[Sprinklerforum] Re: Dry System Drain Manifolds

[Russell Gregory]

Note the tie-in drains are restricted to 25nb to stop the Dry Pipe tree system 
becoming a grid system.

 

Russell Gregory

 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz <mailto:rcgreg...@snap.net.nz> 

 

 

 

From: Jamie Seidl 
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 3:32 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Dry System Drain Manifolds

 

You can tie-in multiple low point drains on dry systems together. it's actually 
a "shall" for multiple branchlines.

NFPA 13 2013 & 2016

8.16.2.5.3.6 Tie-in drains shall be provided for multiple adjacent trapped 
branch pipes and shall be only 1 in. (25 mm).Tie-in drain lines shall be 
pitched a minimum of 1⁄2 in. per 10 ft(4 mm/m).

This section was moved to 16.10.5.3.6 in 2019.

 

I don't see any reason you couldn't provide tie-in drains post drum drip either.

 

Jamie Seidl

 

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 4:53 PM Taylor Schumacher mailto:tay...@sfsprinkler.com> > wrote:

I remember seeing something that says you cannot combine dry system drains 
together, but I cannot find it. FWIW, this would be post drum drips.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Taylor Schumacher

 


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org> 


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Metric

[Russell Gregory]

In NZ we use mm/min and I believe this is the usual expression in most Metric 
Standards.

 

Regards,

Russell

 

Russell Gregory

41A Diamond Avenue,

Christchurch 8024

 

Ph  03 338 4853

Cell(Russell) 0274 917 909

 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz <mailto:rcgreg...@snap.net.nz> 

 

 

 

From: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:47 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Metric

 

Those of you who use the metric system, do you typically use mm/min or 
L/min/m**2 to describe density? I realize they are the same but am interested 
in how it is expressed. 

 

Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080   (ofc)

860-554-7054(fax)

860-608-4559   (cell)


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

[Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum]

I think.there is something in NFPA 13 that states  obstructions over 4' 
have to be protected below the obstruction.

RG


 Original message 
From: "Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum" 

Date: 8/17/21 11:25 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: "Kyle.Montgomery" , Tony Silva 

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

I think it's reasonable if there is no fuel load beneath the conveyors. 
Probably depends on the configuration and height of the conveyors and if there 
are any safeguards put in place to ensure there won't be anything place under 
the conveyors in the future.

And by safeguards, I don't necessarily mean that there has to be physical 
barriers that prevent anything from being placed under the conveyors. It could 
be based on the practices and procedures of the facility. Keep in mind that 
operation of many of these facilities is heavily reliant upon knowing exactly 
where every box is at all times (aisle, row, rack). It's unlikely that they 
would just be stacking random boxes under the conveyors.

I'm not sure there is a good code section to lean on to back me up. But then 
again, the code isn't always reasonable.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 9:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tony Silva 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

An ESFR building has conveyors over 2 feet wide and some even over 4 feet wide. 
The owner/tenant is of the opinion that sprinklers below the conveyors are not 
required as there are no hazards below, regardless of the width of the 
obstruction.

Is this a reasonable conclusion?

Tony
___
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=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=Xv7zrjjG8VZ_DYq3lqYhUUJD9WGqss3j3SKkwQzgZbk=VxEDODYb_3vCChKQ454TozHo8O11_loBKZvgkVywXOs=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!L_3cz7biB5YldQ4GUVUVzXkxw0qzUhUqPqObSKZ8SxByeI4B4Fe8O_sd5NgRT9F50fKT$
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage

[Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum]

Jamie,

My opinion would be Ordinary Hazard Group 2.

Rusty Gipson
Fire Plans Examiner/ Inspector
Department of Planning | Cayman Islands Government | Government Administration 
Building, 
133 Elgin Avenue | PO Box 113, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands KY1-9000
I +1 345 244-6501 (Main )  +1 345 244-6536(Direct)
(+1 345 936-6533 (Cell)   +1 345 769-2922 (Fax)
russell.gip...@gov.ky|| www.planning.ky


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:46 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Cc: Jamie Seidl
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage

Rusty,
This is storage only, for later shipment to farmers.
Thanks,
Jamie

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 3:42 PM Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Is it storage only ,or, will they be bagging in the same area also?
> Thinking about dust production
>
> Rusty Gipson
> Fire Plans Examiner/ Inspector
> Department of Planning | Cayman Islands Government | Government
> Administration Building,
> 133 Elgin Avenue | PO Box 113, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands KY1-9000
> I +1 345 244-6501 (Main )  +1 345 244-6536(Direct)
> (+1 345 936-6533 (Cell)   +1 345 769-2922 (Fax)
> russell.gip...@gov.ky|| 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.planning.ky__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!LcAmsWyma2YqrtSKOlxMvIM5OLV0H11vA7SkW_vPt9aaRbU4qwpJQK1j3Fx13b2VEkV8$
>  
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl
> via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:38 PM
> To: Sprinklerforum
> Cc: Jamie Seidl
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage
>
> I am looking at a project that is storing soybean, corn, oat and wheat
> seeds in large polypropylene  bags (think large sand / rock bags) . The
> client has indicated that these are to be stored on floor, two high for a
> total storage height of less than 12'.  I know NFPA 13 does not address
> this, and FM seems to be silent also.
> Based on the storage height, and free flowing nature of the product I am
> leaning towards an ordinary group 2 classification, but wanted to run it by
> the forumites to see if anyone has run across this in the past.
> Any Takers?
>
> Thanks,
> Jamie Seidl
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!Mxi_5mGcrvGNjZgPI-xUZ63tZaqRjMSb6zCQvqu21TzP_FFRMQpnGYq60DVls639jHOX$
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!LcAmsWyma2YqrtSKOlxMvIM5OLV0H11vA7SkW_vPt9aaRbU4qwpJQK1j3Fx13Vt058vc$
>  
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!LcAmsWyma2YqrtSKOlxMvIM5OLV0H11vA7SkW_vPt9aaRbU4qwpJQK1j3Fx13Vt058vc$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage

[Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum]

Is it storage only ,or, will they be bagging in the same area also? Thinking 
about dust production

Rusty Gipson
Fire Plans Examiner/ Inspector
Department of Planning | Cayman Islands Government | Government Administration 
Building, 
133 Elgin Avenue | PO Box 113, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands KY1-9000
I +1 345 244-6501 (Main )  +1 345 244-6536(Direct)
(+1 345 936-6533 (Cell)   +1 345 769-2922 (Fax)
russell.gip...@gov.ky|| www.planning.ky

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:38 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Cc: Jamie Seidl
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage

I am looking at a project that is storing soybean, corn, oat and wheat
seeds in large polypropylene  bags (think large sand / rock bags) . The
client has indicated that these are to be stored on floor, two high for a
total storage height of less than 12'.  I know NFPA 13 does not address
this, and FM seems to be silent also.
Based on the storage height, and free flowing nature of the product I am
leaning towards an ordinary group 2 classification, but wanted to run it by
the forumites to see if anyone has run across this in the past.
Any Takers?

Thanks,
Jamie Seidl
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!Mxi_5mGcrvGNjZgPI-xUZ63tZaqRjMSb6zCQvqu21TzP_FFRMQpnGYq60DVls639jHOX$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] High rise protection question

[Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum]

Thank you for your response Scot.


 Original message 
From: "å...  via Sprinklerforum" 
Date: 3/23/21 4:45 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: "å... " 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] High rise protection question

Double jeopardy not required.  If the buildings are part of a '
development', the case can be made for ' one fire at a time' .
Your risk assessment may adjust that case, if the initiating event is
seismic.

*.ky  -- the Caymans, nice...  did some work with RUBiS back in the day...

Typically, one sizes the water tank from maximum {exterior fire flow
demand; interior suppression (sprinklers and hose stream) demand } *
duration.
Duration comes from what your local building code references:  IFC, NFPA 1,
ISO or other.
Many USA fire flow calculations are backwards in precedence,  as
 they allow reduction to volumetric flow when more fire suppressing
efficiency is gained from reduction in fire flow duration.
' When fighting bear, bring the biggest gun you got '  - Dwight Williams
Bigger fire flow applied early suppresses fire more easy,  thus eliminating
need for long duration flow.
Having said that, good judgment will consider overhaul, salvage, and
multiple fires from seismic event in final decision on fire flow duration.

Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire Engineering
gms:  +420 606 872 129

La semplicità è la sofisticatezza finale - da vince




On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 10:05 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Over the (now long) course of my career, I've done designs and
> design/builds for "central plant" water supplies.  There is nothing in the
> standards that says the water supply has to be exclusive to a particular
> system.   However, you have to consider all demands including hydrants and
> whether you should add hose stream allowances to the demand flow x duration
> equation when you are calculating the required capacity of a tank that is
> proposed to supply multiple demands.
>
> My opinion only,
> Steve Leyton
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gipson,
> Russell via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:38 PM
> To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Gipson, Russell 
> Subject: High rise protection question
>
>
> I have a question in regards to water supply for sprinkler protection in
> high rise buildings..
>
> The island where I work has several high rise projects starting.
> Local code here requires an on-site supply of water as well as a secondary
> source due to seismic area.
>
> I now have a high rise that is part of a large project with multiple
> buildings. A banquet hall and a separate event hall both requiring
> sprinklers due to size across the street, but, part of the same development.
>
> The questioncan the water sources for the high rise be used for all
> buildings or just for high rise?
> Any input would be appreciated.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!I-SVZffYtbZlCfDND8uiXiZjpaIMi17J9KIpqCo5uWq93fUD6shThc1KL3hkWBP3ry3i$
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!I-SVZffYtbZlCfDND8uiXiZjpaIMi17J9KIpqCo5uWq93fUD6shThc1KL3hkWBP3ry3i$
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!EuRrQOsPEno!I-SVZffYtbZlCfDND8uiXiZjpaIMi17J9KIpqCo5uWq93fUD6shThc1KL3hkWBP3ry3i$
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

High rise protection question

[Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum]

I have a question in regards to water supply for sprinkler protection in high 
rise buildings..

The island where I work has several high rise projects starting.
Local code here requires an on-site supply of water as well as a secondary 
source due to seismic area.

I now have a high rise that is part of a large project with multiple buildings. 
A banquet hall and a separate event hall both requiring sprinklers due to size 
across the street, but, part of the same development.

The questioncan the water sources for the high rise be used for all 
buildings or just for high rise?
Any input would be appreciated.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Group III Aircraft Hangar

[Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum]

The requirements of NFPA 409 for unfuelled Aircraft Hangars would apply.
That would be Water Sprinklers at 6.9mm/min over 465m2 ?

That's what it looks like to me.


