it might be possible to get the system set up where the water > filled the system at a rate that was fast enough, but also had a tolerable > water hammer. Or maybe some commercial water hammer arresters could be added? > > I don’t know of any non-theoretical calc methods for designing it though. > > Matt > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Prahl, > Craig/GVL > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:13 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems > > Yes, there will be air vents on the system. The FD had concerns on how fast > water would get to the valves due to trapped air in the system. > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Matt > Grise > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:11 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems > > Is the system vented? I imagine that the ability of the air to escape the > system would also affect how fast the water gets moving. > > Matt > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Prahl, > Craig/GVL > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:00 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems > > So, I’ve got an FPE and ME questioning about water hammer in a deluge system. > > We have a unique installation where we have two levels of hose connections > (one array at 12 ft AFF and one at 60 ft AFF) for manual firefighting in an > unconditioned assembly building which is 145 ft high. > > Due to the non-heated condition, one proposed concept for a semi-automatic > system is to use an electric release deluge valve to charge the system from > manual pull stations. > > Flow rate will be 1,000 gpm at somewhere near 150ish psi though 600-800 ft of > pipe inside the bldg. > > The FPE and ME are concerned with water hammer in the piping when the deluge > valve opens based on how fast the valve opens. > > Has anyone dealt with or had to provide calcs for this? NFPA 13, 14, etc. > are fairly silent on the issue. Is it even an issue? I’ve never had this > brought up before on an interior system. > > Anyone have any data on how fast a solenoid operated deluge valve opens? > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged > information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, > copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended > recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in > error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting > it from your computer. > > > NOTICE - T
Re: Clouds
What’s your basis for selecting OHG2? Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 6, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Tony Silva wrote: > > This is for a question I have been asked, and would like to get other > opinions. > > The building is a museum that has 5 to 6 feet diameter clouds simulating a > tree canopy. There are so many of them at different elevations, that > sprinklering below the clouds is not practical. Has anyone else come across > this situation? If so, what has been the solution? > > I was thinking, instead of providing sprinklers below the clouds, increasing > the occupancy of the roof level sprinklers to OH2. Any other thoughts? > > Tony > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: When to Measuring Along the Slope
Perpendicular is at a 90 degree angle from the wall. That could swing through 178 degrees and still be perpendicular so it does not mean parallel to the floor. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 4, 2019, at 7:24 AM, Mike B Morey wrote: > > In this particular case though, one head measuring to walls, wouldn't the > wording of 8.5.3.2 (2016 edition) preclude the need to measure on the slope? > Perpendicular to the wall to me is along the floor. The section before > relating to distance between sprinklers does call out along the slope very > clearly, but the distance to walls section does not. > > > > Mike Morey > CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677 > Project Manager • Fire Protection Group > Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company > 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825 > direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 > email mmo...@shambaugh.com > > > > > > > > From:Roland Huggins > To:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Date:03/04/2019 10:19 AM > Subject:Re: When to Measuring Along the Slope > Sent by:"Sprinklerforum" > > > > > BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. > > Hydraulic calculations uses the distance along the floor. Spacing is along > the slope. You can be perpendicular to the wall and still be going up a > slope. > > The issue of horizontal (up to 2/12) is defined to address design criteria > that is limited to horizontal ceilings (storage and when to increase the > remote area for occupancy hazard approach). > > The REALITY is that the 15 ft 1 in is irrelevant in regards to actual > performance BUT it’s a deficiency in our methodology. > > I suspect it would go unnoticed in 99% of submittals. I also ENCOURAGE you > to submittal a public input saying its ok to measure all the floor in spacing > sprinklers for slopes up to 2/12. > > Roland > > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.firesprinkler.org_=DwMFaQ=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg=puiC-5IXgQVa5G5cN4roPVkPtmJplxelXACPl19h08U=GKmuDGyeH2NVhdPBqFYhcEGmcURYO4DtJCCrp0org5s=> > > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2019, at 10:15 AM, jvankol...@mfpc.us <mailto:jvankol...@mfpc.us> > wrote: > > Our Design team was having a discussion on a situation. > > We have a room open to the roof deck that slope less then 2/12. The room > measure 15’-0” in one direction. Without using an small room rule, is it > still acceptable to install a single standard spray sprinkler in the center > of the 15’-0” direction? > > Thoughts? > > Jerry Van Kolken > Millennium Fire Protection Corp. > 2950 San Luis Rey Rd. > Oceanside, CA 92058 > (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730 > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwMFaQ=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg=puiC-5IXgQVa5G5cN4roPVkPtmJplxelXACPl19h08U=JpKPqPngTtvZzmfvdBYc9p4YKTI2-HUkfhLAMtordBE=> > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg=puiC-5IXgQVa5G5cN4roPVkPtmJplxelXACPl19h08U=JpKPqPngTtvZzmfvdBYc9p4YKTI2-HUkfhLAMtordBE= > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg=puiC-5IXgQVa5G5cN4roPVkPtmJplxelXACPl19h08U=JpKPqPngTtvZzmfvdBYc9p4YKTI2-HUkfhLAMtordBE=> > > > This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, > proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or > privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this > message in error, please immediately delete it and all co
Re: When to Measuring Along the Slope
Hydraulic calculations uses the distance along the floor. Spacing is along the slope. You can be perpendicular to the wall and still be going up a slope. The issue of horizontal (up to 2/12) is defined to address design criteria that is limited to horizontal ceilings (storage and when to increase the remote area for occupancy hazard approach). The REALITY is that the 15 ft 1 in is irrelevant in regards to actual performance BUT it’s a deficiency in our methodology. I suspect it would go unnoticed in 99% of submittals. I also ENCOURAGE you to submittal a public input saying its ok to measure all the floor in spacing sprinklers for slopes up to 2/12. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 1, 2019, at 10:15 AM, jvankol...@mfpc.us wrote: > > Our Design team was having a discussion on a situation. > > We have a room open to the roof deck that slope less then 2/12. The room > measure 15’-0” in one direction. Without using an small room rule, is it > still acceptable to install a single standard spray sprinkler in the center > of the 15’-0” direction? > > Thoughts? > > Jerry Van Kolken > Millennium Fire Protection Corp. > 2950 San Luis Rey Rd. > Oceanside, CA 92058 > (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730 > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Boat Storage
Travis. Allow me to correct your statement. It is in NFPA 13. Look at Table A.5.6. Although the title of this Table is weak (that being Examples of Commodities Not Addressed by Classifications in Section 5.6), it should say OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF NFPA 13. Hey I know the end result of both statements is the same - lol. IT does make a difference, though, in the discussion with the owner. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 21, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G > wrote: > > Nothing in NFPA standards for it. Check with the insurance company for the > project. They may have guidance. > > <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of James > Crawford > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 10:21 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Boat Storage > > I have been asked to look at a new building for boat storage but cannot seem > to find any guidance, has anyone done a boat storage building that can point > me in the right direction. > > > Thank you > > > James Crawford > Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. > Phone 604-888-0318 > Fax 604-888-4732 > Cel 604-790-0938 > Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca <mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca> > Web www.phaserfire.ca <http://www.phaserfire.ca/> > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: [EXTERNAL] Car Lifts
Said report also supports a ceiling of OHG2 combined with in-racks beneath each corner of the upper car (if memory serves me right) Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jan 30, 2019, at 7:29 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote: > > Whether the lift has a catch pan below the car or not makes no difference. > In these installations you can assume the lift is elevated since some people > with one car don’t like to drive up and down the ramps. Or the lift is > elevated because there is a car parked below. In the case of the lift being > in the upper position regardless of whether or not there is a car on it, it > becomes an obstruction to overhead sprinklers. A fire originating in the car > below can grow without intervention from sprinklers until it involves the > upper car. > > There are videos on-line of cars in this scenario where when the fire starts > in the lower car, it automatically spreads to the upper car. Overhead > sprinklers at that point can be easily overwhelmed. > > Do a Google search for: BRE Fire and Security Client Report number 256618 > > It’s some interesting reading regarding car stacker fire protection testing. > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of å... > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:22 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Car Lifts > > > Use common sense. There is guidance on all scenarios is not sorted yet. > If the lift plate on which the car rests has lots of openings ( ~ 50% is the > line in the sand for racking), then overhead-only should be good. > If the car rests on a solid plate to keep oil off what is underneath... I > would find a way and a place to put a sidewall under the plate, if it were my > condo/garage/car lift. > > Scot Deal > Excelsior Risk & Fire Engineering > gms: +420 606 872 129 (GMT+1) > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:14 PM Mike Stossel <mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com>> wrote: > NFPA 13, 2016 now gives us guidance and tells us to protect the area as Extra > Hazard Group II with an overhead system only. > > Mike Stossel SET > > 36 Barren Road > East Stroudsburg, PA 18302 > Office: 973-670-2627 > m...@knssprinkler.com <mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com> > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of John > Irwin > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 6:10 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Car Lifts > > Currently working on a high end condo development. The owners have individual > garages with an option to have a lift installed so that they can get an > additional car in. > > I am sure you know where this is going … sprinklers under the lift or no? I > don’t know of any code references that directly address this situation. > > What say you? > > John Irwin > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” – Benjamin Franklin > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwMFaQ=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=Jo1e1qwt0uyly3BHItLe8ixCVfeOXBmU0-rYWHYpcxA=RFnlkSZzkmufTrLrMwRx52RSYgySh3toqGOT6orCUqc=> > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged > information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, > copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended > recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in > error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting > it from your computer. > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <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: Car Lifts
You need to think broader. It’s not the lift itself (aka plate) but the car on the lift. Just like the load on the rack is commonly the driver for solid shelving. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jan 30, 2019, at 4:21 AM, å... wrote: > > > Use common sense. There is guidance on all scenarios is not sorted yet. > If the lift plate on which the car rests has lots of openings ( ~ 50% is the > line in the sand for racking), then overhead-only should be good. > If the car rests on a solid plate to keep oil off what is underneath... I > would find a way and a place to put a sidewall under the plate, if it were my > condo/garage/car lift. > > Scot Deal > Excelsior Risk & Fire Engineering > gms: +420 606 872 129 (GMT+1) > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:14 PM Mike Stossel <mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com>> wrote: > NFPA 13, 2016 now gives us guidance and tells us to protect the area as Extra > Hazard Group II with an overhead system only. > > > > Mike Stossel SET > > > > 36 Barren Road > > East Stroudsburg, PA 18302 > > Office: 973-670-2627 > > m...@knssprinkler.com <mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com> > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of John > Irwin > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 6:10 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Car Lifts > > > > Currently working on a high end condo development. The owners have individual > garages with an option to have a lift installed so that they can get an > additional car in. > > > > I am sure you know where this is going … sprinklers under the lift or no? I > don’t know of any code references that directly address this situation. > > > > What say you? > > > > John Irwin > > > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” – Benjamin Franklin > > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Residential High-rise building
Late reply but the normal application is that when 2 codes apply (such as both IBC and 101) and a comflict exists, then the most conservative applies. Since both require sprinklers for a high-rise, the issue of closets is IBC require 13 whereas 101 requires 13 with an exception on closets. The most conservative applies - aka IBC thus protect the closet. When both apply and the IBC does not require sprinklers but 101 does, then the exception in 101 on closets applies. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jan 4, 2019, at 4:19 PM, jvankol...@mfpc.us wrote: > > I would recommend checking with the AHJ and seeing if you can apply NFPA > 101 in regards to sprinkler in the closest. > > Jerry Van Kolken > Millennium Fire Protection Corp. > 2950 San Luis Rey Rd. > Oceanside, CA 92058 > (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730 > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Matthew J Willis > Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 1:59 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Residential High-rise building > > Seems your building is a High Rise? > > > R/ > Matt > > Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP > Design Manager /3-D Specialist > Rapid Fire Protection Inc. > 1530 Samco Road > Rapid City, SD 57702 > Office-605.348.2342 > Direct Line-605.593.5063 > Cell-605.391.2733 > Fax:-605.348.0108 > > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Michael Goodis > Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 2:03 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Residential High-rise building > > Are there provisions in NFPA for buildings that are residential use past 5 > stories high? We have an 8 story project with a basement that has > residential useage on floors 1-8 with a combined usage on the first floor > for Mech rooms, maint. Rooms, and storage. > > Does the whole building fall under NFPA 13 (with sprinklers in all closets > and bathrooms)? > > Thanks, > > Mike Goodis > Key Fire Protection Enterprises > 706-220-8822 > > > > Sent from my iPhone > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DRY PENDENTS
Keep in mind that to qualify as an INSTITUTIONAL sprinkler is a decision of the manufacturer. In other words, it is NOT a listed characteristic. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jan 7, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Ron Greenman wrote: > > Where would you need dry institutional heads that would be in an unheated > area accessible to the institutionalized? > > > Ron Greenman > > rongreen...@gmail.com <mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com> > > 253.576.9700 > > The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner > Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-) > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:40 PM Vince Sabolik <mailto:vi...@wtfp.net>> wrote: > Please make my life easier by telling me > > 1.Who makes these > 2.In case #1 is "nobody" (my guess) , how you got around it or > otherwise >fulfilled this spec. > > thanks, private response > OK an I don't blame you! > Vince > -- > > > Vince Sabolik > West Tech Fire Protection, Inc. > 11351 Pearl Road / Strongsville, Ohio 44136 > Phone 440 238-4800Fax 440 238-4876 Cell 440 724-7601 > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Indoor Trampoline Park
Nothing stops one from over-designing a system (for future flexibility etc etc) BUT that does NOT change the requirements applied to the actual use of the facility. As such, it needs to be decided WHAT occupancy classification is to be assigned then it's simply follow the bouncing ball. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jan 3, 2019, at 1:29 PM, John Irwin wrote: > > Some versions of this discussion have come up over the past weeks. We’re > having a bit of an issue with an AHJ in converting a Sports Authority to in > indoor park. Originally we submitted as Light Hazard because it’s an assembly > occupancy. I didn’t necessarily agree with this but … anyway … > > The AHJ then wanted all sprinklers changed because they are 286° sprinklers > and thus, not permitted in LH. > > So I spoke to said AHJ and told him I really felt this should be at least an > OH occupancy anyway, because of the miscellaneous foam padding and plastics. > He agreed (of course verbally and not in writing). We made those changes and > a couple more he asked for and thought we were good to go. > > Today, we received this notice: > > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Pitot Pressure Above Residual Pressure