Russell Gregory
41A Diamond Avenue,
Christchurch 8024
New Zealand 
Ph  03 338 4853
Cell(Russell) 0274 917 909
 
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2021 12:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: Group III Aircraft Hangar

I have been informed that a design team has classified a Group III hangar as
an S-1 occupancy.  As such, they have indicated this to be designed to OH1.
For the life of me, I can't see an aircraft hangar being anything less than
EH1.  This hangar is about 60k sq ft.

Has anyone ever found a situation to design an aircraft hangar to OH1.  This
will only house unfueled aircraft and no maintenance will be performed in
the hangars.  This it to house "personal" aircraft as I understand it.

What is the collective thought on this?

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

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

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question

[Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum]

Are you aware if any jurisdictions has amended either code?

Regards,
Rusty


 Original message 
From: "Reed A. Roisum, SET via Sprinklerforum" 

Date: 8/26/20 12:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: "Reed A. Roisum, SET" 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Question

2018 IBC

SECTION 403

HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS

403.3 Automatic sprinkler system

[F] 403.3.3 Secondary water supply. An automatic secondary on-site water supply 
having a capacity not less than the hydraulically calculated sprinkler demand, 
including the hose stream requirement, shall be provided for high-rise 
buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F as determined by 
Section 1613. An additional fire pump shall not be required for the secondary 
water supply unless needed to provide the minimum design intake pressure at the 
suction side of the fire pump supplying the automatic sprinkler system. The 
secondary water supply shall have a duration of not less than 30 minutes.



2018 IFC

SECTION 914

FIRE PROTECTION BASED ON SPECIAL DETAILED REQUIREMENTS OF USE AND OCCUPANCY

914.3 High-rise buildings.

914.3.2 Secondary water supply. An automatic secondary on-site water supply 
having a capacity not less than the hydraulically calculated sprinkler demand, 
including the hose stream requirement, shall be provided for high-rise 
buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F as determined by the 
International Building Code. An additional fire pump shall not be required for 
the secondary water supply unless needed to provide the minimum design intake 
pressure at the suction side of the fire pump supplying the automatic sprinkler 
system. The secondary water supply shall have a duration of not less than 30 
minutes as determined by the occupancy hazard classification in accordance with 
NFPA 13.

Exception: Existing buildings.







Reed A. Roisum, SET | KFI Engineers | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, 
ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
KFIengineers.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.kfiengineers.com=DwICAg=RZrpDEMm8ocCZY2r_NDa66agUKDQ-I1XvSk22w0YQ1k=TGlxw-vXI6_uc8jQ0moMNoI3sJghTgTe-fYgfzAlFzQ=NwuwHDpsgK0RbF9ivX550F_a_oNAsjFmDZb6-gb2_GQ=XjqvUZG1olA8hALLJTzDeRh-irdjzuUlJQPjYtLp8Bw=
 >

-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 11:06 AM

To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Cc: Gipson, Russell 

Subject: Question







I work for a government agency outside of the US.



The 2009 ICC codes were not adopted here until 2016.



Recently, several developers have proposed high rise buildings and there is an 
issue with the code listed below.







The 2009 International Building Code 903.3.5.2 states:



A secondary on-site water supply equal to the hydraulically calculated 
sprinkler demand, including the hose stream requirement, shall be provided for 
high-rise buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F as 
determined by this code. The secondary water supply shall have a duration of 
not less than 30 minutes as determined by the occupancy hazard classification 
in accordance with NFPA 13. Exception: Existing buildings.







The 2015 IFC section 914.3.2 states:



914.3.2 Secondary water supply. An automatic secondary on-site water supply 
having a capacity not less than the hydraulically calculated sprinkler demand, 
including the hose stream requirement, shall be provided for high-rise 
buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F as determined by the 
International Building Code. An additional fire pump shall not be required for 
the secondary water supply unless needed to provide the minimum design intake 
pressure at the suction side of the fire pump supplying the automatic sprinkler



system. The secondary water supply shall have a duration of not less than 30 
minutes as determined by the occupancy hazard classification in accordance with 
NFPA 13.







Exception: Existing buildings.







The AHJ here is seeking information to see if any agencies have made amendments 
to this particular code.







Thank you for any assistance you may provide.



Rusty



Sent from 
Mail<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.microsoft.com_fwlink_-3FLinkId-3D550986=DwMFAg=RZrpDEMm8ocCZY2r_NDa66agUKDQ-I1XvSk22w0YQ1k=TGlxw-vXI6_uc8jQ0moMNoI3sJghTgTe-fYgfzAlFzQ=jFr8FjnUHgbI4OIas3C8EajOuuRy6ymnCw1KwFZT2Fs=URgoIp57N-VbHw7Av9KWOJ044At9PiqOYRmiLmNkMUo=>
 for Windows 10



___

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=RZrpDEMm8ocCZY2r_NDa66agUKDQ-I1XvSk22w0YQ1k=TGlxw-vXI6_uc8jQ0moMNoI3sJghTgTe-fYgfzAlFzQ=NwuwHDpsgK0RbF9ivX550F_a_oNAsjFmDZb6-gb2_GQ=mXF0n1gmaCd

Question

[Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum]

I work for a government agency outside of the US.

The 2009 ICC codes were not adopted here until 2016.

Recently, several developers have proposed high rise buildings and there is an 
issue with the code listed below.



The 2009 International Building Code 903.3.5.2 states:

 A secondary on-site water supply equal to the hydraulically calculated 
sprinkler demand, including the hose stream requirement, shall be provided for 
high-rise buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F as 
determined by this code. The secondary water supply shall have a duration of 
not less than 30 minutes as determined by the occupancy hazard classification 
in accordance with NFPA 13. Exception: Existing buildings.



The 2015 IFC section 914.3.2 states:

914.3.2 Secondary water supply. An automatic secondary on-site water supply 
having a capacity not less than the hydraulically calculated sprinkler demand, 
including the hose stream requirement, shall be provided for high-rise 
buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F as determined by the 
International Building Code. An additional fire pump shall not be required for 
the secondary water supply unless needed to provide the minimum design intake 
pressure at the suction side of the fire pump supplying the automatic sprinkler

system. The secondary water supply shall have a duration of not less than 30 
minutes as determined by the occupancy hazard classification in accordance with 
NFPA 13.



Exception: Existing buildings.



The AHJ here is seeking information to see if any agencies have made amendments 
to this particular code.



Thank you for any assistance you may provide.

Rusty

Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10

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

RE: Combustible dust collector

[Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum]

I have done many Dust Collectors and find FM Data Sheet 7-73 as a good guide.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 4:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez
Subject: Combustible dust collector

 

I am trying to figure out the proper design criteria for a combustible dust 
collector and associated duct work.

 

NFPA 654-2020ed section 9.3.5.2

NFPA 652-2019ed section 9.8.5.3

Both refer you back to NFPA 13 

 

There is no section on NFPA 13-2013 for dust collectors.  The closest I can 
find is section 22.4 – spray applications using flammable or combustible 
materials.

Anyone else have experience with this?

Thanks,

 

Dewayne Martinez

Fire Protection Design Manager

 

TOTAL Mechanical

Building Integrity


W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
Pewaukee, WI  53072

 <mailto:dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com

Ph:  262-522-7110

Cell: 414-406-5208

 <http://www.total-mechanical.com/> http://www.total-mechanical.com/ 

   

cid:image003.png@01D4F47B.AA7F2100

 

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

[Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum]

The second point becomes more relevant when using bushed outlets or mechanical 
tee on branchlines with large orifice storage sprinklers with high flows.

The different brands of mechanical tees on the market have significantly 
different EQL friction losses which should probably be added to the required 
head pressure. Some mechanical tees have a restricted outlet smaller in 
diameter than the pipe size.

If one was using a dropper to a sprinkler then the mechanical tee or tee/bush  
loss would be added, and  it would seem necessary to do the same for a large 
bore sprinkler screwed into a bushed outlet or a mechanical tee with a higher 
EQL..

 

Has anyone done the practical tests?

 

Russell Gregory

 

Russell Gregory

41A Diamond Avenue,

Christchurch 8024

 

Ph  03 338 4853

Cell(Russell) 0274 917 909

 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, 6 February 2020 5:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery; Bruce Verhei
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

 

Yeah, for the first part of my question about 8.15.20, I agree. 

 

But I realize that the easy answer there is that the tee probably makes little 
difference, so why not just include it in the calc. So I figured I would spice 
it up since we actually do run into this type of scenario from time to time.

 

So it’s really two questions that can be considered independently:

 

1.   Does NFPA 13 require minimum 1” outlets in shell spaces?

2.   If I have a sprinkler installed in a bushed outlet, do I need to 
include the equivalent length for that tee in my calculations.

 

-Kyle M

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

 

K-17. That’s a little different than I expect. I always thought more like parts 
of a strip mall building that might end up OH-2.

 

Best.


On Feb 5, 2020, at 07:58, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

That’s the crux of my question. A literal interpretation could say that the 
sprinkler is no longer connected directly to the tee, so you have to include 
the equivalent length for the tee in the calculations. But is that really the 
intent in this scenario? Is the bushing really creating an impact to the 
hydraulics? It seems strange to me that the type of fitting the sprinkler is 
connected to (welded outlet, threaded tee, threaded elbow) is of no concern to 
the hydraulics, unless the fitting has a bushed outlet. Does a threaded tee 
with a bushing really create more friction loss than, say a saddle tee 
(mechanical tee)?

 

In a lot of cases it doesn’t make much of a difference, but every once in a 
while you run into a scenario where you’re upgrading an area that had 1” 
outlets to something that needs a large orifice sprinkler (like a K17) and if 
you have to add the friction loss for a 1” tee into your calc it really does 
have an impact.

 

-Kyle M

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Shell Spaces and Bushed Outlets

 

That doesn't sound legit - I would keep the tee in the calculations. A bushing 
isn't really recognized as a fitting per table 23.4.3.1.1 - more like a 
transient fitting.

 

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:22 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

Esteemed members of the fire sprinkler community,

 

NFPA 13 (2016 Edition) section 8.15.20 is basically telling us to provide 
bushed 1” outlets for sprinklers in shell spaces, right?

 

Section 23.4.4.8.1(9) tells us that friction loss can be excluded for the 
fitting directly connected to a sprinkler.

 

In your opinion(s), is it the intent of the standard that you have to add the 
friction loss for a tee into your hydraulic calculation if using bushings, 
since the sprinkler is no longer directly connected to the tee? Or is it 
acceptable to consider a tee with a bushing as one fitting for the purpose of 
hydraulic calculations.

 

Kyle Montgomery

 

Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.

21605 N. Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85024

Direct: 623.580.7820

Cell: 602.763.4736

kmontgom...@aerofire.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
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=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQ

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

[Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum]

Just to add to the abbreviations we use TC (to cut) in conjunction with SOE or 
GOE.