Occasionally one does get a much higher residual pressure in the flatlands but that's due to additional pumps coming on line as flagged by Cecil. The methodology identified by NFPA is for a very simple system and has not yet evolved to address the part of the world where simple does not apply. I believe the discharge Pv (as read by your pitot gauge) is the same as the Pn as read at the other outlet minus losses imposed by squirting water through an orifice. The Pn is acting on the walls of the pipe (as well as the orifice of the sprinkler or hydrant) which is perpendicular to the flow of the water (so that doesn’t belong in your definition of Pv). Think of Pv as the energy tied up by the actual movement of the water. The energy tied in by the direction of flow can not push water out through an orifice attached to the wall of the pipe. One last thought, except for tanks feeding ONLY your system, static does not mean ZERO flow. Your static reading is actual a residual reading that reflects the OTHER demands on the system. Your residential reading is just the additional demand YOU put on the system. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jan 2, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Skyler Bilbo wrote: > > Steve, > > This was actually very helpful. I was thinking of it wrong. Our pitots > measure velocity pressure. The gauge on the test hydrant is measuring normal > pressure inside of the pipe, or hydrant. I think I have it sorted, but feel > free to correct me. A better explanation is below. > > -The normal pressure is the pressure acting on the walls of the pipe, and is > what is typically measured with our regular gauges. > -The velocity pressure is the pressure acting on anything that is > perpendicular to the direction of flow, like one of our pitot gauges (it > would be the pressure you would feel pushing you if you tried to stand in > front of a flowing hydrant) > -The total pressure is both of these things combined. > > Velocity pressure goes up as you increase the velocity of the water, which > can be accomplished by going from a large pipe to a small one (like going > from an 8" water main to a 2-1/2" connection on a fire hydrant; 1,000 GPM in > an 8" main travels at about 5.96 ft/sec, which equals a velocity pressure of > 0.24 psi; 1000 GPM comes out of a 2-1/2" hydrant at about 65 ft/sec *that's > why it shoots out so far* with a velocity pressure of about 28.8 psi, which > is a pitot pressure of about 35.5 psi, if the opening coefficient is 0.9). > This velocity pressure is dependent on the velocity of the water. > > I was wrong in my original thinking. Hopefully my explanation is useful to > others. > > I don't think the pitot reading should/could ever be larger than the static > pressure, however (assuming elevation is the same, no additional water > supplies kick on, and no negative gauge pressure possible), due to > conservation of energy. The static pressure is the total pressure when no > water is flowing, and no matter how much water is flowing after that, no > combination of velocity pressure or normal pressure could ever exceed this > total pressure. > > > Thanks guys, > Skyler Bilbo > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:33 AM Steve Leyton <mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: > Pitot measures velocity pressure, residual is atmospheric pressure. There’s > not a fixed correlation between the two values – I’m guessing that the main > supplying the test hydrants is a very large diameter one? > > > > Steve Leyton > > > > > > ___ > 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: Concealed spaces in mill construction
BULLSEYE As a PE you don’t have the luxury of ignoring likely intent and simply being LITERAL. The identified types cover both obstructed and unobstructed so are effectively meaningless and misleading (since they don't identify all types). WE do have criteria that is affected by spacing of structural members (aka allowed area of coverage) but that’s mostly due to impact on spray patterns. The three real variables (that must be present to trigger listed sprinklers) are 1 - Horizontal, 2 - combustible UPPER DECK, 3 - short height. This combination creates an aggressive fire (radiant feedback plays a big role). You must ask yourself, what role does either a solid wood joist OR an open truss (assume obstructed and unobstructed as well as both being combustible) OR bar joist (assume noncombustible granted it can have wood chords) have on the fire risk so as to allow a judgmental call that any other structural assembly can ignore this requirement. It’s now on my 6 pages of potential PI’s for next NFPA 13 cycle (WHICH IS NOW - PI’s can be submitted until June 26, 2019) Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Dec 26, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Kyle.Montgomery > wrote: > > I can’t argue with you on the code, but I’m still wondering “Why?” > > What is the difference between the scenario in question and, say, “bar joist > construction having a combustible upper surface”, that requires you to > protect them differently? > > -Kyle M > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Pipe Sch Water Supplies
Not sure East you mean: Not meant fro warehousing but you are converting from a F occupancy to warehousing. Nonetheless,tyhere is no schedule for storage. That was deleted many cycles ago. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Oct 29, 2018, at 2:32 PM, Art Tiroly wrote: > > What is the sprinkler spacing 90-130 SF? > Light or OH? > > Not meant for warehousing. > I'm working on one now converting from factory to warehousing. > 1”, 1”, 1-1/4” does not calculate at 130 SF/head. > Up sizing to get .20/1500 for 8-10’ storage of household furnishings and > storage. > > > Art Tiroly > ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly > 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143 > 216-621-8899 > 216-570-7030 cell > > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Mark > Eckard > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:48 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Pipe Sch Water Supplies > > I remember in some of the older NFPA-13s there were minimum water supply > requirements for Pipe Scheduled systems. Does any one have that information? > I thought I had it, but I cant seem to locate it. > > Thank You > > Mark E. Eckard SET > > Fire Protection Services, LLC > 2126 US Hwy. 41 North > Perry, GA 31069 > Office: 478-987-7319 (Perry) or (770) 702-0965 (Metro Atlanta) > Mobile: 478-244-6653 > SYL-216 > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=icon> > Virus-free. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=link> > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Combustible Concealed Space
This issue was suppose to have been submitted for clarification but it didn’t happen (so will have to wait until next cycle - WHICH HAS ALREADY STARTED with PI’s being accepted). Nonetheless, the issue is does a single layer of batt insulation modify the status of EXPOSED construction? Considering that we allow such a layer to be the defined ceiling for distance below ceiling as well as for the use of listed concealed sprinkler with TJI's, it seems appropriate. Until the TC makes a determination, it requires concurrence of the AHJ. Not to be considered a formal interpretation of NFPA or any of its technical committees. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:53 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: > > We have ALWAYS sprinklered these spaces. > > Steve L. > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of > Kyle.Montgomery > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 7:49 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Combustible Concealed Space > > I’m looking at a building with steel bar joists with a wood nailer and > plywood deck. The building will have a drop ceiling, and of course have > pendent sprinklers protecting the area below the ceiling. > > If there is insulation at the deck that covers the deck and wood nailers, do > I need upright sprinklers protecting the area above the ceiling? It seems > like I would not, but I’ve gone through the section with the combustible > concealed space exemptions and I haven’t found one that exactly matches my > scenario. > > -Kyle M > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: 130 sq ft or 225 sq ft
The FPE kissed the pooch. The 2x6’s drive the boat so it’s combustible obstructed construction with members < 3 ft OC. Now if you put some insulation in the channels whereby the depth of the exposed member is less than 4 inches, then you get to merrily embrace the 225 sf As. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Oct 18, 2018, at 1:06 PM, MFP Design, LLC wrote: > > I have a project with 24” deep bar joist at 8’ on center. Spanning the joist > are 2x6 stringers at 24” on center. I was under the impression that > something like this would limit us to 130 sq ft per sprinkler. The FPE that > spec’d out the project has indicated 225 sq ft max in this area. What does > everyone think? > > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > email:tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > > http://www.mfpdesign.com > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D=0> > https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D=0> > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0> > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <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
SFPE
For the record, the SFPE does a lot of great stuff. I thoroughly enjoyed participating in developing the original book on Performance based design for buildings as well as other activities long ago. Without them, there would be no registration for FPE’s. As Scott already stated, they offer training on sprinklers (and a host of other fire protection aspects). I wish the best for them but…. I simply can’t accept ignoring my little issue (let’s selfishly call it protecting the FPE turf though it is a necessary step in King Mark’s plan) Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Improving the process
BULLSEYE. IF I could make Mark KING for the day, my advice would be: IF engineering doc's identified the design basis for all portions of the building, identified the available water supply, and whether said water supply was adequate (aka does the building need a pump) then get the hell out of the way. Well also ID if they have specials requirements such as the sprinklers being used with glass for a rated portion and the glass assembly is way beyond the listing. If memory serves, this is effectively what the SFPE white paper says (give or take a bit) The Owner’s Certification is a good start. It BTW now includes identifying the water supply as of the newly released 2019 ed. Unfortunately, this certificate is not being applied. If we could work with the AHJ community and get it applied ACROSS THE BOARD, though it will be a painful transition, it would be worth it. Individually this can’t be accomplished since it’s one more thing to do (aka a pain) and the owners / GC won’t rehire individuals that cause pain. IF AHJ’s had to show competency would be a huge step forward. ICC has certification programs for AHJs. The Code program is heavily used by building code officials but the sprinkler program is virtually extinct, almost zero AHJ’s. The AHJ is our safety net to catch the bad installations. There are some goods one (such as on our Forum) but overall a huge hole in the net. The ICC is considering dropping this program. I told them unless it becomes a code requirement (similar to the NICET III on contractors), nothing will change. I’d sure appreciate some private input on starting a push for actually requiring submittal of the Owner’s Certificate (yea, I Know it is already identified in chapter 23 for submittal). Contractor’s: tell me should we push it. AHJ’s: tell me how to reach the masses within your clan. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Sep 28, 2018, at 6:56 AM, Mark.Phelps wrote: > > John, > I agree with you at least 99% with a small reservation for the unique > situations where things like a retail occupancy (think auto parts store) has > 12 feet of rack storage for tires. Someone in the system needs to be > responsible (and be financially responsible, E) for the outcome. And by “in > the system”, I mean designers, installers, plan reviewers, inspectors, and > AHJ’s. Present company excluded, there are scads of “AHJ’s” across our great > country who are the least qualified in this group of five. I will suggest > that a grand solution to the situation could be recognized by the following > changes. > 1) NFPA 13 should be restricted in its scope to the actual title of the > Pamplet “Installation of a Sprinkler System”. Emphasis on INSTALLATION! > 2) A new NFPA standard should be established for the DESIGN of a Sprinkler > System. Call it NFPA 64,000, and limit it to the design basis only but also > establish the bulk of the content as Prescriptive Design, (if this, then > this) and clearly define the line between Prescriptive Design and Engineering > Design. > 3) Go to the schools that offer FPE degrees and improve the curriculum to > include Sprinkler System Design and passive fire protection design for a > broad array of applications and occupancies. > 4) AHJ’s must be regulated to avoid having unqualified, or under-qualified > individuals “reviewing and approving” the work of highly qualified Designers > and Engineers. > Could any or all of this be implemented, or are we all just too closed minded > to “ the way we’ve always done it”? > > Mark at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > On Sep 28, 2018, at 3:27 AM, John Drucker <mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net>> wrote: > >> It’s a joke, most AHJs know that the NICET techs are doing the heavy lift >> and the PE swoops in at the 11th hour affixes the signature and seal and >> collects their $ 500. Lets just stop this charade and recognize the NICET >> techs. The principal engineer/architect of record simply review for >> conformance, ie how the sprinkler system plays nicely with the building, >> correct code references, issues the review letter avoiding the paid by the >> page deal that’s going on. >> >> John Drucker >> From: Sprinklerforum > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> on behalf of Steve >> Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> >> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:29:49 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> Subject: RE: FPE / SFPE >> >> I’m offended too – Sunday night. Though I’m p
Re: FPE / SFPE
The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don’t want to resurrect but this is a different nuance. I hope it doesn’t flare into a drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish to discuss further, it’ll have to be over drinks. I never said they didn’t OFFER training. I said they blissfully ACCEPT engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no repercussions. This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white paper on whether sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively involved with). How can one insist that an engineer be the only one that can do something while the other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ % of the involved engineers are practicing outside their field of expertise? This spun me up. Now combine that with the sprinkler contractors in a state attempting to report unqualified engineers to the Board of Registration and the local SFPE chapter saying lets not flood the Board with every possible complaint so we’ll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and effort). When I was told that the National SFPE organization told them to cease and desist such activities, I lost it. And they lost my membership. If you’re still offended, I’ll buy you two drinks to help overcome your misguided offense. If you have something that counters the subject of my statement, I’d love to hear it. IF you simple want to debate it, let’s do it off forum please. FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long time. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Scott Futrell wrote: > > Note that I changed the subject. > I believe I’m offended now, my friend. > SFPE’s Sprinkler Design for Engineers Class is specifically targeting the > engineers that aren’t FPE’s. It is a thirty-two hour class that is written > and taught by incredibly talented individuals (Mr. Denhardt and Mr. > Scandaliato that most of you know well, to name two) and has been available > for over 15 years now. The class content is based upon the current edition of > NFPA 13 and NFPA 20 and goes from writing specifications; to taking flow > tests; teaching them hydraulic calculations, by hand; working with pump > specifications; spending a great deal of time on hazard classification and > why it isn’t just pick it out of the Annex; and presenting new technologies > direct from manufacturers at every class. > I can’t do much about hiring FPE’s, but can tell you that there are openings > for about 300 FPE’s so there aren’t that many around to start with. > This class is open to, and attended by PE’s, sprinkler designers, and AHJ’s, > and again, the class teaches them what they should be specifying and > reviewing and how to do it. > > Scott Futrell, PE, FSFPE, SET, CWBSD > > Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2 > Cell: (612) 759-5556 > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:33 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows. > > And the SFPE blissfully (and intentionally) ignores this well known fact. > That’s why I dropped my membership with them over a decade ago. > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > > > On Sep 25, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Steve Leyton <mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: > > Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They > are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their engineers are plumbers > with a copy of 13. > > Todd G Williams, PE > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Sidewalls in Extra Hazard Occupancies
The England fire was a car battery issue. Based on the results of that fire (surrounded on 4 sides by fire Dept hose teams and still not controlling it then having MULTIPLE floors involved), I question whether ANYTHING can protect it. This needs to be addressed by the IBC. SO I’m going to naively focus on regular cars. Agree there is currently nothing in 13 allowing this unique use of sidewalls but look at how many years we used SW's under obstructions before 13 recognized it? This is a unique application where in-racks are needed but intermediate discharge patterns make no sense leaving the logical conclusion to use SW’s. So that boils down to an submittal of an equivalency and the need for a PE. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Sep 27, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Pete Schwab wrote: > > Roland > I agree that this topic needs some attention from the Installation and > Discharge Committees. Based on the fire in Liverpool this year, I question > whether OH 1 is still valid for protection of today’s automobiles. #6 which > was added in 2019 edition does now allow sidewalls under stacked cars in my > opinion. > > Not a formal interpretation by NFPA or any of its technical committees > > Pete > > 10.3.2 Sidewall Spray Sprinklers. Sidewall sprinklers shall > only be installed as follows: > (1) Light hazard occupancies with smooth, horizontal or > sloped, flat ceilings > (2) Ordinary hazard occupancies with smooth, flat ceilings > where specifically listed for such use > (3) To protect areas below overhead doors > (4) At the top and bottom of elevator hoistways > (5) For the protection of steel building columns > (6) Under obstructions that require sprinklers > > 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 <http://www.waynefire.com/> > > > > > > I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you? > > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:55 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Sidewalls in Extra Hazard Occupancies > > The EHG2 is driven per the definition for a SHIELDED fire. The annex defines > a 2 car stacker as an EHG2. Thats with CEILING only protection. By using > the sidewalls around the car (as used in the UK fire tests) at each level, > the idea is that it is no longer a shielded fire. AS such, it’s rather > conservative to call it an EHG2. The question to me is not will the > discharge help but what is the ACTIVATION potential for the sidewalls. > Probably ok but the NFPA 13 TC has not yet evaluated or defined a design > basis. Thus it is outside the scope of 13 and a PE should be blessing the > design or the jurisdiction should define it (as some have done). I wouldn’t > get to hung up on the listing constraints. > > Not a formal interpretation by NFPA or any of its technical committees > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Mike Stossel <mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com>> wrote: > > I have a fire subcode official that is requesting sidewall sprinklers to be > located at each level of an automobile car stacker. The car stacker will > have (4) levels of sidewalls located between each car and then an upright > overhead system. They are also requesting that the system be protected in > accordance with extra hazard group II. I could not find any allowance or > sidewall sprinkler that is listed for extra hazard protection. Does anyone > know of a sidewall that is listed for extra hazard? > > Thanks, > > Mike Stossel SET > > 36 Barren Road > East Stroudsburg, PA 18302 > Office: 973-670-2627 > m...@knssprinkler.com <mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com> > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinkler
Re: Exposure protection of large windows.