Also note that NTS is used on drawings as “Not To Scale”.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bill Cunningham via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2020 4:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bill Cunningham
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

 

FIF. Fit in Field . Had a Foreman that claimed it meant F__ in Field. 

Sent from my iPhone





On Jan 15, 2020, at 7:22 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

AIL? Address it later?

 

Best.


On Jan 15, 2020, at 11:06, Ben Young via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

VIF verify in field

 

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM BILL MENSTER via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

NTS. (not too sure) 

On January 14, 2020 at 3:08 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote: 

My FAVORITE things to put on shop drawings (because it drove our spoiled union 
fitters CRAZY) was to write GOE or TOE on an over-cut piece of pipe.   If we 
were in a big hurry and had no real idea of where or how to start resolving an 
issue, I’d use VIF (verify in field).   That was always good for a phone call …

Steve L. 

  

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery; Bruce Verhei
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) 

 

Are you familiar with the term ‘C.O.J.’? 

  

Heheheh… 

  

Just in case you aren’t, it’s not dirty or anything. It means “cut on job”. 

  

-Kyle M 

  

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 7:42 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

 

I’ve never drawn up a fab order. I always assumed you’d need this information. 
Do I get it wrong. 

 

Best.

 

Bruce Verhei 


On Jan 13, 2020, at 06:15, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

I’m curious why there is any confusion over this?  

 

Example: If you have sprinklers on sprigs and don’t provide any elevation 
information, the shop drawing reviewer or permit reviewer will have to 
calculate the fitting takeouts and sprig lengths to be sure your sprinkler is 
within the allowable dimensions from the deck.  Without piping elevations how 
will the crew know where the pipe is supposed to be routed so that it doesn’t 
run into every other system that’s in the same space?

 

When reviewing calculations, having elevations shown on the drawing that 
correlate to the calcs helps verify that the design depicted on drawings and in 
the calcs actually match.

 

Dimensions are great too as well as building column lines for reference.  

 

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |  
<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> craig.pr...@jacobs.com |  
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__www.jacobs.com_%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3dZ_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A%26m%3dk6bX7-6BZdUFWcAVPJQveSYumFauPH46uLuSDiMNXR8%26s%3dq7OHI_NlUyJEu5vqHkQrAH2GWBOZIQIdQhIdDGx-Byw%26e%3d=E,1,dXcCq-YJdjc78J8Q_7k_MJ91zXOxAEMzFUXf8IG1j8XH76LqQA1_Z5XBs0dQBoOMaYAcXGU3Bp3TfQ5AeTQQxwjNbXLKEk_ooigFAJXy9bTaWQ,,=1>
 www.jacobs.com

1041 East Butler Road 
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1041+East+Butler+Road+Greenville,+South+Carolina+29606?entry=gmail=g>
Greenville, South Carolina 
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1041+East+Butler+Road+Greenville,+South+Carolina+29606?entry=gmail=g>
   29606 
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1041+East+Butler+Road+Greenville,+South+Carolina+29606?entry=gmail=g>
 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 6:10 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

 


Bob,
The committee wants to see relative elevation changes.  This helps with lengths 
of pipe and calcs too.
We use the word relative because it doesn't need to be Above Sea Level.
(But I think you already know this!!)

Cecil




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 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%

Ice Build-up on Linear Heat Detection for Double Interlock Pre-Action Sprinkler System

[Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum]

We have a problem with ice forming on LHD cable inside a Coldstore at the 
access doors. The LHD is “Protectowire” and is used as the first detection for 
a Double Interlock Pre Action system. The Coldstore temperature is -10⁰C.

1.   Is there any way to reduce or prevent this condensing water vapour 
from freezing on to the LHD? Would spraying the cable with silicone spray be 
helpful?

2.   Is there a practical method of removing the ice at say 1 – 3 monthly 
intervals? Spraying de-icing fluid comes to mind but as it is in a frozen food 
warehouse that may have a contamination problem although all products are 
cartoned and wrapped.

I have checked FM and Manufacturers Data sheets but have not found reference to 
external ice loading.

VESDA recommend the application of silicone spray so wonder if this would help.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards,

Russell

 

Russell A Gregory

Special Projects Engineer

Johnson Controls

Wormald Christchurch

New Zealand

 

Ph xx64 3 338 4853

 

e-mail; rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

 

 

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

[Russell Gregory via Sprinklerforum]

Further to Nicky’s comments I would add that the systems installed as tail end 
to fire sprinklers do not have the hood washing feature that the Captive Air 
appear to have. 

Pressure reducing is needed in some cases.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch; New Zealand 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Nicky Marshall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, 16 August 2019 11:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Nicky Marshall; Travis Mack
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Captive Aire Systems

 

In New Zealand, we frequently connect them to a sprinkler system as the 
installation of an approved ‘restaurant system’ permits sprinklers to be 
omitted from ducts and hoods in our standard.

We do not allow a cumulative demand.  Although our standard does not explicitly 
state what you should do.

When connected to a sprinkler system they are treated much like a ‘tail-end’ 
pre-action or dry system.  Because sprinkler system compliance is dependent on 
that system, they are connected with a supervised/monitored valve to warn if 
closed and they also usually have a flow or operation switch on them that 
indicates on a fire alarm panel.

Our suppliers also do the calculations. 

 

 

Nicky Marshall

Southern Regional Manager

PROTECH DESIGN LIMITED

Specialist Fire Protection Consultants

Phone: +64 (0)3 579 5577 extn 1  Mobile: +64 (0)21 433 488  Email:  
<mailto:ni...@protechdesign.co.nz> ni...@protechdesign.co.nz  Web 
:www.protechdesign.co.nz 

Address:105A Alabama Rd, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201, NZ Skype for Business:  
<mailto:ni...@protechdesign.co.nz> ni...@protechdesign.co.nz

A close up of a signDescription automatically generated

“I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. Then I 
realised I was somebody” Lily Tomlin

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Bruce Verhei' 

Subject: RE: Captive Aire Systems

 

Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of the 
water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.  We’ve seen 
these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for domestic because I 
don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the hood supplier will say 
it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they won’t do anything to prove 
it will work.  They throw that all back to the sprinkler guys.  Just been one 
of those days.

 

 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=P9cL1oBlMFsJR9PkQUpPBhDWLqRBCWXfiCfaqcJDrso=Acxe8iKYA32DZOYelVqiEbnMyMuAFqfl5EZoKkQ2Avg=>
 

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

 <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> tm...@mfpdesign.com

www.mfpdesign.com 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=P9cL1oBlMFsJR9PkQUpPBhDWLqRBCWXfiCfaqcJDrso=Gltsm1BrBL21AQMy8Nvo33FoaCPDBK_xhLt7P67dJR8=>
 

 

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.”

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei 
Subject: Re: Captive Aire Systems

 

I might be a couple years out of date. I think the ones we saw were off 
domestic water, with a small backflow device. You can’t run a restaurant 
without water, so there is no concern about water system not being monitored.  

Best.


On Aug 14, 2019, at 15:19, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via 
Sprinklerforum  wrote:

I’m sure some of you have dealt with these Captive Aire / Piranha systems.  
Basically they are hood systems that connect to the sprinkler system.  The one 
I have a data sheet for has an operating pressure of 32-70 psi and flows vary 
depending on # of nozzles.  How do those of you dealing with these handle them? 
 The supplier will not do any calculations for the system.  My question is, do 
we treat these like a “rack” system and balance the hood systems to the 
overhead?  If I have a kitchen with 3 of these, do I figure 0, 1, 2 or 3 
flowing simultaneously with the overhead.  As you can imagine, a standard 
sprinkler in the kitchen is ±10 psi.  Now, if we have to treat this like a rack 
system and balance at the junction point, this 30 psi for the Piranha system 
will significantly over-discharge the sprinklers leading to a much larger 
kitchen demand.  These often seem to be brought up toward t

RE: Prestart Pump - Preaction

[Russell Gregory]

As far as I am aware there have not been problems with false starts in our
New Zealand installations using the Potter panel and LHD on double interlock
pre-action systems.

We would test panel monthly and do auto start from panel at this test.
Weekly test of pump would use manual, pressure switch and panel start in
rotation.

Cheers,

Russell Gregory

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Micah Davis, SET
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2019 1:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Prestart Pump - Preaction

 

Thank you, Russell.  Have you had any issues with false starts or any other
maintenance issues?  The contractor I am working with is trying to
investigate all possible complications this arrangement might cause.

 


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV 

Dynamic Fire Designs


 


Mail: mi...@dynamicfire.us
Mobile: 931-242-1299
 <http://dynamicfiredesigns.com> www.dynamicfiredesigns.com 


Dynamic Fire Designs . 247 Winthrop Dr. . 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. 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Russell Gregory
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 10:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Prestart Pump - Preaction

 

This is the standard arrangement on the Tyco Quell/Vanquish Sprinkler System
where we start the pump on the 1st stage detection on the Linear Heat
Detection. A Potter panel is used for control. We also have the pump
starting on drop in pressure as a backup.

Cheers.

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Micah Davis, SET
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 9:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Prestart Pump - Preaction

 

Has anyone setup a pump on a preaction system to prestart at device signal
to get it prestarted before valve trip?  I have several large preaction
systems and am having issues with water delivery times.  I need to shave off
a few seconds and noticed that the program gives an option to have the pump
prestart.  We are required on this project to provide the water delivery
calculations, so I cannot use 7.2.3.4 to avoid the water delivery time
requirement.  

 

My specific question is, does anyone know of any concerns the contractor
should have for doing this?  Are there any operations/maintenance concerns?
Are false trips a problem?

 


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV 

Dynamic Fire Designs


 


Mail: mi...@dynamicfire.us
Mobile: 931-242-1299
 <http://dynamicfiredesigns.com> www.dynamicfiredesigns.com 


Dynamic Fire Designs . 247 Winthrop Dr. . 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Prestart Pump - Preaction

[Russell Gregory]

This is the standard arrangement on the Tyco Quell/Vanquish Sprinkler System
where we start the pump on the 1st stage detection on the Linear Heat
Detection. A Potter panel is used for control. We also have the pump
starting on drop in pressure as a backup.

Cheers.

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Micah Davis, SET
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 9:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Prestart Pump - Preaction

 

Has anyone setup a pump on a preaction system to prestart at device signal
to get it prestarted before valve trip?  I have several large preaction
systems and am having issues with water delivery times.  I need to shave off
a few seconds and noticed that the program gives an option to have the pump
prestart.  We are required on this project to provide the water delivery
calculations, so I cannot use 7.2.3.4 to avoid the water delivery time
requirement.  

 

My specific question is, does anyone know of any concerns the contractor
should have for doing this?  Are there any operations/maintenance concerns?
Are false trips a problem?