And the SFPE blissfully (and intentionally) ignores this well known fact. That’s why I dropped my membership with them over a decade ago. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Sep 25, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: > > Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They > are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their engineers are plumbers > with a copy of 13. > > Todd G Williams, PE ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Sidewalls in Extra Hazard Occupancies
The EHG2 is driven per the definition for a SHIELDED fire. The annex defines a 2 car stacker as an EHG2. Thats with CEILING only protection. By using the sidewalls around the car (as used in the UK fire tests) at each level, the idea is that it is no longer a shielded fire. AS such, it’s rather conservative to call it an EHG2. The question to me is not will the discharge help but what is the ACTIVATION potential for the sidewalls. Probably ok but the NFPA 13 TC has not yet evaluated or defined a design basis. Thus it is outside the scope of 13 and a PE should be blessing the design or the jurisdiction should define it (as some have done). I wouldn’t get to hung up on the listing constraints. Not a formal interpretation by NFPA or any of its technical committees Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Sep 26, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Mike Stossel wrote: > > I have a fire subcode official that is requesting sidewall sprinklers to be > located at each level of an automobile car stacker. The car stacker will > have (4) levels of sidewalls located between each car and then an upright > overhead system. They are also requesting that the system be protected in > accordance with extra hazard group II. I could not find any allowance or > sidewall sprinkler that is listed for extra hazard protection. Does anyone > know of a sidewall that is listed for extra hazard? > > Thanks, > > Mike Stossel SET > > 36 Barren Road > East Stroudsburg, PA 18302 > Office: 973-670-2627 > m...@knssprinkler.com <mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com> > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Protection at top of non-com stair shafts
The easy and CONSERVATIVE answer is to say the entire foot print but lets look at what we are trying to accomplish and what is NOT said. Lets start with the question are we required to cover the intermediate landings (any of them)? No. We aren’t protecting the intermediate landing at the bottom. IT’s protection BENEATH it, IF there is open space for possible storage. So, wouldn’t that apply to our consideration regarding the top of the shaft? So teh standard does NOT tell us top protect intermediate landings. What is the objective of the protection at the top? It’s to cover the TOP landing in case someone does stick a bunch fo stuff there. Unfortunately, that's not stated in the standard so we have to revert to logic (which isn’t always accurate - lol). Oh yea, it is stated in the Handbook which USUALLY is helpful. Under FAQ Why are sprinklers required in noncombustible stair shafts at the top of the shaft and under the first landing above the bottom of the shaft? The storage of materials in stairwells obstructs the egress route and is prohibited by NFPA 101. However, if there is an open space under the first landing or a large landing at the top of the stairs it is often an irresistible location for transient storage. As a result, 8.15.3.2.1 requires sprinklers at these locations. SO if we are concerned with the TOP landing (aka adjacent to the doors) why worry about placing a second sprinkler elsewhere? Since it is poorly worded in the standard, discuss this with the AHJ. NFPA caveat as a 13 committee member: just my opinion and not to be considered an official interpretation of NFPA or any of its’ technical committees. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Sep 21, 2018, at 6:02 AM, Ben Young wrote: > > I'm curious to see how the rest of the people on the forum handle protection > at the top of the stair shaft, as we have an internal debate in our office. > > The 2007 edition of the NFPA 13 handbook has an exhibit, 8.29, which is on > page 334, and is involved with 8.15.3.2.1 in the 2007 edition. > > If you're not familiar with the picture, I'll see if I can get a scan, but > its basically a cross section of a stair tower, and has two circled letters > on it: B under the lowest intermediate landing, and A above the top main > floor landing. > > Basically this Exhibit and the explanatory handbook text after 8.15.3.2.1 > implies that the head at the top of a non-combustible stair shaft is only to > protect the top floor landing, and NOT the entire footprint of the stair > tower itself. > > So under this code, the interpretation was that you could protect a 24x10 > foot large stair tower with only two standard spray heads. > > Does anyone else feel this is appropriate? Or how do you feel about the > code/handbook change and the nuance behind this situation. > > I will start with the discussion by saying that I see the appeal of only > installing the one head over the top floor landing as installing another head > at the top over the intermediate landings can often be difficult to do off > ladders, especially if its a very tall stair tower. > > I also can also understand that from an AHJ perspective, 'sprinklers > installed at the top of the shaft' in the code language would be > conservatively read as the ENTIRE top. > > What are your thoughts? > > Thanks, > Ben 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
Re: [EXTERNAL] Sprinkler heads popping off randomly
Initially the high pressure sprinkler were only listed for Light Hazard occupancies. I haven’t seen a change (but must confess I haven’t been looking for it). Has it changed? Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Sep 15, 2018, at 5:34 AM, Ben Young wrote: > > If you're still concerned about pressure you can get higher pressure rated > sprinkler heads as well for a minor extra cost. I believe Reliable has most > of their sprinklers rated to 250 PSI now? (Double check that) > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 3:15 AM Douglas Hicks <mailto:fire...@eoni.com>> wrote: > > what is the failure rate of SR heads at 50 years and 75 years? 1 % or 95% ? > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=icon> > > > > > > > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org> > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org> > -- > > 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
Re: NFPA 13 Closet Definition
If it is a cavity in the wall and the only access is through a removable panel, we call it a concealed space. As for LSC and closets. IF both the LSC and IBC are applicable, what happens when you have two codes with differing requirements. You take the most conservative of the two. So if BOTH codes require sprinklers and the IBC say follow 13 (no closet exception), then fully follow 13. If ONLY The LSC requires sprinklers then the driving code allows the exception. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:54 PM, Jay White wrote: > > NFPA 13 requires sprinklers in closets housing mechanical equipment. Is it > still considered a closet if it does not have a door? There is just a > removable panel to access the HVAC unit. There would be no access to the > sprinkler at the top of the space. NFPA 13 also requires sprinklers in all > closets except hotels & motels. Does Annex D 1.1.6.1 overide this requirement > for clothes closets in apartment buildings? > > Jay White > Sales/Design Manager > Dynamic Fire Protection > 9771 Highway 25 South > Starkville, MS 39759 > PH: 662-312-2426 > FAX: 662-324-1545 > > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: maximum sprinkler system sizes
Minor correction (since you were a little too quick out of the starting blocks): that wold be 20,000 sf bigger since it’s storage. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Aug 14, 2018, at 3:01 PM, Ron Greenman wrote: > > I might ask him if that extra 8000 sqft that you can't see from where you're > working is more dangerous than the other square footage you can't see, > especially since he agrees that 60K will work as good as 52K when it's > operational. > > Ron Greenman ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Baffle for fire sprinkler system
I suspect you are attempting to address the requirement regarding the allowed maximum distance below the ceiling. IF it’s a true skylight (well true per NFPA 13’s definition), then you can ignore the skylight and measure the distance based on the plane of the ceiling (see 8.5.7.1.1). Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Aug 13, 2018, at 7:53 AM, Luis Perea wrote: > > Does anyone know if there is a standard size of baffles to protect sprinklers? > > Some sprinklers are located under the skylight but NFPA does not mention > anything related to the baffle size. > I´m currently using a galvanized steel 12” x 12” shield to protect the > sprinkler. > Do you have any Thoughts? > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: AFSA Seeking New President and CEO
OK we’ve had multiple extraneous comments and other than Matt’s, they aren’t germane. So please resist the temptation. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Aug 3, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Roger Gragg wrote: > > AFSA Seeking New President and CEO > > The American Fire Sprinkler Association, a Dallas-based trade association, > has begun the search for a passionate, collaborative and visionary leader for > the position of President and Chief Executive Officer. > > AFSA was established in 1981 and provides the voice for the merit shop fire > sprinkler industry on behalf of its membership of over 1,300 companies across > the U.S and Canada. The President is responsible for the direction and > leadership of the staff of 22 toward achievement of the Association’s > strategic goals and objectives set forth through a collaborative process > between the board of directors and organizational team. The position calls > for an extraordinary leader with exceptional communication skills, > above-average financial acumen, a commitment and passion to the long-term > success of the fire sprinkler industry, and the ability to foster > collaboration and build consensus across diverse groups. > > A search committee has been formed to find the next President and CEO. Please > do not contact AFSA staff or Board members regarding the position. Instead, > send questions to Steve Muncy via email at smu...@firesprinkler.org > <mailto:smu...@firesprinkler.org>. Visit firesprinkler.org/jobs > <http://firesprinkler.org/jobs> for the full list of requirements and details > on how-to apply. > > > > > ___ > 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: Shadow Area NFPA 13 Fig. A.8.1.1 (3)(a) (2016)
For a doorway from a hallway IMHO the difference is immaterial. Not to start a drawn out debate but how is the ability for the sidewall sprinkler to control the fire in a 2 ft door entry behind it any different than a pendent over a 4 ft wide soffit more than 18” below it - see Figure A.8.6.5.1.2. It shows the sprinkler beyond the soffit but it can be directly over it. Another example, two pendent on each side of an obstruction that is blocking effectively 180 degrees of the discharge. I suspect some folks got overly hung-up on the wall wetting behind the sprinkler and simply said no. The justification of the difference in goals made it sound plausible. Amazing how the TC seems to forget other related scenarios and if valid technical reasons exist that negate what logic is telling us is reasonable, such reasons should be stated. Nonetheless, the morale of the story is that it isn’t allowed on the same wall as the installed sidewall AND there is an intentional difference between 13 and 13R. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Aug 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Pete Schwab wrote: > > Having been in both meetings, it is life safety verses property protection. > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Process
As a matter of process, there is no need (and dare I say desire) fro the entire Forum to see a request to contact someone off Forum. Just copy THEIR email address from the received message and send it. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jul 25, 2018, at 5:18 AM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: > > May I contact you off Forum? > If yes please mail me here: > > bcasterli...@gmail.com > > > Quoting Matthew J Willis : > >> Brad, we go back a ways. >> But., You know better than most that heat detection is second to water. >> You are trying too hard my friend. Simulation will never..., Ever match real >> life. Sometimes, numbers do lie my friend.. > > > > > ___ > 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
Civility
Civility is a requirement for continued participation. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > So ... you're suggesting that sprinklers be ... spaced as detectors? > What's the "deflector" distance of a heat detector and how would that > translate to sprinklers on branch piping exactly? What the hell are you > even talking about? I get that sense Brad that, at this point, you're just > posting for the sake of seeing your words in print because that's the > 2nd-most ridiculous thing (after the Ghost Ship comment) you've ever put up. > Please, just stop. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Fire Proofing joists
I'll take a shot at this but note I’m shooting from the hip (translation - leaves me an out incase there is something I think of later or a Forumite comment that might chnage my opinion). Allow me to start with stating that this requirement has been in the standard longer than my short tenure on NFPA 13 so I can’t elaborate on why 30% was the selected line in the sand. It is a reasonable number though when viewed more so through the perspective of the impact on the discharge pattern (versus activation). Fortunately the question is why is there a difference between the integrity of the boundary between regular obstructed construction and its sub-family panel construction. I might add that we did bring this issue on panel construction to the attention of the committee. When we have structural members greater than 7.5 ft apart but they form a pocket that is no greater than 300 sf, it’s going to capture heat and impact the activation of the sprinklers. Since the ability to capture heat is a function of the integrity of the boundaries, there you go. NFPA dictated caveat: this opinion is mine (and maybe mine alone) and should not be considered a formal interpretation of NFPA or any of its technical committees. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jul 25, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Kyle.Montgomery wrote: > > Somewhat of a sidetrack: > > Can someone explain to me why bar joists with fire proofing can be considered > obstructed construction when they are 69% open, with no apparent restrictions > on joist spacing, depth, etc but for panel construction "there should be > no unfilled penetrations in the cross-sectional area of the bounding > structural members, including the interface at the roof"? > > -Kyle M ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Fire Proofing joists
The question is not is it thick enough to entirely block light from penetrating it but will it block a relative amount of heat similar to a structural member with a cross section that is slight more than 1/3 closed (thus defined as obstructed). There’s also the question of what it might do the the discharge pattern. I understand it would trigger a question but placing the discussion within the above context should put it to bed. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jul 25, 2018, at 7:52 AM, Phillips, Mark wrote: > > To be honest the consistency or thickness varies. > AhJ has questioned if it should be considered solid since you can clearly see > daylight in some spots. > > Other heartburn is that the GC thought it was conventional so the head > spacing is all off. > > "If it was easy everyone would do it" > > > > Sent from my cell phone. Please excuse spelling etc. > > > > Mark Phillips > Vice President of Fire Protection , Kirlin Carolinas, LLC > t: 919-526-1584 | m: 919-610-0490 > > mphill...@jjkllc.com <mailto:mphill...@jjkllc.com> | > https://kirlingroup.com <https://kirlingroup.com/> > 8000 Brownleigh Dr, Raleigh , NC 27617 > <https://twitter.com/KirlinGroup> > <https://www.facebook.com/kirlinllc> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/133201/> > <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KirlinCarolinaSurvey> > > <https://www.kirlingroup.com/join-our-team-careers/#opportunity> > <https://kirlingroup.com/> Original message > From: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com>> > Date: 7/25/18 10:24 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Fire Proofing joists > > When it’s sprayed solid like that it’s an obstruction since it interferes > with the discharge pattern. > > When I’ve dealt with it, the GC wanted us to place all our hangers on the > joists before they were sprayed so we didn’t damage the integrity of the > coating by chipping it away to place clamps. Be sure they don’t stick you > with repair costs from you having to get through that stuff to place beam > clamps. > > > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of > Phillips, Mark > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 10:15 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fire Proofing joists > > Greetings > I would like to get options on a trend we have been seeing in our area of the > country. > Fire proofers have been utilizing a system of mesh secured to open joists > then spraying on fire proofing. The joists can either be closely spaced or 5 > to 7 feet apart. > > The question is should the mesh then be considered a solid obstruction? There > is no consistency on the spay insulation it’s just spray and go. We are also > being told by the GC that we must wait to hang till the fire proofing is > complete and we cannot be located in the joists. (picture attached) > > I would like to hear opinions and others experiences with this situation. > > Thanks in advance > > > Sent from <>Mail > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.microsoft.com_fwlink_-3FLinkId-3D550986=DwMFaQ=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=6qYbbLx8x0UrMujmEGNoh-2hzoFD2d1EB5d2sQF0_OI=9g3YkXH_KWe9tuUgCaH0ezuQimPIr14lVpqPdDon1N4=6OHYVzdEkp-rqgLcLINMzFCTPr93lxdu1M0JrRDF7nQ=> > for Windows 10 > > > Mark > > Phillips > Vice President of Fire Protection > , > Kirlin Carolinas, LLC > t: 919-526-1584 > | > m: 919-610-0490 > mphill...@jjkllc.com <mailto:mphill...@jjkllc.com> > | > https://kirlingroup.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__kirlingroup.com_=DwMFaQ=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=6qYbbLx8x0UrMujmEGNoh-2hzoFD2d1EB5d2sQF0_OI=9g3YkXH_KWe9tuUgCaH0ezuQimPIr14lVpqPdDon1N4=_AIcjetubLiHbRYD-urw2wD3nwDoMUVzvcJD7xwxqmI=> > 8000 Brownleigh Dr > , > Raleigh > , > NC > > 27617 > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Ki
Re: Alchol in Wooden Barrels
Welcome to the world of consulting. Attach PE stamp (or what ever your local jurisdiction allows) and verification of adequate E insurance then proceed. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:21 PM, James Crawford wrote: > > We have a medium size distillery that will be storing the alcohol in wooden > barrels to age, the barrels will be stored on multi-row racks to a height of > 30’. > > We had suggested the Distilled Spirits standard and the AHJ does not want to > accept it as a reference for the fire protection. > > We have had a look in both NFPA #30 and FM data sheets and can find nothing > for the wooden barrels or the storage height. > > Looking for other suggestions. > > > Thank you > > > James Crawford > Phaser Fire Protection Ltd. > Phone 604-888-0318 > Fax 604-888-4732 > Cel 604-790-0938 > Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca <mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca> > Web www.phaserfire.ca <http://www.phaserfire.ca/> > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: 13R ??