 


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV 

Dynamic Fire Designs


 


Mail: mi...@dynamicfire.us
Mobile: 931-242-1299
 <http://dynamicfiredesigns.com> www.dynamicfiredesigns.com 


Dynamic Fire Designs . 247 Winthrop Dr. . 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Water hammer in Dry or deluge systems

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

I assume that the highest point of the riser will have a large bore air release 
valve, so the Fire Service don’t get a large slug of air when they open the 
hose nozzle.

If you use a “diaphragm” deluge valve such as the TYCO DV-5 or Clayton, Bermad, 
etc the opening speed is not as quick and you can fit a pilot orifice to 
control speed of opening.

This is much smoother than the older latched deluge valve.

Cheers,

Russell Gregory,

Christchurch, New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2019 3:00 AM
To: 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 |  
<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> craig.pr...@jacobs.com |  
<http://www.jacobs.com/> 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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Clouds

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

I had a similar situation in a Library children’s play area where there were 8 
or 10 disc/lighting features all at different heights and some overlapping and 
2m to 4m diameter. They were suspended below the ceiling 0.5 to 1.5m . All 
exceeded our Rules 1m maximum width for obstructions below sprinklers, so 
required sprinkler protection under and as they were not co-planar and close to 
each other could not fit the US research on “Cloud Ceilings”.

My understanding is the current US tests on clouds were based on eliminating 
sprinklers above the clouds when they were in close proximity to the solid 
ceiling above. Also the clouds were co-planar and in close proximity to each 
other. 

In our case we installed sprinklers in each of the cloud discs and fully 
protected ceiling above.  For design purposes we operated two cloud sprinklers 
and the rest of the design number of  sprinklers on the ceiling above to make 
up the required design area/number.

 

Regards,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tony Silva
Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2019 5:15 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Clouds

 

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

RE: ESFR & exhaust fans

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

I’m not sure of what NFPA now states but there was an air velocity limit that 
required shielding of the sprinkler when exceeded,  and roof vents/fans should 
be shutdown/closed on first sprinkler activation, Still in our NZ Rules and was 
based on FM.

Cheers,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jamie Seidl
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2019 8:59 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: ESFR & exhaust fans

 

Hello Forumites,

I have an issue that has come up with respect to exhaust fans in a warehouse we 
are completing.  Initially, the locations were coordinated with the mechanical 
contractor, and our branchline locations, however, his plans were never 
updated. The exhaust fan curb and gutter roof penetration is located directly 
below our sprinkler.  The exhaust fan itself is located on the roof, and the 
louvers are flush with the roof deck on the interior.  There is no obstruction 
that is created, but I can't find anything in NFPA 13 that would address this 
issue.

Is this an acceptable situation?

Thanks for your help,

Jamie Seidl

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

RE: Expansion Joint

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Victaulic have one which is a bunch of cut groove couplings with stubs of
pipe between. As it uses couplings that would be Approved it should be
Approvable if not already listed,

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of John Hoffman
Sent: Friday, 13 April 2018 3:27 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'
Subject: RE: Expansion Joint

 

I don't think NFPA 13 really addresses expansion joints.  Normal systems
don't generally need to account for movement through other than the built-in
flexibility of the piping system. 

 

Now, if you are talking not normal, I was involved in a facility that had a
2000-foot long fire main in the basement, 10-inch diameter, that had three
expansion joints along its length.  I think they were Dressers, but don't
recall for sure.  They were the telescoping style to accommodate linear
movement.  They were not listed for fire main application.  You do what is
necessary in situations like that.   I doubt there is a UL or FM expansion
joint, other than for seismic applications.

 

John Hoffman

Burns & McDonnell

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 3:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Expansion Joint

 

Trying to find something in NFPA-13 that addresses expansion joints, not a
seismic separation, but come up empty. Any help?

 

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

RE: Water curtain for wall opening

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Have a look at Factory Mutual Datasheet 1-23 Fire Barriers and Protection of 
Openings

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of fpdcdes...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, 18 May 2017 11:54 PM
To: Sprinkler Forum
Subject: Water curtain for wall opening

 

I have been asked to look at a situation in an industrial occupancy where there 
are two garage -door size horizontal openings in a wall. The openings cannot 
realistically be closed, so they are asking about a water curtain. I have a 
couple of questions: First, NFPA 13 discusses water curtains around vertical 
openings but not horizontal, from what i found. Am i missing something?

Second, the ceiling is approximately 12 ft above the top of the openings. The 
sprinklers need to be 12" from the deck max. Will that vertical distance create 
an issue with the water curtain performance.


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

RE: Am I reading this right?

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

I was trying to be logical about the obstructions in the inner core discharge, 
which FM are so concerned with. Having a ‘cross’ of two 100mm wide obstructions 
seems totally untenable. 

You can’t put a Pendent ESFR over a 100mm wide bottom chord so the only 
difference with an Upright is the Range Pipe and the yoke shadow.

Cheers,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com
Sent: Tuesday, 28 March 2017 3:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Am I reading this right?

 

If what you are saying is true, and I'm not questioning your statement, then 
this condition would not allow the lower obstruction to be the bottom chord of 
a steel bar joist or open web wood joist because the range pipe would need to 
be centered in the web of the joist and parallel to the joist, a physical 
impossibility. The obstruction would have to be something other than a 
structural member. Is this your experience?

Mark at Aero 

602 820-7894

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Russell & Carol Gregory <rcgreg...@snap.net.nz> 
wrote:

Because an Upright ESFR sprinkler can be connected directly to a Range Pipe of 
up to 100mm NB thus it is tested with an obstruction to core discharge. The  
Upright ESFR sprinkler must have the yoke arms aligned with the Range Pipe 
therefore the obstruction is in the shadow area from the yoke arms.

Accordingly another obstruction of up to 100mm wide may be positioned below the 
Upright ESFR, PROVIDING it is directly below the Upright  ESFR and is ALIGNED 
with the Range Pipe. If it is other than directly below and parallel with the 
Range Pipe then it is not permitted within the Core so must be at least 300mm 
away from below the Upright ESFR.

I have seen it stated that Upright ESFR are more tolerant of obstructions to 
Core Discharge but I believe this is not the case as the arrangement must be as 
I have described.

 

Regards,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch

New Zealand 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Vince Sabolik
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 11:53 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Am I reading this right?

 

NFPA 13, 2013

8.12.5.3.2.1   The requirements of 8.12.5.3.2 shall not apply
where upright sprinklers are located over the bottom chords of bar joists or 
open trusses that are 
4 in. (102 mm) maximum in width.

Does this mean that an upright ESFR can be at or near center of a bar joist?

Thanks, Vince




11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
Strongsville, Ohio 44136 
Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876 Cell 440 724-7601


Vince Sabolik 

___
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: 1x6 Slatted Ceiling

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Yes, two levels would be needed. 

The lower head under the slatted would need a baffle to prevent the upper
head cooling it.

To act as a shield and improve heat collection you could have a 3ft sq of
sheet material fitted hard to the upper side of the slats so the lower head
is effectively 6in below a 3ft x 3ft ceiling. The lower SSP head would only
need the deflector say 1in below the bottom edge of the slats.

 

The only other choice is to lower the slatted ceiling to achieve the
clearance required in the Sprinkler Standard so the full spray pattern can
develop.

I had a similar problem in 5 storied Library with slatted ceilings but had
the required clearance except under ducts above the slatted ceiling.

 

Regards,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Gregory Lindholm
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2017 8:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: 1x6 Slatted Ceiling

 

We have an office that has the grid ceiling at 10'-0", and we have a 8' x
12' area that has 1" x 6" boards as slats (The slats end up being 1x6's, 12'
long), that are about 6" apart. The top of the slats are @ 8'-8" (1'-4"
below the ceiling). This slatted area is in a 12' x 16' room.

 

I believe that we obviously have to have a normal layout of sprinklers at
the grid ceiling, but we would also have to have something below, because
the slats would break up any pattern from the ceiling level heads.

 

My 1st assumption would be a level of heads with the deflectors just below
the slats, but how would they ever activate, with no way for the heat to
collect down to them.

 

This is one that I have never run into. 

 

Greg Lindholm 

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

RE: Am I reading this right?

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Because an Upright ESFR sprinkler can be connected directly to a Range Pipe of 
up to 100mm NB thus it is tested with an obstruction to core discharge. The  
Upright ESFR sprinkler must have the yoke arms aligned with the Range Pipe 
therefore the obstruction is in the shadow area from the yoke arms.

Accordingly another obstruction of up to 100mm wide may be positioned below the 
Upright ESFR, PROVIDING it is directly below the Upright  ESFR and is ALIGNED 
with the Range Pipe. If it is other than directly below and parallel with the 
Range Pipe then it is not permitted within the Core so must be at least 300mm 
away from below the Upright ESFR.

I have seen it stated that Upright ESFR are more tolerant of obstructions to 
Core Discharge but I believe this is not the case as the arrangement must be as 
I have described.

 

Regards,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch

New Zealand 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Vince Sabolik
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 11:53 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Am I reading this right?

 

NFPA 13, 2013

8.12.5.3.2.1   The requirements of 8.12.5.3.2 shall not apply
where upright sprinklers are located over the bottom chords of bar joists or 
open trusses that are 
4 in. (102 mm) maximum in width.

Does this mean that an upright ESFR can be at or near center of a bar joist?

Thanks, Vince




11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
Strongsville, Ohio 44136 
Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876 Cell 440 724-7601


Vince Sabolik 

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

RE: FM Global Data Sheet for Aircraft Hangars

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

FM 7-93N used to be a complete version of NFPA 409 with FM comments and
additional requirements added in.
More recently FM changed 7-93 to being a guidance document to be used in
conjunction with latest versions of NFPA 409, as I understand it.
Cheers,
Russell Gregory
Christchurch 
New Zealand

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET
Sent: Saturday, 28 January 2017 9:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: FM Global Data Sheet for AirCraft Hangars

Thanks Ed.  I appreciate the help.  It's just a brain dead Friday and of
course the proposal is needed Monday morning :-)  It's a good thing I love
what we do.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

On 1/27/2017 1:58 PM, etamb...@aerofire.com wrote:
> Doing a generic search 7-93n and 7-8 are small documents Foam systems 
> are in 4-7n and 4-12 Special protection is 4-0
>
> Ed
> Aero
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> Travis Mack, SET
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 1:48 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: FM Global Data Sheet for AirCraft Hangars
>
> I've been asked to look at an aircraft hangar that has to be protected per
FM Global standards.  We have reached out to the FM engineer for the
project, but he has not been available as of yet.  Does anyone know what FM
datasheet would refer to Aircraft Hangar protection?  I'm not finding it.  I
may just be brain dead on a Friday.
>
>
> --
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org

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


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

RE: ESFR retrofit

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Like the Mech Tee problem I sited last week, in this case the additional 
friction losses must be taken into account so you could need another 30psi or 
more at the head.