Chap 9 would identify a hose demand if it were required. The closest you’ll find confirming that is the annex on portions outside the dwelling unit. A.7.2 tells us that for those sections of the building where portions of NFPA 13 are applied, this does NOT include hose demand. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jul 22, 2018, at 5:35 PM, Richard Mote wrote: > > Working late, going over some calcs from an old 13R job we are making mods > to. Calculations show 100 gpm hose. 13R doesn't require hose right, or am I > having a brain fart? > > Richard Mote > Design Manager > > W: 877.324.ROWE · F: 570.837.6335 · C:570.541.2685 > PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842 > 505A Cornerstone Court · Hillsborough, NC 27278 > RoweSprinkler.com <http://rowesprinkler.com/> · rich...@rowesprinkler.com > <mailto:rich...@rowesprinkler.com> > > *** Confidentiality Notice *** > This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is > privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the > addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an > authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > e-mail at rich...@rowesprinkler.com <mailto:rich...@rowesprinkler.com> or by > telephone at 570-837-7647 and delete the message and any attachments > permanently from your system. > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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
Chatty exchanges
When directing an email to an individual, the Forum is not the place for it. Email them directly. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:38 PM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: > > Tom, > This is diesel engine driven but I was thinking about your vibration analysis > comment, 'soft foot', 'natural frequency'..., and I flashed back on an > acceptance test of an electric motor driven I had designed and got to > witness. Owner, Insurance, AHJ, Pump Rep- everyone is there. Churn hits > steady state quickly, fitter looks at me, gets a nickel out of his pocket, > says watch this, and has the audacity to stand the nickel up on top of the > motor, centered both ways! > It was a Friday so afterwards a very long lunch for everyone with lots of > cold drinks was on me- and I just kept picturing that nickle standing there. > > Anyway, back in the present Friday I thought to myself, "I bet Tom has done > that"! > > :) Brad > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
STOP - PRV after pump discharge control valve
As sometimes happens, a subject just keeps going and going without anything new. Once we reach the saturation point (where condensation is forming - aka tears), it’s time to issue a Cease and Desist order on this topic. For trivial pursuit purpose: Cease means STOP and Desist means DON'T RESTART. Thanks, Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Sidewalls in Partial Soffits
Although not stated, it has to run the length of the space. It’s a heat flow / activation issue. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jul 5, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Jerry Van Kolken wrote: > > I have soffits over cabinets. The GC is asking if they can do a partial > soffit just at the sidewall location to pop over the cabinet instead of the > entire cabinet length. Logically I’m thinking this is a no, but not sure I > have any code verbiage to indicate either way. Is there a reference I can > look at. > > This is project is turning into a really look at the code, or more what’s not > stated in the code. > > Thanks > > Jerry Van Kolken > Millennium Fire Protection Corp. > 2950 San Luis Rey Rd. > Oceanside, CA 92058 > (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730 > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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 Rise and Non-High Rise Standpipes
Although historically it would be defined as one fire area, I believe podium assemblies are being viewed a little differently (I’ll leave it to the code folks to be more specific). Nonetheless, I’ll point out that under IBC 510, you can have HORIZONTAL separation of one structure into multiple buildings. The closest criteria that I can quickly find is in NFPA 14 for single buildings where the upper floors are smaller (so 3 standpipes through the 10 floor and 2 standpipes for 11th and above). You do two calculations using 1,000 gpm for the 10th floor and 750 gpm for the highest floors (see 7.10.1.2.1.1 and .2). Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 28, 2018, at 10:44 AM, James Litvak wrote: > > I've got a building that is two towers with a parking garage in between. One > tower is 11 floors and is a high rise, with two standpipes. The other tower > is 9 floors and isn't a high rise, with three standpipes. The AHJ has said > that because the towers and garage are all connected, the tower that isn't a > high rise is considered a high rise with respect to standpipe calculations. I > had originally considered my calc to be 750 gpm for the two standpipes in the > high rise, them being automatic wet, and 1000 gpm for the three in the > non-high rise, them being manual wet. Does it make sense that the AHJ has > said it is one building with 5 standpipes, and to do a 1000 gpm calc with the > two standpipes in the high rise and one in the non-high rise (the fire pump > is in the non-high rise)? > ___ > 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: Real system pressures versus the calculations
This is not an issue that is intended to be caught by the hydraulic calculations for the system demand. It is purely and simply a deficiency in the pump design (as already indicated by Matt). The original design was fine but when someone changed the water supply, THEY were responsible for ensuring the pump curve was still acceptable. This is also a problem for new systems when water supply modifiers are applied. You have to size the pump for both the sprinkler demand based on the lowest available supply pressure AND the churn limits based on the highest supply pressure. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 27, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote: > > I have a system that was originally designed with a fire pump taking suction > from an elevated municipal water tank. At some point in time the system > source was changed from the tank to a municipal water supply. This change > has resulted in the system pressures being well over 200-250 psi. So far > nothing has blown out, yet but numerous buildings and underground were built > based on standard pressure rated components. > > The thought for the day is this, when you run a calculation, the output will > show the minimum required pressure at the hydraulically most remote sprinkler > that is required to provide the design flow rate. The calculations also show > the deviation between Required and Available system pressures. So, when the > fire pump kicks on, what the system ACTUALLY sees is the rated pressure of > the pump being introduced into the system, not the minimum required pressure > that is shown in the calculations, Agreed? > > If it is stated that in the calculations that the pressure at the sprinklers > on an upper floor will be less than 175 psi but those on the lower floor will > be greater is it safe to assume based on the ACTUAL pressures coming out of > the pump that the entire system will likely see pressures exceeding 175 psi? > > Looking for some thoughts. > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | www.jacobs.com > <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged > information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, > copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended > recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in > error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting > it from your computer. > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <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: Combustible Concealed Void Spaces
It is NOT limited-combustible as per the definition. There are several allowance based on size. The 10 sf pipe chase already identified is one possibility. If not an actual pipe chase (and the AHJ doesn’t like extrapolating to similar situations), look at 8.15.1.2.9 on the 55 sf one. It’s a bit confaluted because it starts with the size of the room below the obstructed space. I believe this is to avoid someone attempting to chop up the concealed space into small areas and saying all is well. A chat with the AHJ is required. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 25, 2018, at 10:08 AM, James Litvak wrote: > > **Sorry for the repeat send, first try had a typo in the subject** > > Often in wood construction there are void spaces caused by various > situations, such as the shape of a bathroom around the bathtub, odd shaped > dwelling units, etc. These spaces are inaccessible and have no insulation in > them. Are sprinklers required in them, and why / why not? > > For context, we (me and coworkers) don't put sprinklers in those spaces > because they don't have access. However, when questioned by an engineer, we > are questioning the validity of using section 8.15.1.2.1 because we're not > entirely sure if it's considered limited-combustible construction. Certainly > the gypsum board on the studs is limited, but the wood studs themselves > aren't. To help visualize, I've included a graphic. The areas in question are > marked with asterisks. > > https://i.imgur.com/v1NIpYB.png <https://i.imgur.com/v1NIpYB.png> > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: % open
Cluster bomb indeed Exterior projection is starting point. 30 ft is mighty deep but since metal the mesh drives the combustibility issue. IF that qualifies as limited-combustibility, then what is the fuel load beneath it? The annex allows some chairs and tables but again 30 ft deep is concerning since there can be a lot. IF protection is needed by the AHJ for either of the above, you then are into the activation question. Although air will move through small mesh, I suspect a high volume of fast moving air (fire plume and ceiling jets) will resist moving through it (unless it melts into a big hole). IT depends on the material and the size of holes. NADA on how big for hole size but mesh is tiny and the typical open ceiling panels were something like 1/4 of an inch wide (and the depth must be less than that). ALL decisions for the AHJ since nada in 13. As Allan lightly touched, a compensatory measure could be sidewall sprinkles along the building. Closely spaced is desirable but not critical. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 26, 2018, at 7:18 AM, Travis Mack wrote: > > Yes, I agree it is getting confusing. > > There is a “trellis” structural frame that is made of hollow steel structural > members. > > There is a “mesh canopy” that stretches over this trellis type frame. > > We have been trying to get data on construction material and percent opening. > > I don’t have the drawing open at this time. The structure butts up against > the main building and extends out about 30’ from the building in the West, > north and east. It wraps around a section of the building. > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Staggering ESFR
It’s been done forever with spray sprinklers and we’ve recommended it many times as an effort to reach the 8 ft separation. Unfortunately, the only guidance we have is in 8.5.2 Protection Areas per Sprinkler. The problem is that L dimension is defined as the PERPENDICULAR distance to the SPRINKLER on the adjacent branch line. I tried to correct this and the TC didn’t like saying the perpendicular distance to the adjacent branch line. I don't remember the exact excuse but they are slow about accepting change to their text. Since not all systems are laid out in perfect symmetry (AND NOT REQUIRED TO BE), this philosophy is not intended to negate staggering the layout. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:26 PM, JD Gamble wrote: > > I need to move a row of ESFR to make room for a door that the ARCH is adamant > about keeping. Can I stagger the spacing (space them at 8’-0” in lieu of the > current 10’-0”) on the one line effected as long as I don’t exceed the > maximum or minimum spacing of the sprinklers? Do I have to match that > spacing / layout with the other lines? > > Just double checking myself. > > TIA > > Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan > > JD Gamble > jgam...@lssofsheridan.com <mailto:jgam...@lssofsheridan.com> > (307) 763-3361 > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Concealed Space
If its a wall, it is structural. It’s the presence of sufficient combustibles that drive the boat (such as a NONCOMBUSTIBLE space with big bundles of wiring) Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 15, 2018, at 6:34 AM, Micah Davis, SET wrote: > > I have a project that has a concealed space with exposed wood wall framing. > I added concealed space sprinklers per 8.15.1.2.1. The engineer is telling > me to remove them stating that, since the walls are not load bearing, they > are not structural walls. He then references Appendix A for 8.15.1.2.1 that > states the requirements to protect the space does not apply for > "nonstructural" wood. Has anyone seen this before? What is the opinion of > the Forum? > > I will, of course, defer to the engineer, but I am recommending that the > contractor I'm working with get a letter from the engineer clearly stating > that they are requesting the sprinkler not be installed. > > > Micah Davis, SET > NICET #124745 > Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV Dynamic Fire Designs > > Mail: micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com > <mailto:micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com> > Mobile: 931-242-1299 > www.dynamicfiredesigns.com <http://dynamicfiredesigns.com/> > Dynamic Fire Designs • 13063 County Line Rd., Box #87 • Spring Hill • FL • > 34609 > > This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise > protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received > it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your > system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The > integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Safety Margin
Mark hit half of the problem on the nose. If we are going to spend time and money on improving the industry, should we get hung up on tweaking the water supply in an attempt to fix other deficiencies in the process or addressing the lack of engineering responsibility (part of which is defining the water supply and the adequacy thereof) and the adequacy of oversight by the AHJ (not an issue in a FEW areas but overall, a challenge)? SO now that everyone has had a chance to pontificate upon the outcome of the NFPA floor action, let’s move on. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 18, 2018, at 8:34 AM, Mark Sornsin [FAR] > wrote: > > All of the horror stories in the world do not change the fact that requiring > a specific safety margin for calculations is difficult to justify in an > internationally recognized standard. I could see Annex language offering > pros for a margin and maybe giving examples of when one might be considered. > > In my view it’s the responsibility of the person engineering the system to > make this call. In this industry 99% of the time that is the designer working > for the low-bid contractor. The designer who may or may not be NICET > certified, depending on the rules of the jurisdiction in which they are > working. The point is the person with the most knowledge of the local > conditions should be making this call. In an ideal world, when you have > someone specifying the design parameters for a bid project, it would be the > specifying engineer. I also realize that this is fantasy 98% of the time, > which is a stain on the engineering profession, but that’s a different rant. > We can’t expect to codify a requirement like this in a standard that needs to > apply throughout the world. It would require specific numbers and these will > vary on local conditions. Instead it is the engineer/designers responsibility > to become familiar with local conditions and adjust accordingly. The example > of reduced water levels in municipal water towers is a great one. Not all > cities engage in this practice, but where they do the designer needs to know > what the minimum static pressures can be. Or the local reviewing authority > needs to adopt specific requirements to match their local conditions. > > But the real problem comes when a contractor is bidding on a job with no real > engineering guidance and no local amendments to account for special local > conditions. The low-bid contractor or will be the one who assumes their water > test is valid despite having taken it at the highest possible pressure of the > day/season. And a specific safety margin requirement in NFPA 13 cannot > guarantee proper correction for this error. > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: NFPA Vegas Convention