Regards,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch, New Zealand.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:23 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: ESFR retrofit

 

I agree that there would be a lot of friction there. 

 

The fitting would be ¾” weld-o-let to  3/4” brass nipple (male-male) to 3/4 by 
1 reducer (female-female) to sprinkler head.

 

But any code prohibitions?

 

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II  
Vice President – New Construction 
Alliance Fire Protection 

130 w 9th Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116


*Licensed in KS & MO 

 

913.888.0647 ph 
913.888.0618 f 
913.526.7443 cell 
www. AFPsprink.com 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Art Tiroly
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 3:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: ESFR retrofit

 

Measure the ID of the brass nipple.

The ID is near 1”.

Can you get a 1x3/4 male reducer. Think about velocity and turbulence at  ~ 125 
gpm

 

Art

 

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] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: ESFR retrofit

 

I am looking at a warehouse space that needs to upgrade from K14 ESFR to K22. 
Typically this would involve plugging the ¾” outlets and cutting in new 1” 
mechanical T’s.

 

I had someone ask why we could not use a ¾” brass nipple and a ¾” to 1” reducer 
to  up-size the outlet to hold a 1” head. I feel like this is not allowed, but 
I could not find specifically where. It would not really be an extension 
fitting. ¾” brass is allowed. Each change of size is done with a single piece 
reducer. The ¾” tee and nipple would be included in the calculations…

 

Any help on where the code addresses this setup?

 

Thanks!

 

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II  
Vice President – New Construction 
Alliance Fire Protection 

130 w 9th Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116


*Licensed in KS & MO 

 

913.888.0647 ph 
913.888.0618 f 
913.526.7443 cell 
www. AFPsprink.com 

 

 

 

  _  


 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 Image removed by sender. Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
  

 

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

RE: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Gentlemen,

Some of you were talking of the gasket intruding into the waterway but this is 
not what happens as the boss on the mech tee branch prevents this happening.

If you look at a number of the Mechanical Tees on the World market you find 
that the internal bore of the Branch Boss can vary considerably in size and 
roughness. So they have varying EQL published (or not).

Using a K36 sprinkler with 345kPa the flow is 670L/min. I have rounded the 
metric figures for practical reasons. 

If I use a welded outlet I would have a hole in the pipe at least the OD of 
25NB pipe. If I use a Mech Tee the hole in the feed pipe is drilled to suit the 
OD of the boss but the water flows into the boss ID which can be smaller than 
the ID of 25NB pipe.

Using the Vic Mech Tee EQL for a 25NB outlet this equals 2.44m(8ft) of Schd 40 
25NB pipe. At a flow of 670L/min (177usgpm) the loss is around 370kPa. So the 
pressure in the feed pipe needs to be 370 + 345 = 715kPa for the head to flow 
670L/min. Using a welded outlet it only needs 345kPa. 

 

So it seems to me that we need to test pipes with each outlet type and see if 
this difference is real or just technical nit-picking.

 

Thanks for all the comments.

 

Regards,

Russell A Gregory

Christchurch

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of rongreenman .
Sent: Sunday, 30 October 2016 9:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

 

I'm too lazy and frankly don't care but maybe someone would like top work it 
out and see if there is a "dramatic" difference between including the mech tee 
or not. That ought to put this to bed. 

 

>From Tyco:

Discharge Coef cient 

K=25.2 gpm/psi1⁄2 (362,9 lpm/bar1⁄2) 

>From Victaulic:

Inline image 1

 

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> 
wrote:

That’s a wee bit passive-aggressive, wouldn’t you say?   

 

SML

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 1:18 PM


To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

 

Actually I pulled my punch there John. The best rules and interpretations are 
based on physics, no matter what the margins of error might be.

This is not even my thread-- it is Russell and Carol Gregory's.

So I'm out.

brad casterline

On Oct 29, 2016 2:48 PM, "Brad Casterline" <bcasterli...@gmail.com> wrote:

John,
You are a TC member yourself.
If, as it seems, the interp of NFPA is that we do indeed include the published 
equivalent length for a mech tee with a sprinkler installed directly in it, 
that we just deem it ridiculous, because Steve said so?

By the way, I know Steve did not say so.
This is all about rules and interpretations, is it not?

Brad

On Oct 29, 2016 2:13 PM, "John Denhardt" <jdenha...@stricklandfire.com> wrote:

I could not agree more with Steve.  It is fine to look at the details but do 
not go beyond ridiculous. 

 

John

John August Denhardt, P.E. 

Strickland Fire Protection 


On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:

There's a saying in our business that we design systems with computers, use 
lasers to measure pipe for fabrication, then mark with a paint  pen and cut it 
with a chop saw. In other words there are some weak links in the chain of 
events that we take for granted every day. 

 

The hydraulic design method that we use, the number of sprinklers and sizes of 
design areas that we include in our models, all provide for conservative safety 
factors. So to the point of whether or not a rubber gasket reduces the inside 
diameter compared to a weld-o-let or a threaded fitting, my reaction to that is 
so what, who cares?   

 

All these formulas and algorithms and commentary amount to a whole lot of 
over-analysis and here's why: if you were to actually account for that  
hundredth or thousandth an inch, the impact would be an almost indiscernibly 
higher starting pressure at the end sprinkler. Thereafter, you would have an 
almost indiscernible lower net K-factor at each successive sprinkler thus 
reducing overflow,making the system demand lower by a fraction of a fraction of 
a PSI here and a GPM there.

 

So if you want to spend an extra 3 or 4 hours per calc boilng down these 
metrics, be my guest but as far as this discussion thread is concerned I'm 
pretty sure the horse is dead and beyond resuscitation.

 

 

Steve

 

 

 Original message 

From: "rongreenman ." <rongreen...@gmail.com> 

Date: 10/29/16 9:44 AM (GMT-08:00) 

To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Subject: Re: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet 

 

In y experience with mech 

RE: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Sean,

I agree with that completely. It is what we do in NZ as well. If you use a
clamp tee to supply the flexible then that stated loss must be used if
greater than the Table 23.4.3.1.1 loss.

Regards,

Russell

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com
Sent: Friday, 28 October 2016 5:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler
Outlet

 

To expand on what Todd and Ken said.  

 

With regards to Flex drops in the standard, I know NFPA 13 (2013) 9.2.1.3.3
calls them "Flexible Sprinkler Hose Fittings".   It's an assembly.  Two
fittings on each end of a flexible hose.  Which is used in lieu of hard pipe
and fittings.  The sprinkler attaches to one fitting which can be ignored
per NFPA allowanced stated in this chain.  Manufacturer gives you the
equivalent pipe length of the flexible hose since you don't have hard pipe,
this shall be included in calculations.  The other fitting is a straight
flow fitting which has no additional friction loss per NFPA.  You shall
account for the friction loss of the tee you tie into at the branchline.

 

My opinion since the standard is clear as mud.

 

 


Thanks,

Sean VG

 



 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:35 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler
Outlet

 

Image removed by sender.

Ken, I think your term is correct and NFPA needs to adjust. A 6' long
fitting is a bit of a misnomer. 

Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-608-4559

 

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Parsley Consulting
<parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:

Todd,
I agree completely with your thoughts. Perhaps my use of the other term was
my old-school nature. 
One of the PI's submitted to change the requirements for seismic protection
would make flexible fittings mandatory in areas where the Cp value is
greater than 0.50. While there may be some information to suggest that is a
valid approach, it isn't the only option to account for the seismic impact
of a drop to supply a sprinkler through a ceiling. It is, however, the one
which carries a significant cost increase (materials and installation), and
has an equally expensive hydraulic impact.
The ballots for chapter 9 (soon to 18) changes haven't been issued yet,
however I would wager this one is going to draw significant objections from
those of us in seismic country.
sincerely,

Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/>  

On 10/27/2016 8:08 AM, Todd Williams wrote:

Image removed by sender.

Ken, 

 

I brought that up because in NFPA 13, they are called "flexible fittings"
not "flexible drops". My thinking is that FUBAR Fire Protection (or someone
like them) is going to try to claim the since NFPA call them fittings that
they won't have to include them in the calcs. 

Todd G Williams, PE 

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-608-4559

 

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Parsley Consulting
<mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net> <parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:

Russell,
Mark and Todd are both correct. 
If the sprinkler is directly attached to the fitting, in this case the
welded outlet or mechanical tee, the friction loss through that fitting is
excluded from the hydraulic calculations, per NFPA 13, 23.4.4.7.1(9). I
don't know that I've ever had a set of calculations sent back with a comment
that I didn't include the friction loss equivalent for the welded outlet or
mechanical tee which was directly attached to the sprinkler. 
Todd's comment is valid as well, however it's worth noting, I believe, that
when you're designing a system with flexible drops you must account for the
equivalent length of the device, using the manufacturer's data. My own
experience has been that those values are substantial.
sincerely,

Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/>  

On 10/27/2016 1:30 AM, Russell & Carol Gregory wrote:

I posted a message on this subject early this month but only received one
reply(thanks Brad). This was surprising as I thought it was a serious
problem if the full EQL for tee had to be added to calculations. Especially
if the change was made on-site after design had been completed with welded
outlets.

So my query is as follows;

When calculating a Range Pipe with welded threaded outlets for sprinklers it
is not necessary to include a loss for the water leaving the range pipe and
entering the sprinkler. The total pressure is assume

RE: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Ken, and others,

We have been excluding the loss for a welded outlet or a mech tee when a
sprinkler is directly attached. If the outlet is to feed a pipe (regardless
of length) then the standard loss for a branch on tee would be used, however
if the Manufacturers Data Sheet states that the loss in a clamp tee is
greater than the loss in Table 23.4.3.1.1 (NFPA 13 2016) for a side outlet
of tee, THEN the ADDITIONAL LOSS shall be included. I think they should say
the Higher EQL Loss should be used so you don't use less than the Table
Loss.

 

Here is a recent NFPA Response to a similar question;

 

Table 23.4.3.1.1 is required to be used to determine the equivalent length

of pipe for fittings and devices unless manufacturers' test data indicate

that other factors are appropriate. In your situation since the manufacturer

specifies an equivalent length of 11 feet, you are required to use 11 feet

for the equivalent length. 

 

In regards to Section 23.4.4.8(9) of the 2016 edition of NFPA 13, if an

extension is used with a tee, that tee must be included in the hydraulic

calculations. The allowance to use an extension is restricted to sprinklers

with a relative low discharge volume. They will most likely be used for

minor adjustments to interface with the ceiling.

 

This answers some of the other Forum responses to my questions but does not
answer my problem. 

 

What I would like to see is a practical flow test done with a K36 (us k25)
head and see if there is a significant difference between welded outlet,
threaded tee and clamp tee. Does anyone know if this has been done???