Slight modification. The text defining the modifiers will be removed from the body. Although it was stated it would return to the annex, that is not necessarily true. WE still have one more step and that is the TC being balloted. IF they accept the floor action, I believe the current annex material will also be deleted (still need to do some studying on the entire picture). If the TC disagrees, THEN we revert to prior text (aka 2016 text). There is also the aspect of the assured appeal to the Standards Council. Whether or not the statement during the debate assuring that the annex text would return if the CAM is accepted, could impact the Council’s decision to accept the outcome on the CAM. I doubt it but then I didn’t think this one would be accepted by the floor. Some much for my crystal ball. The most important aspect (IMHO) was not included in this floor action (thankfully) and that is the requirement that the Owner’s Representative is to provide the water supply information. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 15, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Scott Futrell wrote: > > Only that the 'safety margin' inclusion in the 2019 edition of NFPA 13 > failed, so it won't be included or required. > > I consider this unfortunate, but I'd guess that not everyone on the forum > would agree. > > Scott > > Office: (763) 425-1001 x2 > Cell: (612) 759-5556 > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:46 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: NFPA Vegas Convention > > I didn't make it again this year. > "Caputo" is the only speaker name I recognized. > Anybody have any earthshaking epiphanies? > > > ___ > 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: Non-Combustible Concealed Space (NFPA 13 2013)
No restrictions due to the presence of gas fired heater except for 8.15.1.4 - composite wood joists channels and then its ALL heart-producing equipment. There is that goofy requirement in 13D for requiring a single sprinkler over gas-fired furnaces in attics. Think of it this way. THere’s nothing to burn and the boom from leaking gas isn’t in the scope of sprinklers. Insert caveat that this is just my opinion and not to be misconstrued as a formal interpretation from NFPA or its technical committees Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On May 9, 2018, at 7:59 AM, Jay Stough <jaycs7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We are bidding a school gym/locker rooms project that has non-combustible > concealed spaces above the ceilings. Most of the HVAC equipment is on the > roof, but there is one gas fired unit in that concealed space in one area. I > cannot find where I have to install sprinklers in that area due to the unit, > but it does not feel right eliminating them. If I put sprinklers above the > ceiling in this area, it would still be about half the building. I know I am > missing something in 8.15, so can anyone help? Thanks! > > Jay Stough > NICET IV LAYOUT > NICET III ITM > ___ > 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: AFSA Membership and NICET
Here’s the NICET link showing what gets points https://www.nicet.org/renew-your-certification/how-to-track-cpd-points/ <https://www.nicet.org/renew-your-certification/how-to-track-cpd-points/> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On May 8, 2018, at 9:12 PM, Shawn Foor <shawn.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Does being a member of AFSA count towards the points need every three years > for recertification? > > -- > Shawn Foor, SET > > FOOR DESIGN, LLC > 6227 S. 87TH E. AVE > TULSA, OK 74133 > P:918-237-1400 > ___ > 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 sprinklers near unit heaters
Other than explicitly stated allowances (such as under overhead doors), you can not mix sprinkler types. The really bad news is, if you can not meet all the requirements, that eliminates that type of sprinkler as an option. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On May 2, 2018, at 8:22 AM, Tony Silva <apsen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Even if in the 7 foot unit heater zone, with the possibility of a sprinkler > being activated? Would it be a lesser evil if a non-ESFR 286 deg.F sprinklers > having the same k factor as the ESFR sprinklers are used only near the unit > heaters with the rest of the system being ESFR? > > Tony > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Mike Hairfield <fsl...@msn.com > <mailto:fsl...@msn.com>> wrote: > Use the 212 deg. ones. > > ASCOA used to make a 286 deg. one but they are out of business. > > Mike > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Perpendicular to Slope / Attic
This subject has run its course and has migrated to a separate topic regarding testing whereas we've hit such a detailed level of minutia that only a very small number of subscribers are interested. So I ask any further emails on this topic be sent off forum. Thanks, Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Apr 24, 2018, at 1:28 PM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: > > Thanks Cecil. > I just know what I've read; > Back to backs stared out as previously listed extended coverage quick > response -- they just modified the deflector for three different angles. They > Did do activation tests though for things like, "if the fire is directly > below the peak will back to back suppress it" > ? Answer was Yes!. > I think the raising and lowering of the floor was in the pattern testing > phase whereby they asked, @16-19 inch deflector, with all three deflector > angles, at a few differnt end head pressures, where does the end of the > pattern hit the floor/ceiling? > 10-12 years ago I quickly found the full UL Listing report on the WWW- it was > full of the minutest of details. > 4-5 years ago I didn't see it anywhere. > > Thanks again Dude! > Brad > > Quoting Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo <prodesigngr...@msn.com>: > >> Brad, >> >> >> The ceiling elevations at UL and FM can be adjusted to a very tall height. >> Is that the same as moving the floor? I dunno. Besides, I only am familiar >> with the testing at Central Sprinkler Co. I'll defer the rest to the guy I >> mentioned earlier. Dude knows a bit about it. >> >> >> It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the >> NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance >> with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore >> not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the >> NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> Cecil Bilbo >> Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology >> Champaign, IL >> 217.607.0325 >> www.sprinkleracademy.com<http://www.sprinkleracademy.com> >> ce...@sprinkleracademy.com<mailto:ce...@sprinkleracademy.com> >> ?? >> OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! >> >> >> >> >> From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> on >> behalf of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com <bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com> >> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 5:50 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: Re: Perpendicular to Slope / Attic >> >> What a time that must have been to be alive Cecil!. >> I've read for changes in full scale burns regarding height they raised >> and lowered the floor because that was only one thing to move and >> re-run. Is that true? >> >> Brad >> >> Quoting Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo <prodesigngr...@msn.com>: >> >>> Yo Everybody! Been a >>> while<http://sprinkleracademy.com/design_course/>, but here goes >>> nuthin' >>> >>> >>> In the Mid-90's, Central Sprinkler Company in Lansdale, Pa did some >>> research as part of developing the Attic Sprinklers. We needed a >>> base for meeting a standard of performance to see if the attic >>> sprinklers could do what sprinklers should do; Control the Fire. So >>> an entire roof top structure was built in a parking lot to see how >>> standard spray sprinklers performed. Well let's just say that >>> the experiment had to be stopped before the whole thing burnt to the >>> ground. >>> >>> >>> We were delighted (I say we I was over in the SprinkCAD division >>> at the time) anyway, the research guys were happy to see that the >>> attic sprinklers did what they were supposed to do. They >>> accomplished control. They had to be spaced at 6' because any more >>> than 30' of throw and the sprinklers would exceed the 400 sq ft max >>> from NFPA 13. It worked!! >>> >>> >>> So with that line of thinking, if we ran standard spray sprinklers >>> up the slope no more than 15' apart AND we limited the opposite >>> direction to 8' in between channels for each set of trusses (120 sq >>> ft). that would work. The heat being guided up the channels >>> created by the trusses could successfully activate the standar
Re: Perpendicular to Slope / Attic
Just the opposite but your reasoning when viewed a little differently will help lock it down. The fire goes up the slope and does not spread out in the normal circle. This results in the adjacent sprinklers (from the channel with the heat) seeing much less of the heat. SO if they are closer to the channel (represented by a spacing of 8 ft) then a normal pressure but if further apart (longer activation time) then a higher pressure . Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Apr 17, 2018, at 11:28 AM, Jeff Normand <jeff.norm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree that wording confuses me also. Perpendicular to slope. Been too long > since I've dealt with this and I have to look it up each time. But I'm > thinking it makes sense that the spacing would be up the slope - fire goes up > the slope - so no more than 8 feet apart up the slope. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mech room sans ceiling & full height walls
This is one of the issue where we were pushing the rock up the hill because it made no sense to limit it to an opening on one side. SO to poke a hole in Kyle’s approach, common sense said “do what” but the standard was quite explicit in it’s requirements. As such, it requires an open minded AHJ to consider an equivalency. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:56 AM, Ed Kramer <e...@bamfordfire.com> wrote: > > It appears the 2019 edition of 13 will delete the “on only one side” part of > 8.15.23.3 (renumbered as 9.3.14.3). Assuming the change makes it through the > process, that gives me a much better comfort level to go to the AHJ and ask > for a variance. Thank you to all who responded. > > Ed Kramer > Bamford Fire > > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: EC & SC
Since not included in the calc why even open that box Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 22, 2018, at 6:37 PM, MFP Design, LLC <tm...@mfpdesign.com> wrote: > > I doubt the hazard has changed, so you would need to have the same design > criteria. Therefore, the ESFR protection is needed under. Now, if you can > use a K17 instead of a K25, that may be up for debate. But, I don't think > you can change from ESFR sprinkler in that scenario. > > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > 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 > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On > Behalf Of Mel Herrell > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 6:35 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: EC & SC > > If this if off topic. Maybe another time. > I have ESFR 25.2 > Is there a reason i can not use K 8 sprinklers to cover under a 48" duct In > same warehouse of my ESFR sprinklers. > > Thanks > Mel > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:53 PM Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org> > wrote: > >> There’s no restriction on using different spray sprinklers within the >> same design basis. There is a lot of confusion on different >> k-factors. The problem is that 13 provides some examples of when it >> is allowed. The confusion stems from the question - I this list ALL >> INCLUSIVE or simply SOME of the examples. IF the AHJ elects to believe >> its all inclusive - oh well. In order too arrive at that conclusion >> you have to ignore the preceding paragraphs which identifies WHEN this >> restriction applies - aka we can NOT change simply to balance or avoid >> over discharge. With THAT portion firmly in mind, the list is clearly >> some examples. Case in point (and not in the list), can I have a 5.6 >> pendent in the middle of a hotel room and a 2.8 pendent in the 4 ft x 5 ft >> entrance? Yes but its not in the >> list.In reality this text belongs in the Annex because it is >> explanatory. >> >> Roland >> >> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler >> Assn. >> Dallas, TX >> http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> >> >> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:14 AM, MFP Design, LLC <tm...@mfpdesign.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Oh, this is one of those AHJs that is heavy badged. >>> >>> 23.4.4.8 in the 2013 edition clarifies it. Much is in the handbook >> though. >>> >>> >>> Travis Mack, SET >>> MFP Design, LLC >>> 3356 E Vallejo Ct >>> 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 >>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack >>> >>> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of >>> low >> price is forgotten.” >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> On Behalf Of Fpdcdesign >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:12 AM >>> To: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >>> Subject: Re: EC & SC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This may be one of those situations where it doesn’t say you can’t >>> do it >> instead of saying you can. Ask the AHJ for his/her code reference. >>> >>> >>> >>> Todd G Williams, PE >>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>> >>> Stonington, CT >>> >>> 860-535-2080 (ofc) >>> >>> 860-553-3553 (fax) >>> >>> 860-608-4559 (cell) >>> >>> >&
Re: EC & SC
Look at 8.5.5.3.3 Must be the same as the ceiling sprinkler (except the allowance for sidewalls beneath overhead doors still apply). Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 22, 2018, at 6:35 PM, Mel Herrell <melherr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If this if off topic. Maybe another time. > I have ESFR 25.2 > Is there a reason i can not use K 8 sprinklers to cover under a 48" duct > In same warehouse of my ESFR sprinklers. > > Thanks > Mel -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180322/1dda3e86/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: EC & SC
I think we’ve exhausted the technical merit of this topic so please take any additional comments Off Forum. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:06 PM, MFP Design, LLC <tm...@mfpdesign.com> wrote: > > I know. It makes you want to beat your head against the wall at times. That > is why I say we have to just love what we do. > > I dealt with one AHJ - who has since revised his stance on an issue in > question - that a formal interpretation from NFPA committee would not matter > because he had his opinion on the matter and the committee members were no > better than him so their opinion didn’t carry any more weight. But, on the > particular issue he told me that, he has since revised his stance. > > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > 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 > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On > Behalf Of John Denhardt > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:52 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: EC & SC > > The handbook's language is clear. But I guess the people writing the > handbook have no real knowledge. Is there ever a mistake in the handbooks, > sure but usually the handbook is right on. Wow. > > I wonder who wrote this Chapter of the handbook? I guess they need to be > banned from our industry for lack of knowledge since the AHJ always knows > better. > > > John August Denhardt, P.E. > > Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated > > 4011 Penn Belt Place > > Forestville, Maryland 20747-4737 > > 301.474.1136 - Office > > 301.343.1457 - Mobile > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:43 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: EC & SC > > I believe the reasoning is the body of 23.4.4.8.4 says extended coverage > sprinklers and residential sprinklers with a different k-factor shall be > acceptable. > > The issue at hand is that we are using Extended and Standard coverage. The > body of 23.4.4.8.4 doesn't specifically say those can be with different > k-factors. The handbook clears this up, but since it is not in the body, > they are sticking with what the body states. > > I don't agree with their stance. Very few do. But, as long as I can see > where they are coming from, and know the rules going in, I don't mind doing > what it takes on stuff like this. It helps when the plan reviewer is > actually a very nice person. He acknowledges that they take a different > interpretation, and understands the other side, but this is what their > department has arrived at. > > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > 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 > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On > Behalf Of John Denhardt > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:27 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: EC & SC > > I have always used 13 - 23.4.4.9.2, 23.4.4.9.3, and especially 23.4.4.9.4 for > this argument. I think a question to NFPA staff could give you want you need. > > > > Could some more language be added, but I believe it is fully allowed. > > > > John August Denhardt, P.E. > > Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated > > 4011 Penn Belt Place > > Forestville, Maryland 20747-4737 > > 301.474.1136 - Office > > 301.343.1457 - Mobile > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of Rol
Re: EC & SC
So being the passive wall flower that your are - LMAO - will we be seeing a First Revision next cycle on this issue? IN order to claim some technical basis, I encourage everyone to submit first revisions (proposals was a better term) to the standards when there is any confusion on the text. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:56 AM, MFP Design, LLC <tm...@mfpdesign.com> wrote: > > In the jurisdiction in question, their interpretation is that you are not > permitted to use differing k-factors and that is the end of discussion on it, > UNLESS NFPA will issue a formal interpretation that it is permitted. > > I love all the people we get to deal with. It keeps you on your toes and > life interesting. > > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > email:tm...@mfpdesign.com <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > > http://www.mfpdesign.com <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> > https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 > <https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692> > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > <https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign> > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack> > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:53 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: EC & SC > > There’s no restriction on using different spray sprinklers within the same > design basis. There is a lot of confusion on different k-factors. The > problem is that 13 provides some examples of when it is allowed. The > confusion stems from the question - I this list ALL INCLUSIVE or simply SOME > of the examples. IF the AHJ elects to believe its all inclusive - oh well. > In order too arrive at that conclusion you have to ignore the preceding > paragraphs which identifies WHEN this restriction applies - aka we can NOT > change simply to balance or avoid over discharge. With THAT portion firmly in > mind, the list is clearly some examples. Case in point (and not in the > list), can I have a 5.6 pendent in the middle of a hotel room and a 2.8 > pendent in the 4 ft x 5 ft entrance? Yes but its not in the list.In > reality this text belongs in the Annex because it is explanatory. > > Roland > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > <http://www.firesprinkler.org/ <http://www.firesprinkler.org/>> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:14 AM, MFP Design, LLC <tm...@mfpdesign.com> wrote: >> >> Oh, this is one of those AHJs that is heavy badged. >> >> 23.4.4.8 in the 2013 edition clarifies it. Much is in the handbook though. >> >> >> Travis Mack, SET >> MFP Design, LLC >> 3356 E Vallejo Ct >> 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 >> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack >> >> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low >> price is forgotten.” >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> On Behalf Of Fpdcdesign >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:12 AM >> To: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> Subject: Re: EC & SC >> >> >> >> >> This may be one of those situations where it doesn’t say you can’t do it >> instead of saying you can. Ask the AHJ for his/her code reference. >> >> >> >> Todd G Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> >> Stonington, CT >> >> 860-535-2080 (ofc) >> >> 860-553-3553 (fax) >> >> 860-
Re: EC & SC
There’s no restriction on using different spray sprinklers within the same design basis. There is a lot of confusion on different k-factors. The problem is that 13 provides some examples of when it is allowed. The confusion stems from the question - I this list ALL INCLUSIVE or simply SOME of the examples. IF the AHJ elects to believe its all inclusive - oh well. In order too arrive at that conclusion you have to ignore the preceding paragraphs which identifies WHEN this restriction applies - aka we can NOT change simply to balance or avoid over discharge. With THAT portion firmly in mind, the list is clearly some examples. Case in point (and not in the list), can I have a 5.6 pendent in the middle of a hotel room and a 2.8 pendent in the 4 ft x 5 ft entrance? Yes but its not in the list.In reality this text belongs in the Annex because it is explanatory. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:14 AM, MFP Design, LLC <tm...@mfpdesign.com> wrote: > > Oh, this is one of those AHJs that is heavy badged. > > 23.4.4.8 in the 2013 edition clarifies it. Much is in the handbook though. > > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > 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 > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On > Behalf Of Fpdcdesign > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:12 AM > To: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: EC & SC > > > > > This may be one of those situations where it doesn’t say you can’t do it > instead of saying you can. Ask the AHJ for his/her code reference. > > > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > Stonington, CT > > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > > 860-553-3553 (fax) > > 860-608-4559 (cell) > > > > > > > >> >> On Mar 22, 2018 at 10:02 AM, mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com)> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I have an AHJ that is adamant that you are not permitted to use >> Extended Coverage and Standard coverage sprinklers in the same >> compartment. Think school building with small alcove area at entry and >> Ex Cov sprinklers in main part of classroom. >> >> >> >> Can anyone point me to a section in NFPA 13 where it is acceptable to do >> this? I am almost certain it is clearly stated, but I can't find it this >> morning. >> >> >> >> >> >> Travis Mack, SET >> >> MFP Design, LLC >> >> 3356 E Vallejo Ct >> >> Gilbert, AZ 85298 >> >> 480-505-9271 >> >> fax: 866-430-6107 >> >> <mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com >> >> >> >> >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesi >> >> gn.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da4 >> >> 2e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2 >> >> FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D=0> http://www.mfpdesign.com >> >> >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebo >> >> ok.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b >> >> 4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C6363790166 >> >> 77342180=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D=0> >> >> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 >> >> Send large files to us via: >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.highta >> >> il.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C >> >> 14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2 >> >> wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0> >> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign >> >> LinkedIn: >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linked >> >> in.com%2Fin%2Ftravism
Re: Underground & Stub-In Requirements
The moderator has nothing to do with unsubscribing. That action is self-driven and automated. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Mar 5, 2018, at 12:35 PM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: > >> ps- does it really take the moderator over one week to approve an >> 'unsubscribe' nowadays? -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180312/4fc6d751/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Underground Dry System Pipe Type
Lets not lose sight that the question was about extending above ground system piping below ground for a dry pipe system and CLDI was suggested. That nixes the miles of pipe that is HDPE or PVC having any bearing. I’ve seen delamination in wet pipe but even if it’s a small percentage, the potential is greater in a dry-pipe water flow event so it merits consideration. The bottom line is that such installations occur but there’s no real guidance. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 19, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <craig.pr...@ch2m.com> wrote: > > So if it isn't CLDI it's HDPE or PVC. > > So I guess I'm confused on why there is concern for this technology. > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180219/317da8e5/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Underground Dry System Pipe Type
Plenty of buildings never have fires. Not a reason to ignore it. Not saying its the sole driving factor but a consideration. It is something that the standards need to address. We’ll see what happens. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 19, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <craig.pr...@ch2m.com> wrote: > > I've seen them but they weren't from the pipe, they were typically from some > yahoo tossing junk into an open pipe the never got cleaned or flushed out. > > Not saying it couldn't happen but there are plenty of 40-50+ year old > installations that never had any indication of delamination of the cement > lining. > > > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > Direct - 864.920.7540 > Fax - 864.920.7129 > Direct Extension 77540 > CH2M is now Jacobs. > 200 Verdae Blvd. > Greenville, SC 29607 > craig.pr...@ch2m.com <mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> > http://www.jacobs.com <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 2:40 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Underground Dry System Pipe Type [EXTERNAL] > > Dont think NEW but old and decrepit (like me - lol). AM I the only one that > has seen pieces of concrete captured when flushing systems or doing water > flow tests? > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > <http://www.firesprinkler.org/ <http://www.firesprinkler.org/>> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > >> On Feb 19, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <craig.pr...@ch2m.com >> <mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com>> wrote: >> >> Why would there be chunks of cement? >> >> >> Craig L. Prahl >> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME >> Direct - 864.920.7540 >> Fax - 864.920.7129 >> Direct Extension 77540 >> CH2M is now Jacobs. >> 200 Verdae Blvd. >> Greenville, SC 29607 >> craig.pr...@ch2m.com <mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> >> <mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com <mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com>> >> http://www.jacobs.com <http://www.jacobs.com/> <http://www.jacobs.com/ >> <http://www.jacobs.com/>> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>] On Behalf Of >> Roland Huggins >> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 1:54 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> >> Subject: Re: Underground Dry System Pipe Type [EXTERNAL] >> >> Dont you worry about the inevitable chunks of cement becoming a problem. >> >> Roland >> >> >> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >> Dallas, TX >> http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> >> <http://www.firesprinkler.org/ <http://www.firesprinkler.org/>> >> <http://www.firesprinkler.org/ <http://www.firesprinkler.org/>> >> >> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:35 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <craig.pr...@ch2m.com> wrote: >>> >>> Cement lined ductile iron. If you use standard DI, and a standard >>> atmospheric sourced air compressor you can have rust and scaling buildup >>> with ambient air inside pipe in contact with cooler ground temps. >>> >>> How are you going to slope underground pipe back to an aboveground valve >>> room? Basement level valve room? >>> >>> >>> Craig L. Prahl >>> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME >>> Direct - 864.920.7540 >>> Fax - 864.920.7129 >>> Direct Extension 77540 >>> CH2M is now Jacobs. >>> 200 Verdae Blvd. >>>
Re: Underground Dry System Pipe Type
Dont think NEW but old and decrepit (like me - lol). AM I the only one that has seen pieces of concrete captured when flushing systems or doing water flow tests? Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 19, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <craig.pr...@ch2m.com> wrote: > > Why would there be chunks of cement? > > > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > Direct - 864.920.7540 > Fax - 864.920.7129 > Direct Extension 77540 > CH2M is now Jacobs. > 200 Verdae Blvd. > Greenville, SC 29607 > craig.pr...@ch2m.com <mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com> > http://www.jacobs.com <http://www.jacobs.com/> > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 1:54 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Underground Dry System Pipe Type [EXTERNAL] > > Dont you worry about the inevitable chunks of cement becoming a problem. > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > <http://www.firesprinkler.org/ <http://www.firesprinkler.org/>> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > >> On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:35 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <craig.pr...@ch2m.com> wrote: >> >> Cement lined ductile iron. If you use standard DI, and a standard >> atmospheric sourced air compressor you can have rust and scaling buildup >> with ambient air inside pipe in contact with cooler ground temps. >> >> How are you going to slope underground pipe back to an aboveground valve >> room? Basement level valve room? >> >> >> Craig L. Prahl >> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME >> Direct - 864.920.7540 >> Fax - 864.920.7129 >> Direct Extension 77540 >> CH2M is now Jacobs. >> 200 Verdae Blvd. >> Greenville, SC 29607 >> craig.pr...@ch2m.com >> http://www.jacobs.com >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >> Reed A. Roisum, SET >> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:11 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: Underground Dry System Pipe Type [EXTERNAL] >> >> I asked a similar question a number of years ago and it appears as though >> the consensus at that time was that dry-pipe system underground pipe should >> be ductile iron. We have an application where the dry-pipe system leaves >> the valve room and goes underground and then extends above ground. Is >> ductile iron the best option for the underground portion? We are able to >> slope to drain back to the valve room. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Reed Roisum >> >> >> Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire >> Protection Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: >> 701.388.1352 | KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> >> >> __ >> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >> __ >> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was >> scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >> er.org/attachments/20180219/ab1fd556/attachment.html> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180219/a31ea507/attachment.html > > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-fir
Re: Underground Dry System Pipe Type
Dont you worry about the inevitable chunks of cement becoming a problem. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:35 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <craig.pr...@ch2m.com> wrote: > > Cement lined ductile iron. If you use standard DI, and a standard > atmospheric sourced air compressor you can have rust and scaling buildup with > ambient air inside pipe in contact with cooler ground temps. > > How are you going to slope underground pipe back to an aboveground valve > room? Basement level valve room? > > > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > Direct - 864.920.7540 > Fax - 864.920.7129 > Direct Extension 77540 > CH2M is now Jacobs. > 200 Verdae Blvd. > Greenville, SC 29607 > craig.pr...@ch2m.com > http://www.jacobs.com > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:11 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Underground Dry System Pipe Type [EXTERNAL] > > I asked a similar question a number of years ago and it appears as though the > consensus at that time was that dry-pipe system underground pipe should be > ductile iron. We have an application where the dry-pipe system leaves the > valve room and goes underground and then extends above ground. Is ductile > iron the best option for the underground portion? We are able to slope to > drain back to the valve room. > > Thank you. > > Reed Roisum > > > Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection > Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | > KFIengineers.com<http://www.kfiengineers.com> > > __ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > __ > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180219/ab1fd556/attachment.html> > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org/attachments/20180219/a31ea507/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's