 

Our AHJ has asked for the full loss to be included and this will nearly
double the pressure required at a K-36 sprinkler from 345kPa(50psi) to
around 600kPa(90psi), if clamp tees are used. There is quite a variation
between Brands for the stated EQL.

Makes life difficult if site staff change from welded to mechanical fittings
and then buy a variety of brands!

 

Thanks for the responses.

Russell Gregory

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting
Sent: Friday, 28 October 2016 3:56 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler
Outlet

 

Russell,
Mark and Todd are both correct.  
If the sprinkler is directly attached to the fitting, in this case the
welded outlet or mechanical tee, the friction loss through that fitting is
excluded from the hydraulic calculations, per NFPA 13, 23.4.4.7.1(9).  I
don't know that I've ever had a set of calculations sent back with a comment
that I didn't include the friction loss equivalent for the welded outlet or
mechanical tee which was directly attached to the sprinkler.  
Todd's comment is valid as well, however it's worth noting, I believe,
that when you're designing a system with flexible drops you must account for
the equivalent length of the device, using the manufacturer's data.  My own
experience has been that those values are substantial.
sincerely,

Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/>  

On 10/27/2016 1:30 AM, Russell & Carol Gregory wrote:

I posted a message on this subject early this month but only received one
reply(thanks Brad). This was surprising as I thought it was a serious
problem if the full EQL for tee had to be added to calculations. Especially
if the change was made on-site after design had been completed with welded
outlets.

So my query is as follows;

 

When calculating a Range Pipe with welded threaded outlets for sprinklers it
is not necessary to include a loss for the water leaving the range pipe and
entering the sprinkler. The total pressure is assumed to apply to the
sprinkler orfice.

This means that a 80nb pipe with a 25nb outlet and a k36 sprinkler does not
have an additional loss added for the outlet fitting.

 

If I change my design and fabricate the 80nb range pipe with 80 x 25
Mechanical Tees for the Sprinkler outlet do I have to apply an additional
loss factor for that fitting? The published EQL for Mech tees varies greatly
between brands,( 0.8m up to 2.4m). This means a head pressure of 345kPa
would need around 600kPa in the range if this additional loss is added.

 

Questions;

1.   Is it common practice in USA to use 80 x 25 clamp/mechanical tees
for attaching large bore Storage Sprinklers directly to 80nb range pipes?

2.   Is it common practice to add in an additional loss for the clamp
tee, in the hydraulic calculation, where the sprinkler is directly fitted to
the tee outlet?  

 

I would appreciate the Forum members advise as to what is the standard
practice in the USA.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

 






___
Sprinklerforum ma

RE: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Steve,

I have been doing sprinkler design for over 50years and our NZ
Standard/Rules have been based on FOC/UK rules for most of that time. Only
in recent years have we adopted FM/NFPA for some of our Extra High Hazard.

Hence I think of Mains (usually 65 - 200+mm nominal bore) as feed pipes and
Ranges (usually 25 - 50mm  nb) as pipes which have sprinklers attached
either directly or by droppers/risers. Of course Storage/ESFR sprinklers
have now made us use 65 and 80mm nb pipes with sprinklers directly attached.

 

Cheers,

Russell Gregory

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Friday, 28 October 2016 6:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler
Outlet

 

Russell:

 

What does the term "range pipe" refer to?

 

 

Steve Leyton 

 

 

 Original message ----

From: Russell & Carol Gregory <rcgreg...@snap.net.nz> 

Date: 10/27/16 1:31 AM (GMT-08:00) 

To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Subject: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet 

 

I posted a message on this subject early this month but only received one
reply(thanks Brad). This was surprising as I thought it was a serious
problem if the full EQL for tee had to be added to calculations. Especially
if the change was made on-site after design had been completed with welded
outlets.

So my query is as follows;

 

When calculating a Range Pipe with welded threaded outlets for sprinklers it
is not necessary to include a loss for the water leaving the range pipe and
entering the sprinkler. The total pressure is assumed to apply to the
sprinkler orfice.

This means that a 80nb pipe with a 25nb outlet and a k36 sprinkler does not
have an additional loss added for the outlet fitting.

 

If I change my design and fabricate the 80nb range pipe with 80 x 25
Mechanical Tees for the Sprinkler outlet do I have to apply an additional
loss factor for that fitting? The published EQL for Mech tees varies greatly
between brands,( 0.8m up to 2.4m). This means a head pressure of 345kPa
would need around 600kPa in the range if this additional loss is added.

 

Questions;

1.   Is it common practice in USA to use 80 x 25 clamp/mechanical tees
for attaching large bore Storage Sprinklers directly to 80nb range pipes?

2.   Is it common practice to add in an additional loss for the clamp
tee, in the hydraulic calculation, where the sprinkler is directly fitted to
the tee outlet?  

 

I would appreciate the Forum members advise as to what is the standard
practice in the USA.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

 

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

Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

I posted a message on this subject early this month but only received one
reply(thanks Brad). This was surprising as I thought it was a serious
problem if the full EQL for tee had to be added to calculations. Especially
if the change was made on-site after design had been completed with welded
outlets.

So my query is as follows;

 

When calculating a Range Pipe with welded threaded outlets for sprinklers it
is not necessary to include a loss for the water leaving the range pipe and
entering the sprinkler. The total pressure is assumed to apply to the
sprinkler orfice.

This means that a 80nb pipe with a 25nb outlet and a k36 sprinkler does not
have an additional loss added for the outlet fitting.

 

If I change my design and fabricate the 80nb range pipe with 80 x 25
Mechanical Tees for the Sprinkler outlet do I have to apply an additional
loss factor for that fitting? The published EQL for Mech tees varies greatly
between brands,( 0.8m up to 2.4m). This means a head pressure of 345kPa
would need around 600kPa in the range if this additional loss is added.

 

Questions;

1.   Is it common practice in USA to use 80 x 25 clamp/mechanical tees
for attaching large bore Storage Sprinklers directly to 80nb range pipes?

2.   Is it common practice to add in an additional loss for the clamp
tee, in the hydraulic calculation, where the sprinkler is directly fitted to
the tee outlet?  

 

I would appreciate the Forum members advise as to what is the standard
practice in the USA.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

 

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

RE: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Brad your message came through fine, thank you. 

Russell

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 1:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

 

I don't know if this Forum is working or not Russell.
Somtimes it goes on the blink.
I no longer take myself so seriously as to think I could cause a meltdown. 

I was hoping I'd have like 40 e-mails in my in-box about this by now.

Mr. Leyton? Is this thing working tonight as far as you know?

b-rad

On Oct 4, 2016 3:34 AM, "Brad Casterline" <bcasterli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Russell, 

My understanding is we do not have to figure the loss for the fitting the 
sprinkler is in because when the K Factor was being established it was in a 
fitting.
NFPA 13 (2016) 23.4.4.8.1 (9) confirms that.
But it's a good question because we're supposed to use a manufacturer's 
published loss if they have one.
So would it make sense to, if the published loss is greater, subtract the loss 
shown in 13, and include that difference? 

Brad

On Oct 4, 2016 3:08 AM, "Russell & Carol Gregory" <rcgreg...@snap.net.nz> wrote:

When calculating a Range Pipe with welded threaded outlets for sprinklers it is 
not necessary to include a loss for the water leaving the range pipe and 
entering the sprinkler. The total pressure is assumed to apply to the sprinkler 
orfice.

This means that a 80nb pipe with a 25nb outlet and a k36 sprinkler does not 
have an additional loss added for the outlet fitting.

 

If I change my design and fabricate the 80nb range pipe with 80 x 25 Mechanical 
Tees for the Sprinkler outlet do I have to apply an additional loss factor for 
that fitting? The published EQL for Mech tees varies greatly between brands,( 
0.8m up to 2.4m). This means a head pressure of 345kPa would need around 600kPa 
in the range if this additional loss is added.

 

I would appreciate the Forum members advise as to what is the standard practice 
in the USA, and whether the additional loss is to be included.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

 


___
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

Hydraulic losses when using a Mechanical Tee on Sprinkler Outlet

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

When calculating a Range Pipe with welded threaded outlets for sprinklers it
is not necessary to include a loss for the water leaving the range pipe and
entering the sprinkler. The total pressure is assumed to apply to the
sprinkler orfice.

This means that a 80nb pipe with a 25nb outlet and a k36 sprinkler does not
have an additional loss added for the outlet fitting.

 

If I change my design and fabricate the 80nb range pipe with 80 x 25
Mechanical Tees for the Sprinkler outlet do I have to apply an additional
loss factor for that fitting? The published EQL for Mech tees varies greatly
between brands,( 0.8m up to 2.4m). This means a head pressure of 345kPa
would need around 600kPa in the range if this additional loss is added.

 

I would appreciate the Forum members advise as to what is the standard
practice in the USA, and whether the additional loss is to be included.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch 

New Zealand

 

e-mail  <mailto:rcgreg...@snap.net.nz> rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

 

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

RE: Non-Aspirating Sprinklers listed with specific foam?

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

The listing requirement is for the TYPE of Foam NOT the BRAND, so s long as it 
is listed for use with AFFF or ARFF then the Brand shouldn’t matter. This is 
where Mil Spec foams were used so brand wasn’t an issue.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Dan Arbel
Sent: Monday, 26 September 2016 12:42 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ofer Halamish
Subject: Non-Aspirating Sprinklers listed with specific foam?

 

Dear All,

 

Should Non-Aspirating Sprinkler be listed with a specific foam?  

 

This is what is required by NFPA 409:

 

6.2.2 Deluge Foam-Water Sprinkler System Design and Performance.

 

6.2.2.10 The discharge devices shall have a minimum nominal 6.4 mm (1∕4 in.) 
orifice and shall be listed for use with the particular type of foam 
concentrate to be used in the system.

 

However, such approval is not required by FMGlobal: 

 

FM Global-  Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets 4-12,  Jan 2013

 

3.2 Protection

3.2.1 Where to Find Foam-Water Sprinkler Components in the Approval Guide

The following components are listed in the Foam-Water Sprinkler section of the 
Approval Guide:

• Automatic sprinklers • Deluge sprinklers*

• Aspirated sprinklers • Foam concentrates

* Deluge sprinklers are not listed as such in the Approval Guide; they are 
simply FM Approved automatic

sprinklers that can be ordered in the open orifice (deluge) configuration from 
the manufacturer.

 

I did not find any such requirement in NFPA 11 or NFPA 16 that are more 
specific Standard referenced in NFPA 409.  

 

What is required is to use listed components.  

 

The NFPA 409 requirement as per 6.2.2.10  seems to be rather odd: 

 

It is necessary to use listed components such as sprinklers, accessories and 
Foam. 