I guess you could call the side of the soffit a baffle but since it doesn’t extend below the pendent it really isn’t. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 16, 2018, at 3:52 PM, Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org> > wrote: > > Now you go and add another wrinkle from reality and identified soffits. > That’s an unstated exception since we are required to install a pendent > beneath the soffit when its more than 8 inches deep (but there’s a sidewall > often less than a ft away). BTW - this is flagged as needing a little annex > material > > Good thing this stuff is easy/ > > > Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > > Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > > > >> On Feb 16, 2018, at 1:35 PM, Mark.Phelps <mphe...@aerofire.com >> <mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote: >> >> So this minimum space rule applies to sprinklers under soffits and on either >> side of a lintel? I guess I have been of the understanding that this type of >> obstruction was effectively treated like a wall. Is that just not correct? >> >> Mark at Aero >> 602 820-7894 >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 16, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote: >> >>> Reality can be cruel. Without an approved variance, the very bad news is >>> you have a noncomplying system and all the liability that goes with that. >>> After all the crying and gnashing of teeth, sometimes mother has to pick a >>> different baby. >>> >>> Roland >>> >>> >>> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >>> Dallas, TX >>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1wXO1nDy8iYAz2-wkUjZWf5n8JBJh5F1GYGMpa5sAkyrXcYp53UgWPDWk7yMm2GAuKGJs-SDyayG2YArmuwjrZSkbCU9sV2phXwIo5VxEdtibGkfHZUTyhybWoBEh0IsLyjXv912KxMOvIr6Bp4zH5R-GGaDYGo3LHJ9JrUeklb9Z5aYBcghFIysl62kH1aZTGXb8i7TgRoKKIgtxu4xmYvCUnboweqOpNXXl1Xcb9qO-9zgvOKDiRw6GUPr8MUhHd2RnanjOoBFe6hAWvVgxmg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org >>> >>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Rt5VGjvBwdQClxCl63sT3hzlyZTf89OCCrbNtgGCsO3On4Z4UYiPtZeyQZc3G8srveXMRaKYJxK379uyWN1rUNkwAFx_WYGZTWVDbKxKUjAoTDFl7M3G76LK-Mqf2PIiizG8QYGZt0haMrQ7hvgIJMe3kT5Y69SPu313KUYV1XKmyOmjQ8_u00Ujh5Vxeoa5ymesB1FeOOzKhrixOBGdCZqO5Wqi5o9FngecROu4osDq2W0vvxCXC1ZkYlpxPXuMK9VGDaPRZKUmSVCwDPyfSw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org%2F> >>> >>> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Mark.Phelps <mphe...@aerofire.com >>>> <mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I the applications we work in (real buildings) it is not possible to do >>>> so. If I have a sprinkler 10 feet from an I Beam, I can only install the >>>> next sprinkler at the 8' minimum spacing from it. And if I space the first >>>> sprinkler at that same 8' from there, I am over spaced from the >>>> obstructing beam by 12". So.. what's a mother to do? >>>> >>>> Mark at Aero >>>> 602 820-7894 >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org >>>> <mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The one doesn’t negate the other. You have to comply with BOTH. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >>>>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >>>>> Dallas, TX >>>>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/11AaOLmB4GbEARu4YaU_u16EyUnzrX2BM5FR_tPL5oVcrPe8PDEMGFOFNTZw_W613QOFX-p1sOCSOHfzbYNg3lq2AMVYiobBQvuJWjxM0NYjqixKpqTKgio_t--XFyz30IGG9zBFtDRRS3mfB3wjC6Tpz07kT6wHABc6RZ35mypIW581pVqLhPpfXsddxen3NwS3TfOerPq1b_3AasUH9ODWU7WDUdHaicl5lQ0JD29Z9Vq_WHBRsimXtM3gnSFAH-lU-T0kssWfPvJKpNxzrNg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org >>>>> >>>>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1hcpfq6Aet0_1h6nFu-avzR_O96qADNdz7alQIL6l8ARN5J1fl2qjc7_NrgAVKZTjFb_wSLnVCc-ii6BeuzcRj_5KiLISDVqFhq4U8P-fLL-5ZmSWaBpC97OW_8dtu0fucdeE1zC6HsmYX9T7p-VGpAqiAbDak32SQYIeclZQk_dLtQEXULnC7rXnByKRKhQ6EDKuoiJGtIcVjDttfCP9JvV8VOW3x7JJ9r8qxlt-QopgghPNDL9xalZgnxzPkD40_Ccz5ySp78CxMthuFOjNgQ/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's
Now you go and add another wrinkle from reality and identified soffits. That’s an unstated exception since we are required to install a pendent beneath the soffit when its more than 8 inches deep (but there’s a sidewall often less than a ft away). BTW - this is flagged as needing a little annex material Good thing this stuff is easy/ Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 16, 2018, at 1:35 PM, Mark.Phelps <mphe...@aerofire.com> wrote: > > So this minimum space rule applies to sprinklers under soffits and on either > side of a lintel? I guess I have been of the understanding that this type of > obstruction was effectively treated like a wall. Is that just not correct? > > Mark at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 16, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org > <mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote: > >> Reality can be cruel. Without an approved variance, the very bad news is >> you have a noncomplying system and all the liability that goes with that. >> After all the crying and gnashing of teeth, sometimes mother has to pick a >> different baby. >> >> Roland >> >> >> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >> Dallas, TX >> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1wXO1nDy8iYAz2-wkUjZWf5n8JBJh5F1GYGMpa5sAkyrXcYp53UgWPDWk7yMm2GAuKGJs-SDyayG2YArmuwjrZSkbCU9sV2phXwIo5VxEdtibGkfHZUTyhybWoBEh0IsLyjXv912KxMOvIr6Bp4zH5R-GGaDYGo3LHJ9JrUeklb9Z5aYBcghFIysl62kH1aZTGXb8i7TgRoKKIgtxu4xmYvCUnboweqOpNXXl1Xcb9qO-9zgvOKDiRw6GUPr8MUhHd2RnanjOoBFe6hAWvVgxmg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org >> >> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Rt5VGjvBwdQClxCl63sT3hzlyZTf89OCCrbNtgGCsO3On4Z4UYiPtZeyQZc3G8srveXMRaKYJxK379uyWN1rUNkwAFx_WYGZTWVDbKxKUjAoTDFl7M3G76LK-Mqf2PIiizG8QYGZt0haMrQ7hvgIJMe3kT5Y69SPu313KUYV1XKmyOmjQ8_u00Ujh5Vxeoa5ymesB1FeOOzKhrixOBGdCZqO5Wqi5o9FngecROu4osDq2W0vvxCXC1ZkYlpxPXuMK9VGDaPRZKUmSVCwDPyfSw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org%2F> >> >> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Mark.Phelps <mphe...@aerofire.com >>> <mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I the applications we work in (real buildings) it is not possible to do so. >>> If I have a sprinkler 10 feet from an I Beam, I can only install the next >>> sprinkler at the 8' minimum spacing from it. And if I space the first >>> sprinkler at that same 8' from there, I am over spaced from the obstructing >>> beam by 12". So.. what's a mother to do? >>> >>> Mark at Aero >>> 602 820-7894 >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org >>> <mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote: >>> >>>> The one doesn’t negate the other. You have to comply with BOTH. >>>> >>>> >>>> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >>>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >>>> Dallas, TX >>>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/11AaOLmB4GbEARu4YaU_u16EyUnzrX2BM5FR_tPL5oVcrPe8PDEMGFOFNTZw_W613QOFX-p1sOCSOHfzbYNg3lq2AMVYiobBQvuJWjxM0NYjqixKpqTKgio_t--XFyz30IGG9zBFtDRRS3mfB3wjC6Tpz07kT6wHABc6RZ35mypIW581pVqLhPpfXsddxen3NwS3TfOerPq1b_3AasUH9ODWU7WDUdHaicl5lQ0JD29Z9Vq_WHBRsimXtM3gnSFAH-lU-T0kssWfPvJKpNxzrNg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org >>>> >>>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1hcpfq6Aet0_1h6nFu-avzR_O96qADNdz7alQIL6l8ARN5J1fl2qjc7_NrgAVKZTjFb_wSLnVCc-ii6BeuzcRj_5KiLISDVqFhq4U8P-fLL-5ZmSWaBpC97OW_8dtu0fucdeE1zC6HsmYX9T7p-VGpAqiAbDak32SQYIeclZQk_dLtQEXULnC7rXnByKRKhQ6EDKuoiJGtIcVjDttfCP9JvV8VOW3x7JJ9r8qxlt-QopgghPNDL9xalZgnxzPkD40_Ccz5ySp78CxMthuFOjNgQ/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org%2F> >>>> >>>> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Mark.Phelps <mphe...@aerofire.com >>>>> <mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm away from the standards but doesn't NFPA 13 have a paragraph which >>>>> addresses sprinkler spacing on both sides of an obstruction, and only >>>>> limits the spacing to 1/2 the Maximum spacing from the obstruction? We >>>>> routinely space ESFR/Storage sprinklers at 2'-0" from an I Beam on both >>&
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's
Reality can be cruel. Without an approved variance, the very bad news is you have a noncomplying system and all the liability that goes with that. After all the crying and gnashing of teeth, sometimes mother has to pick a different baby. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 16, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Mark.Phelps <mphe...@aerofire.com> wrote: > > I the applications we work in (real buildings) it is not possible to do so. > If I have a sprinkler 10 feet from an I Beam, I can only install the next > sprinkler at the 8' minimum spacing from it. And if I space the first > sprinkler at that same 8' from there, I am over spaced from the obstructing > beam by 12". So.. what's a mother to do? > > Mark at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 16, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org > <mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote: > >> The one doesn’t negate the other. You have to comply with BOTH. >> >> >> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >> Dallas, TX >> http://secure-web.cisco.com/11AaOLmB4GbEARu4YaU_u16EyUnzrX2BM5FR_tPL5oVcrPe8PDEMGFOFNTZw_W613QOFX-p1sOCSOHfzbYNg3lq2AMVYiobBQvuJWjxM0NYjqixKpqTKgio_t--XFyz30IGG9zBFtDRRS3mfB3wjC6Tpz07kT6wHABc6RZ35mypIW581pVqLhPpfXsddxen3NwS3TfOerPq1b_3AasUH9ODWU7WDUdHaicl5lQ0JD29Z9Vq_WHBRsimXtM3gnSFAH-lU-T0kssWfPvJKpNxzrNg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org >> >> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1hcpfq6Aet0_1h6nFu-avzR_O96qADNdz7alQIL6l8ARN5J1fl2qjc7_NrgAVKZTjFb_wSLnVCc-ii6BeuzcRj_5KiLISDVqFhq4U8P-fLL-5ZmSWaBpC97OW_8dtu0fucdeE1zC6HsmYX9T7p-VGpAqiAbDak32SQYIeclZQk_dLtQEXULnC7rXnByKRKhQ6EDKuoiJGtIcVjDttfCP9JvV8VOW3x7JJ9r8qxlt-QopgghPNDL9xalZgnxzPkD40_Ccz5ySp78CxMthuFOjNgQ/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org%2F> >> >> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Mark.Phelps <mphe...@aerofire.com >>> <mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm away from the standards but doesn't NFPA 13 have a paragraph which >>> addresses sprinkler spacing on both sides of an obstruction, and only >>> limits the spacing to 1/2 the Maximum spacing from the obstruction? We >>> routinely space ESFR/Storage sprinklers at 2'-0" from an I Beam on both >>> sides in this application. >>> >>> Mark at Aero >>> 602 820-7894 >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org >>> <mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote: >>> >>>> You still need to get approval of the AHJ (as an equivalency) since NFPA >>>> 13 does not allow it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >>>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >>>> Dallas, TX >>>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1itLE6KI-0YvJ1O45X-H49Sz3FDbGxbyzHLZJkAbQXBXC6TUcVFrJZya7TLnA8Ut2OGf3AF_WbKtBmNFbDz5s0noy3S3-pWB0AzUSHu5TX6l1iqlQ05nFibAMML6rSjHcP5pmA8hp_QEbruyQaw8a1pTisuJwPbnzqdKMm7-YmBzD5DJlCkcneBQU0PxOeYljUgXfjbADGEM2pBaTCy610TUk2w7i3H2Pon6RScLsPAmSurc0ob7fCWUadpxLLUhMON7FFAP3xAa9PtY3ru4JdA/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org >>>> >>>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1gaQcMS-LbBp6Jj0YkGnzaHbPgLw41B9RPOI0VnW-c4TnRlVE5BDuXcfPtCJSlaixPN6oazrltd-gVfYKy5SIxjOXx3fGK-oJSgIZLjt2v_4tLTSl_zo-j4QUMb5xMJ1YCuEk-EDcY9PmTaVDXFfgyVdcNKIiV2tIPQHWo2OwgTWlgKRwc1qUlntQZ8jLjbkzoziLbfls6V43gltorbCDzFWQpfYoZaVpt2S6t3ARnRVM2N2Z4_x6xhXoSTzqRUEcnPQDA1t7pLPq2JKPI2a4Dw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org%2F> >>>> >>>> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:45 AM, Brian Harris <bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com >>>>> <mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Mark- >>>>> I got a phone call yesterday from a member of one of the committees who >>>>> essentially said the same thing. I’ve re-spotted heads using ESFR in each >>>>> pocket over the storage area and the calc’s are much better, still need >>>>> to find some more cushion somewhere. Thanks again for the response. >>>>> >>>>> Brian Harris, CET >>>>> BVS Systems Inc. >>>>> bvssytemsinc.com >>>>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1FryT8Ikt3abUxObRrFIcU1_D5fdxxXawM
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's
The one doesn’t negate the other. You have to comply with BOTH. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Mark.Phelps <mphe...@aerofire.com> wrote: > > I'm away from the standards but doesn't NFPA 13 have a paragraph which > addresses sprinkler spacing on both sides of an obstruction, and only limits > the spacing to 1/2 the Maximum spacing from the obstruction? We routinely > space ESFR/Storage sprinklers at 2'-0" from an I Beam on both sides in this > application. > > Mark at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 16, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org > <mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote: > >> You still need to get approval of the AHJ (as an equivalency) since NFPA 13 >> does not allow it. >> >> >> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >> Dallas, TX >> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1itLE6KI-0YvJ1O45X-H49Sz3FDbGxbyzHLZJkAbQXBXC6TUcVFrJZya7TLnA8Ut2OGf3AF_WbKtBmNFbDz5s0noy3S3-pWB0AzUSHu5TX6l1iqlQ05nFibAMML6rSjHcP5pmA8hp_QEbruyQaw8a1pTisuJwPbnzqdKMm7-YmBzD5DJlCkcneBQU0PxOeYljUgXfjbADGEM2pBaTCy610TUk2w7i3H2Pon6RScLsPAmSurc0ob7fCWUadpxLLUhMON7FFAP3xAa9PtY3ru4JdA/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org >> >> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1gaQcMS-LbBp6Jj0YkGnzaHbPgLw41B9RPOI0VnW-c4TnRlVE5BDuXcfPtCJSlaixPN6oazrltd-gVfYKy5SIxjOXx3fGK-oJSgIZLjt2v_4tLTSl_zo-j4QUMb5xMJ1YCuEk-EDcY9PmTaVDXFfgyVdcNKIiV2tIPQHWo2OwgTWlgKRwc1qUlntQZ8jLjbkzoziLbfls6V43gltorbCDzFWQpfYoZaVpt2S6t3ARnRVM2N2Z4_x6xhXoSTzqRUEcnPQDA1t7pLPq2JKPI2a4Dw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org%2F> >> >> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:45 AM, Brian Harris <bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com >>> <mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Mark- >>> I got a phone call yesterday from a member of one of the committees who >>> essentially said the same thing. I’ve re-spotted heads using ESFR in each >>> pocket over the storage area and the calc’s are much better, still need to >>> find some more cushion somewhere. Thanks again for the response. >>> >>> Brian Harris, CET >>> BVS Systems Inc. >>> bvssytemsinc.com >>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1FryT8Ikt3abUxObRrFIcU1_D5fdxxXawMJ3tRKAfDq1J4Bd5c3vb-ShiqIJ8cGUDkiq3_V7q046N6dQxTczruYMhD-lEpL1RhsWsaUFmYiqd3gBAEDa83CTrk--G9JndlyaOCQe3dmpbjAdUj0jN3tPRT5buhY8S44akmM4ZMmIyL6HGTRFVbMYdEP86VQa3NQsutibokLpiUk8O_Vhsc9q_gQqXMPItQerUZAn-QBFHtIKTkSIsrNDN4gPZcJfxuMwyvT327bVKTF0C6_TjZg/http%3A%2F%2Fbvssystemsinc.com%2F> >>> >>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Mark >>> Sornsin [FAR] >>> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:41 AM >>> To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>' >>> Subject: RE: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's >>> >>> This may not be an FM job – and FM doesn’t use the term ESFR anymore, but… >>> >>> I am familiar with an FM job where storage (aka ESFR) sprinklers were used >>> in every tee space of concrete tee construction – they were 30” deep tees. >>> The rule against not spacing sprinklers closer than 8’ didn’t apply because >>> the tees prevented cold soldering. The trick however is that FM has a >>> minimum design area for their storage sprinkler calculations (Despite the >>> base design being 12 sprinklers at a given pressure). That area is 12 x >>> the minimum sprinkler coverage area of 64 sq.ft., which is 768 sq.ft. >>> >>> I.e. if your design area does not meet 768 sq.ft. FM requires you add >>> sprinklers until you reach that threshold. >>> >>> Again, the main point here is that the minimum spacing is meant for >>> adjacent sprinklers, but not those obstructed from each other by >>> construction features – at least in FM’s opinion. >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1naImZp36tbKvd-rE8Lq8Snmcp7AWVf_fow06qFuTm-3st78J7fiMwAVI_bZSfKbV6wmJdiNzVSMbwNLV028ySp6raYqy_Q2K2JVTnd0ZxsgYtz5q506xFQ_bhk1jibQFb6aQvvB88bxuhPNCNC0kFCKn7xOUgfe6J2znCw1bl_h4CmKWZLcDWLm6JX21oZmK9j6WUPti0yxNZ6lNsTXlHz2COB2_gK4L3Lf2eC7AGriuTv7dZAXZivw6En1vvQZ0teCMEC--V7PoruPz9p5DXA/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.summitcous.com%2F> >>> >>>
Re: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's