 

Aspirating Foam Sprinkler is listed as such without a specific foam. 

 

Why should regular open sprinkler be listed together with a specific foam. 

 

Your comments are welcome. 

 

Dan

 

 

 

Dan Arbel Risk Engineering

T: 972-4-8243337

F: 972-4-8243278

M: 972-52-6611337

Mail:  <mailto:d...@riskmanage.com> d...@riskmanage.com

W: www.riskmanage.com

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

RE: Noncombustible concealed space

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

If you need to protect above the duct and get quicker detection then you
could use vertical sidewall heads on candle sticks up the side of duct and
stagger space.

Russell Gregory 

Christchurch New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Larry Keeping
Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2016 3:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Noncombustible concealed space

 

I would offer two points for your consideration:

 

1.  There was an old formal interpretation that advised that deletion of
sprinklers above a duct was a question for the AHJ, who could access all of
the circumstances.

2.  Sprinklers above open grid ceilings need to be in compliance with
Section 8.15.14.

 

Larry Keeping

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Tim Stone
Sent: September-14-16 10:04 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Noncombustible concealed space

 

I have an interesting situation. 

 

Steel and concrete School building. A Corridor runs down the middle on each
floor about 8' wide, W12 steel I-Beams forming the side at the floor deck
above, (About 12'-0 Floor to Bottom of deck).

There is a large duct running the length of the Corridor about 7'-6 wide x
24" tall. This leaves a gap of about 3" on each side between duct and
sheetrock partitions. The top of the duct is about 11" below the steel
Q-Deck above.

An open metal grid ceiling system is installed 12" - 16" below the duct. 

 

We are installing upright heads 1"-4" below the duct allowing the water to
spray down through the open grid ceiling.

 

The question is, do I need to install heads above the duct? There will be no
way to service or replace these heads and if installed between the duct and
the wall, the head will not meet the minimum 4" off the wall.

Referencing 2010 ed. 8.15.1.2.1, concealed spaces, I believe I am following
the intent.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

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

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968   Fax: (802) 434-4343

<mailto:tston...@comcast.net>
tston...@comcast.net

 

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

RE: Angled Wall Spacing

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Gentlemen,

You should be solving this puzzle using 15ft squares to comply with the
usual rules with no uncovered floor areas.

Alternatively use a circle of 21’-2 1/2” diameter and have no uncovered
floor areas. The 15ft circle is not showing the correct solution.

The circle is based on the diagonal of the 15ft square. Check that area of
coverage and distance between sprinklers does not exceed the rules maximum
spacing.

Regards,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2016 12:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Angled Wall Spacing

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ut5v9vbbk3y5ii/JAMES%20ANGLED%20WALL%20SPACING.pd
f?dl=0

 

Here is what I was thinking. I agree if using standard coverage sprks
Examples 2 and 3 would need a sprk added, but it is not due to the distance
between B and C. Due to the round pattern and square spacing I believe
Example 4 is (at least) equivalent to Example 1.

 

Anyone with me on this?

 

thanks,

Brad  

 

  _  

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Kenneth Berman
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Angled Wall Spacing

 

using extended coverage allows further distance from walls, which brings
heads closer than 21-2 1/2.

 

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Parsley Consulting
<parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:

I'll chime in as well.

Example 3 is closer to being correct, as the sprinklers at B and C aren't
more than 7'-6" from a wall, measured perpendicular to the wall.

The error, to me, is the distance of 21'-2½" between B and C.  I don't see
how that would be allowable, even if you were using extended coverage
sprinklers.  Table 8.8.2.1.2 limits the distance between such sprinklers,
with the maximum being 20'-0" in OH and LH occupancies.

I don't see how that would be allowed.

Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/>  

On 06/10/2016 12:51 PM, Ben Young wrote:

Agreed Tony.



On Friday, June 10, 2016, Tony Eggster <fireeggprotect...@gmail.com> wrote:

#2 & #3 are both wrong.

#2 is spaced too far, measured perpendicularly, from the angled wall.

#3 will require an additional sprinkler between B and C. If you draw a 15X15
square template on your drawings you will see an obvious void of sprinkler
coverage requiring protection.

 

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:20 PM, James Litvak <jameslit...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The problem with A.8.6.3.2.3 is that it only shows the one sprinkler. What
I'm concerned about is the distance between sprinklers B and C. In example 3
all the sprinklers are spaced correctly from the walls but B and C are 21'-2
1/2" apart. The way I understand it, they still need to be 15'-0" along that
wall, even though they're spaced correctly from every wall. Is that correct?


 

 

James



On Friday, June 10, 2016, Brian Harris <bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com> wrote:

Check out A.8.6.3.2.3 it should shed some light on it.

 

Brian Harris, CET

BVS Systems Inc.

bvssytemsinc.com <http://bvssystemsinc.com/> 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of James Litvak
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 1:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Angled Wall Spacing

 

I am wondering if I've been thinking about sprinkler spacing along angled
walls properly. What I mean is walls not at a right angle. The PDF I made in
the link below really helps explain it. In example 1, four heads are spaced
correctly at 225 sq. ft. In examples 2 and 3 one of the walls is angled. My
question is, are either example 2 or 3 correct, or are they both wrong? My
thought is that example 2 is incorrect, and for example 3 to be correct
there would need to be an additional sprinkler along the angled wall between
sprinklers B and C. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7fg0l79rtwbawne/Angled%20Wall%20Spacing.pdf?dl=0

 

James


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.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

 

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

RE: Cloud ceilings & sprinklers in gaps

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

Brad,

Does that calculation differentiate where the sprinkler head is located? In the 
gap Or just any where on the plane of ceiling.

 

Regards,

Russell Gregory

Christchurch,

New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Monday, 30 May 2016 11:12 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Cloud ceilings & sprinklers in gaps

 

Excellent post Nicky; very good questions and observations.
I agree with what Mark S. said and suggest a few additional considerations:
1) Use QR 155F cloud level sprinklers spaced slightly closer than the plenum 
spinklers.
2) Use QR 200F plenum sprinklers and avoid locating them directly above the 
gaps.

I modelled a piece of your scenario - - (4) panels with (3) gaps 'left to 
right' at 3.5m height, and a continuous structural ceiling at 4m.
On the floor below the far left gap I put a 1,700 kW/m^2, t^2, FAST fire.
The panels are 1.1m wide and the gaps are .05m wide. Centered in the far right 
gap is a QR, 155F, with a bulb height of 3.475m. Between 0 and 3m height I used 
.05m^3 grid cells, and between 3 and 4m I used .025m^3.
Activation time was 99 sec. (14 hour calc time).
Then I eliminated the gaps and ran it that way.
Activation time was 94 sec.

This would be an ideal scenario to model in detail using the Cloud Ceiling 
Study you mentioned as the template. In fact you can copy/paste the sample 
input file at the end of the report (from pdf to notepad), 'fix' a couple 
things that get lost in that translation, and start tweeking to your physical 
dimensions. Your clouds are not flat, but they are coplanar, and the plenum 
depth is consistent.

wbr,

Brad Casterline

On May 29, 2016 3:48 PM, "Nicky Marshall" <ni...@protechdesign.co.nz> wrote:

10 bays formed with Laminated timber beams, each with 24 panels.

 

Nicky Marshall

Southern Regional Manager

PROTECH DESIGN LIMITED

Specialist Fire Protection Consultants

Phone: +64 (0)3 579 5577 <tel:%2B64%20%280%293%20579%205577>   Mobile: +64 
(0)21 433 488 <tel:%2B64%20%280%2921%20433%20488>   Email:  
<mailto:ni...@protechdesign.co.nz> ni...@protechdesign.co.nz  Skype: 
nicky-marshall Web:www.protechdesign.co.nz

Address:105A Alabama Rd, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201, NZ Postal: PO Box 4022, 
Redwood Village, Blenheim 7242, NZ

 

From: Matthew J Willis [mailto:ma...@rapidfireinc.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 28 May 2016 1:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Cloud ceilings & sprinklers in gaps

 

How many clouds?

I ask because technically sprinklers are not required under them. You stated 
3’-6”..

 

R/

Matt

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Nicky Marshall
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Cloud ceilings & sprinklers in gaps

 

I would appreciate if anyone has some thoughts on this arrangement:

 

~4m (13ft) high roof, ~3.5m (11.5 ft) high ceiling.  Both slope 3 degrees.

The ‘ceiling’ is to be made up of many Autex acoustic panels 1.1 x 2.3m (3.6 x 
7.5 ft), non-combustible, suspended with 50mm (2 in) gaps around them.

There will be sprinklers in the roof space because there are cable trays with 
loads of combustible cables.

They architect wants to put the sprinklers in the 50mm gaps to avoid cutting 
holes in the acoustic panels.

 

Whilst we are designing to NZS 4541, this code is silent on cloud ceilings or 
anything like this, so I am looking for guidance from other sources.

I note NFPA 13:2016 clause 8.15.24 gives some guidance and it seems to indicate 
our ceiling arrangement would not require sprinklers above the clouds or have 
any specific sprinkler location requirements. 

I am also aware of the Fire Protection Research Foundation report on cloud 
ceilings.  This seemed to suggest that each cloud must have its own sprinkler – 
but doesn’t test with such small gaps – and recommends further study in this 
area where coverage can be achieved without sprinklers in every cloud.

 

Three questions:

Are the gaps small enough to just call this a ceiling – not a cloud ceiling 
(what size gap affects the plume flow enough to make a difference)?

Is it acceptable to locate the sprinklers within the small gaps, or will this 
location significantly affect their operation?

Do we have to cumulatively flow sprinklers above and below the ceiling, or 
since NFPA permits this arrangement to not have roof space sprinklers 
(suggesting heat flow into this space is not significant?), this would not be 
required?

 

Kind regards

 

Nicky Marshall

Southern Regional Manager

PROTECH DESIGN LIMITED

Specialist Fire Protection Consultants

Phone: +64 (0)3 579 5577 <tel:%2B64%20%280%293%20579%205577>   Mobile: +64 
(0)21 433 488 <tel:%2B64%20%280%2921%20433%20488>   Email:  
<mailto:ni...@protechdesign.co.nz> ni...@protech

RE: Flowmeter for fire pump testing

[Russell & Carol Gregory]

A few years ago I replaced an Annubar unit with a Preso Ellipse
(www.preso.com) unit. Still a probe type sensor but may need a change of
weld socket on pipe.

 

Russell Gregory

Christchurch New Zealand

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Karen Lesko
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2016 10:24 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Flowmeter for fire pump testing

 

The existing flowmeter is leaking and is not repairable. It would be nice to
get a replacement that fit into the existing hole in the pipe instead of
replacing a section of piping to install a venturi.