You still need to get approval of the AHJ (as an equivalency) since NFPA 13 does not allow it. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:45 AM, Brian Harris <bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com> wrote: > > Mark- > I got a phone call yesterday from a member of one of the committees who > essentially said the same thing. I’ve re-spotted heads using ESFR in each > pocket over the storage area and the calc’s are much better, still need to > find some more cushion somewhere. Thanks again for the response. > > Brian Harris, CET > BVS Systems Inc. > bvssytemsinc.com <http://bvssystemsinc.com/> > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Mark > Sornsin [FAR] > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:41 AM > To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>' > Subject: RE: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's > > This may not be an FM job – and FM doesn’t use the term ESFR anymore, but… > > I am familiar with an FM job where storage (aka ESFR) sprinklers were used in > every tee space of concrete tee construction – they were 30” deep tees. The > rule against not spacing sprinklers closer than 8’ didn’t apply because the > tees prevented cold soldering. The trick however is that FM has a minimum > design area for their storage sprinkler calculations (Despite the base design > being 12 sprinklers at a given pressure). That area is 12 x the minimum > sprinkler coverage area of 64 sq.ft., which is 768 sq.ft. > > I.e. if your design area does not meet 768 sq.ft. FM requires you add > sprinklers until you reach that threshold. > > Again, the main point here is that the minimum spacing is meant for adjacent > sprinklers, but not those obstructed from each other by construction features > – at least in FM’s opinion. > > > <http://www.summitcous.com/> > Mark Sornsin > Sr. Fire Protection Engineer > Direct: 701-499-1391 > Cell: 701-526-8585 > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Brian > Harris > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:29 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's > > Looking for some confirmation that ESFR heads cannot be used with concrete > tee construction when the tee is 26” deep. Cut sheet says in this case you’d > have to put them in each bay but also says heads can’t be closer than 8’, > tee’s are 6’ on center. > > Brian Harris, CET > BVS Systems Inc. > Design Manager > bvssystemsinc.com <http://bvssystemsinc.com/> > Phone: 704.896.9989 > Fax: 704.896.1935 > > > __ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > <http://www.symanteccloud.com/> > __ > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <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: QR/SR Sprinklers
The latest text is AN EXCEPTION to the base rule. I miss the old format. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 15, 2018, at 3:54 PM, Nick Maneen <nman...@sentryfp.com> wrote: > > So, since this sprinkler is QR at areas less than 196 sqft, does it matter if > you use a 5.6k QR or the same sprinkler in this case? > > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: QR/SR Sprinklers
I would apply then 2016 edition to the 2013 ed as CLARIFICATION. We added to answer your question. It is NOT The thermal element. It is the listing of the sprinkler in order to be QR. Keep in mind that it was only a cycle or two ago where there was NO restriction on mixing thermal sensitivity for new installations. Modifying an existing systems had a restriction but not totally new (yea go figure). We added it but didn’t think about the EC sprinkler having a fast response link but a SR rating (common at 20 X 20 but also smaller areas for lower temp. ratings). Next question: Can I use said 20 x 20 spaced EC sprinkler in a light hazard occupancy? Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 15, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Ed Kramer <e...@bamfordfire.com> wrote: > > Reference section 8.3.3.2 of the 2013 edition of NFPA 13: “Where QR > sprinklers are installed, all sprinklers within a compartment shall be > quick-response unless otherwise permitted in 8.3.3.3.” Section 8.3.3.3 isn’t > applicable for this question. > > I’m protecting an OH II sales area with EC sprinklers spaced (mostly) at > 18’x18’. This particular sprinkler is listed as SR at that spacing, but is > listed as QR for 14’x14’ and smaller spacing. This sales area has a small 20 > sf nook (not a separate compartment) that requires an additional sprinkler. > My intent is to protect that nook with a K5.6 sprinkler. > > Should the K5.6 sprinkler be SR or QR? > > The answer is probably SR since the EC sprinklers are installed at a spacing > that has a SR listing. But that would be mixing a standard-response element > with a fast-response element – something I’ve been led to believe is not cool. > > The 2016 flavor of NFPA 13 has a new section 8.3.3.5 that allows mixing a SR > listing with a QR listing as long as it’s the same sprinkler (and therefor > both have the same fast-response element). > > Anybody want to give their 2 cents? > > Ed Kramer > Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc. > 5134 Merriam Dr./Shawnee Mission, KS 66203 > Phone: 913-432-6688 Fax: 913-432-5294 Cell: 785-766-4894 > e...@bamfordfire.com <mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com> > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Glazing Protection with standard spray
The industry has used spray sprinklers with glazing as an alternate approach for a long time. Having said that, the ONLY place it is official blessed is for Atrium glass (unless something was added since I looked a couple of cycles ago but with the WS sprinkler covering a wider spectrum not a lot of energy being invested on said other places). Since 13 says use a listed sprinkler or allowed by the codes, that narrows the easy application to that described by the mfg cut sheet or for atrium glass. Regarding the NFPA 101 guidance, I’ve always been worried (in our crazy world of litigation) about proving the requirement to wet the ENTIRE surface with a parabolic pendent sprinkler (which gets little or no attention in the evaluation). Just because an AHJ accepts it doesn’t mean one of my fellow Prostitutes Extraordinaire won’t help some dirt ball attorney sue you. SO the first question is, is it worth the effort. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Jerry Van Kolken <jvankol...@mfpc.us> wrote: > > Okay, Is been about a decade since I’ve dealt glazing protection. Is there > any information on protecting window with standard spray sprinklers. I’ve > been told this was direction was approved by the AHJ. > > Jerry Van Kolken > Millennium Fire Protection > (760) 722-2722 > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Glazing Protection with standard spray
Curious as to what fire model could be applied to this evaluation? Fire modeling has very limited areas of applicability. For instance, we currently are NOT able to model the effectiveness of sprinklers on the fire itself (despite the model performing it and people blissfully applying it). On the other hand, NIST and others are continually advancing the science and things may have changed while I was sleeping. What’s the latest? Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 13, 2018, at 3:52 PM, Sean & Christine Conlin <conlin...@rogers.com> > wrote: > > In lieu of sticking your neck out and using an alternative solution, you may > want to look at the FireLite products. The alternative solution may work for > you if fire modelling is used to support your argument. > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Institutional sprinklers in 13R
Ok put your skates on if your going to go out on the ice with me. It’s a 13R building. You want to use a type of sprinkler not available in the residential family so are applying 13 in so far as it is applicable (aka as defined by outside the dwelling unit). QR spray sprinklers are accepted for dwelling units while applying the LH design basis (as per 13). If we can apply the hybrid design basis fro OH in a 13R system, why not for LH? That’s my trail of dots. Since it is not explicitly drawn in the standard, discuss with the AHJ. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 7, 2018, at 4:01 PM, Fpdcdesign <fpdcdes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I wasn't sure I could justify these rooms as outside the dwelling unit when > the crux of my argument is that the entire building is a dwelling unit. > > I told the owner that if we went with institutional sprinklers, we would need > to change the design to NFPA 13, at an additional cost. Suddenly the > requirement went away. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > 860-553-3553 (fax) > 860-608-4559 (cell) > > >> On Feb 7, 2018 at 6:19 PM, > <mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote: >> >> There’s also the hybrid room design method for outside the dwelling uniting >> 13R: 7.2.3.1 (so deemed a more demanding design basis) that could be applied. >> >> >> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering >> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. >> Dallas, TX >> http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> >> >> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:43 AM, Fpdcdesign <fpdcdes...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I am working on a group home which is being designed as NFPA 13R (2010). >>> The owner is requiring instutional sprinklers in the bedrooms only. I >>> cannot find any institutional residential sprinklers, so we are going to >>> have to use commercial QR instutional sprinklers. Section 6.2.1.3.1 states >>> that when using QR sprinklers, the density/area shall be a minimum of 0.10 >>> gpm/sqft over the entire dwelling unit. In this situation, based on the >>> NFPA 13R definition of dwelling unit, we would need to calculate 0.10 >>> gpm/sqft over the entire 2 story house. That doens't make sense. Am I >>> missing something? >>> >>> Todd G Williams, PE >>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>> Stonington, CT >>> 860-535-2080 (ofc) >>> 860-553-3553 (fax) >>> 860-608-4559 (cell) >>> ___ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> >>> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org> >> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Church Steeple
ALONG the pitch of the ceiling(s) that is inside the HORIZONTAL floor area IS one level. That’s why we have the section in 8.6.4.1.3 on steeply pitched ceiling Roland Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Fpdcdesign <fpdcdes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's a tough call without seeming the drawing and/or visiting the building. > Without NFPA 13 (or other technical source) guidance, it comes down to > engineering judgement. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > 860-553-3553 (fax) > 860-608-4559 (cell) > > >> On Feb 7, 2018 at 6:27 PM, > <mailto:dbit...@questlosscontrol.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I have a very tall but narrow church steeple to protect. At the peak, there >> is a single sprinkler head, with the lower levels having between 2 and 4 >> sprinklers at each level. I am having a problem determining the heads to >> include in my design area. The levels are not closed off from each other, >> so I think that restricting the calculations to one level would not be >> conservative enough. I have not found any guidance in NFPA 13. >> >> I would appreciate your thoughts about this issue. >> >> David Bitton, ing./Eng. >> Quest Loss Control Services Inc. >> Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest >> 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200 >> Montréal, Québec >> H4P 1T8 >> (514) 341-4545 >> www.questlosscontrol.com <http://www.questlosscontrol.com/> >> >> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Institutional sprinklers in 13R
There’s also the hybrid room design method for outside the dwelling uniting 13R: 7.2.3.1 (so deemed a more demanding design basis) that could be applied. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:43 AM, Fpdcdesign <fpdcdes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am working on a group home which is being designed as NFPA 13R (2010). The > owner is requiring instutional sprinklers in the bedrooms only. I cannot find > any institutional residential sprinklers, so we are going to have to use > commercial QR instutional sprinklers. Section 6.2.1.3.1 states that when > using QR sprinklers, the density/area shall be a minimum of 0.10 gpm/sqft > over the entire dwelling unit. In this situation, based on the NFPA 13R > definition of dwelling unit, we would need to calculate 0.10 gpm/sqft over > the entire 2 story house. That doens't make sense. Am I missing something? > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > 860-553-3553 (fax) > 860-608-4559 (cell) > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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: Apartment Crawl Space
This is indeed the opinion of the 13R technical committee. The problem is that it isn’t their decision to make. That belongs to the building code and it says it is possible with the right combination of variables. Same things applies to NFPA 13 equipment that the ENTIRE building must be protected. Again, NOT so depending on the variables. As stated in the 2016 edition of the Sprinkler Handbook "The oldest and most important design rule of NFPA 13 is that sprinklers should be installed in all areas of a building. This requirement dates back to the first edition of NFPA 13, published in 1896, which contained the statement “sprinklers to be placed throughout premises” in the section on location and arrangement of sprinklers. This philosophy is part of the insurance-based attitude toward risk and levels of protection that founded the standard. To truly minimize risk, the entire building must be protected. However, insurance is no longer the primary driver for when sprinkler protection is provided. That role is played by the building codes. It is possible to have a mixed occupancy building that is fully compliant with the building code and only have one of the occupancies sprinklered. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jan 11, 2018, at 2:42 PM, David Bitton <dbit...@questlosscontrol.com> > wrote: > > I would also add the following excerpt from the Annex of NFPA 13R (2013 > Edition) > > A1.1 Where buildings are greater than four stories in height, or where > buildings are of mixed use where residential is not the predominant > occupancy, residential portions of such buildings should be protected with > residential or quick-response sprinklers in accordance with 8.4.5 of NFPA 13. > Other portions of such buildings should be protected in accordance with NFPA > 13. > > > David Bitton, ing./Eng. > Quest Loss Control Services Inc. > Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest > 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200 > Montréal, Québec > H4P 1T8 > (514) 341-4545 > www.questlosscontrol.com <http://www.questlosscontrol.com/> > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Steve > Leyton > Sent: January 11, 2018 4:34 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: RE: Apartment Crawl Space > > Duane: > > Having taught NFPA sprinkler seminars for 8 or 9 years and having served on > the AUTRSS for 5 cycles, I am reasonably certain that this isn’t accurate. > NFPA 13R has had various explanations in A.1.1 over the years, but the > current one states, > > “NFPA 13R is appropriate for use as an alternative to NFPA 13 only in those > residential occupancies as defined in this standard up to and including four > aboveground stories in height, and limited to buildings that are 60 ft (18 m) > or less in height above grade plane, which is consistent with limits > established by model building codes for buildings of Type V construction…” > It goes on to address multiple separated occupancies, accessory uses and > other potential restrictions. > > The intent is that 13 and 13R can be used in the same structure when they are > separated to the satisfaction of the applicable code as approved by the > building official and/or fire official. The most obvious application would > be a podium where the upper-most deck creates a (3-hour) horizontal > separation, on top of which you can building a Type V building that will be > no taller than 60 ft. above grade plane. That could be a two- or three- or > four-story building, depending on the height of the podium. The use of 13R > is only applicable in “buildings” up to four-stories tall, so you cannot > apply 13 to a fifth floor under any circumstances; it has to be 13 all the > way. But you can use 13 in the “lower” building and 13R in a conforming > “upper” building when you have a horizontal separation as defined by your > code, so long as the residential part is four stories or less. > > Unless you’re in CA, in which case our amendments to Chapter 5 make it > mandatory to use 13 in any four-story Type 5, or in a three-story Type 5B. > > The preceding is my opinion only, > Steve Leyton > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Fox, > Duane T. (FireMarsha