Sent using CloudMagic Email
<https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=pa=8.4.52=5.1.1=email_fo
oter_2>  

 

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Brad Casterline <bcasterli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Correction - half the density, not the mass I think. And I should do some
googling I guess- the old annubar stuck down through a hole in the top of
the pipe like a flow switch right? Whereas you would have to cut out a
section of pipe to install a venturi?

On May 10, 2016 5:08 PM, "Brad Casterline" <bcasterli...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought annubar and venturi were synonymous. Create a constriction in the
flow path and apply Bernoulli's Principle:
~where the velocity of a fluid is high the pressure is low and, where the
velocity of a fluid is low the pressure is high~
The change in pressure is half the mass times the velocity squared
(Bernoulli's Equation).
How is it broken? Something clogged up?

On May 10, 2016 3:40 PM, "Karen Lesko" <kfle...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have a mid 1980s fire pump installation with an annubar type flowmeter on
the line that recirculates to the fire water tank. The flowmeter is broken
so we have been testing our fire pumps with hydrant flows. We would like to
be able to do some testing with our recirculation line. Is anybody aware of
a listed annubar flowmeter or do we need to switch to a venturi type? 

Karen Lesko
Fire Protection Engineering
SRR, LLC
803-221-0753


___
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: Clean room sprinklers

[Russell Carol Gregory]

The basic answer is that it should be protected. We try to control a fire at
its earliest stage of development.
It is unreasonable to wait until an ESFR head at the roof operates when this
room and its contents will probably have been destroyed. The water damage
may be excessive.
The smoke will have spread around and coated stored material in adjacent
racks.

Equate cost to install against damage caused. 

There are a number of unknowns;
Value of room and contents?
Type of goods stored in adjacent racks?
Is room moved regularly as you said it was portable or is it temporary?
Can it be sited adjacent to a wall or end of rack so a dropper can be run
down to the 2 - 4 sprinklers needed?

Cheers,
Russell Gregory
Christchurch, New Zealand  

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez
Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2015 8:10 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Clean room sprinklers

We have a building with a ESFR sprinkler system installed that the owner has
decided to install a portable clean room in.  The room itself has plastic
sheeting for walls  and the ceiling is composed of air vents and acrylic
panels.  No storage of combustibles is allowed inside and they use it to
check LED panels for defects.  The room is about 12X20.  Is there any
exception in NFPA 13 that would allow the omission of sprinklers from the
room?  It just seems silly to require sprinklers in the room when you have
30ft rack storage next to it protected by the ESFR system.

Thanks,

Dewayne
___
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: sprinkler in computer room.

[Russell Carol Gregory]

I agree with Craig. One guarded sprinkler is so much more reliable than any of 
the Pre-action alternatives.
We have always protected Computer rooms in sprinklered buildings in NZ, unless 
a separate Fire Compartment.
Keep the pipework out of the room and use a sidewall with guard or concealed 
sidewall so pipe is only through the wall. If pipe must be in room always run 
away from cabinets so any drips from condensation or fittings won't drop on 
sensitive equipment. Use a 93deg C sprinkler if you install a smoke detector as 
well. Use the KISS principle.
The use of dry sprinkler and MJC to make a mini Preaction still puts water 
filled pipe in or over room but it may appease some Engineers or AHJ.

Russell Gregory
Christchurch
New Zealand 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Tuesday, 16 June 2015 3:41 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: sprinkler in computer room.

Why go preaction?  If this is a one-sprinkler room sounds more like a server 
rack closet or something like that as opposed to a full blown computer room.  
Put in a smoke detector to provide early warning and leave the wet sprinkler 
alone.  The more gizmos attached the more likely something won't work right 
when needed.



Craig L. Prahl 
Fire Protection Group Lead
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spartanburg, SC  29303
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
CH2MHILL Extension  74102
craig.pr...@ch2m.com


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of teemsprinkdave
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 11:09 AM
To: FORUM
Subject: 

Needing a little help, I have a customer wanting to make a small room into a 
computer server room. One sprinkler in the room. Has anybody used a solenoid 
valve, normally closed, and activated by a heat detector? Trying to save the 
expense of a pre-action system.
  DAVE GROVER
Teem Sprinkler Co.
Superintendent 
NFPA 25 Level II Inspector
P 336-650-9005
F 336-650-9007
C 336-399-9006
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


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

RE: NFPA 409 2011 6.1., 6.1.2, 7.2

[Russell Carol Gregory]

6.1.2 only applies to Hangars housing unfuelled aircraft.

Russell Gregory
Christchurch, New Zealand

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Gregg Fontes
Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015 4:17 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: NFPA 409 2011 6.1., 6.1.2,  7.2

Chapter 6 - Protection of Group I Aircraft Hangars:  6.1.1 The protection of
aircraft storage and servicing areas for Group I aircraft hangars shall be
in accordance with any one of the following: (1), (2), or (3).  All three of
these are some type of foam application.  Then comes 6.1.2; Group I aircraft
hangar storage and service area shall be provided with protection in
accordance with 6.1.1 or with automatic sprinkler protection as specified in
Sections 7.2 and 7.8.  7.2 Closed-Head Water Sprinkler System for Aircraft
Storage and Servicing Areas.  

So base on the above, if I am not missing something or skipping something,
you are allowed to either design a foam type system 6.1.1 or a standard
closed-head wet pipe fire sprinkler system (no foam) per the requirements of
7.2 and 7.8.  Am I understanding this correctly?

Thanks,
Gregg Fontes
Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
209-334-9119

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


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

RE: Foam Hangars

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Bob,
Zones to operate for deluge have been 100ft(30m) radius in 409;2004 and 2011. 
Used to be 50, 75 or 100ft depending on ceiling height.
Regards,
Russell Gregory.
Christchurch, New Zealand

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bob Holland
Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 9:25 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Foam  HangArs

Don,
No worries.  The misspelling happens a lot.  An older hangar guy drew me a 
picture of a commercial jet draped over a wire hanger once which made it 
memorable. 

In PG's old hangar was the certification from the FAA.  On the single typed 
page hangar was spelled with an 'e' and an 'a'.  2009 IBC Commentary has it 
both ways in adjacent paragraphs.

I'd bet that guard's duty assignments did not improve.

I think pop ups were being used by the military a few years before the NFPA 
committee on 409 took it up.  We did our first 'public' version around 2005-6 
with the knowledge from these and a letter it would be included in the next 
edition.

Back to the original question.
And assuming you must use foam...
Hangar type is determined by features listed in NFPA 409 Article 4.1 not the 
IBC.
In the case of Group II, this determines construction type and minimum-maximum 
zones.
Usually Construction Type selected is Type II (000) (see NFPA 220)  because its 
unprotected steel - basically the old 2-C circa 1996.
Then the dance between footprint, aircraft parking/maneuvering, girt span 
capability, framing, door pockets and fire zones begins.  Start with aircraft 
requirements then to girt span (26-28' usually, outboard on cantilevered CMU 
stem walls), which determine the easiest draft curtain locations/assembly and 
fire zones set off by the 75' circle.  The goal is to shed zones using the 75' 
activation circle.

In other words, if your hangar was 130 x 130 and your bays front to back are 
26' wide, you have five zones and you only activate three at worst in any given 
scenario;  i.e. your supply/storage calcs need to accommodate coverage for 
10,140SF not the full 16,900SF cited below.

Hope this helps, Bob.

ROBERT HOLLAND Jr. AIA, CDT, LEED AP, PMP ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS / INTERIOR 
DESIGNERS
7400 West Campus Rd.   Suite 150   New Albany, OH  43054   www.shremshock.com
t 614 545 4550 x 286 f 614 545 4555 rholl...@shremshock.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Don Lowry
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Foam  HangArs

Thanks for the info and apologies for the misspelling (hangArs).  This is not 
something I do on a regular basis. (I think I've only done 3 hangars since the 
80's).  

This reminds me of my first, Dyess Air Force base in Abilene, TX  back in the 
80s sometime when the B1 Bomber first came out, we did a hanger for it.  Very 
souped up foam systems(deluge), lots of monitors etc.  Impressive during the 
tests, system refilled  left in service.  About a month later we get a call 
that says they need more foam and their systems re-set up.  Seems a private on 
guard duty had accidently pulled the manual trip switchThe B1B in the 
hanger was opened up and needless to say had a lot of soap suds on the 
electronics.  Talk about a mess ☺. 

If I recall at that time the pop-up type sprinklers were not available and 
maybe were invented because of this!!  Good times back then.

Anyway thanks to all for the help.
Don Lowry, CET, Texas RME


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bob Holland
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 12:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Foam  HangArs

A few years ago while at URS I was part of a team doing hangars for Executive 
Jet, Nationwide, US Air, Tenn. Nat'l Guard, Proctor and Gamble and others, a 
bunch of them.  When we started NFPA 409 was only mentioned in a list of 
related applicable codes.  IBC 412. 4 through .6  did not exist.  IBC 412.4.6 
now lists what cannot happen in a hangar without foam.  I strongly advised 
getting a copy of IBC 412 with the Commentary. It is based on 409 but affords 
greater general clarity via the Commentary. Details remain in 409.
  
I've not seen a mention of draft curtains in the dialogue below.  As I recall 
these establish zones based upon allowable fire areas per construction type and 
a 75' circle 'sets off' the zones. Worst case is an interior zone (not left or 
right perimeter) where the 75' causes three zones to activate.  Water 
calculations were based on this.

There were several ways to deliver foam, overhead gets into aircraft and 
cannons can be obstructed or otherwise problematic.   The preferred method 
after it was developed with the air force was the
'pop-up

RE: Foam Hangers

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Don,
Yes, that is what it means.

The AHJ may allow 1 system as you are such a small percentage over area.

Option (d) was used to reduce the total amount of foam discharged and thus
lessen the environmental impact. The system assumes all heads may open. This
system is only likely to perform efficiently and be cost effective on small
low height hangars.

Regards,

Russell Gregory
Christchurch, New Zealand 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Don Lowry
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 10:54 a.m.
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Foam  Hangers

Ref 2004 NFPA-409

 

Situation:

Group II hanger

Option # 4, Closed-Head Foam-Water Sprinkler System 

 

16,900 Sq Ft total hanger size

 

So, per 7.6.4 we'll need 2 systems (8K and 8900) respectively so as not to
exceed 15k per system.

 

7.6.2 states minimum design density .16 gpm/sqft over entire storage and
service area.

 

Question; 

Based on 7.6.2  I've got to calc both systems at the same time, for the
entire hanger area. (lots of water).   Am I interpreting this correctly or
does this mean calc the entire area of each systems individual floor area?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Don Lowry

 

 

 

 

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


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

RE: Fm 200 or co2

[Russell Carol Gregory]

I think in this case go back to first principles.
Why omit sprinklers when they are the most reliable and effective means of
fire protection?
Most concerns about wet sprinklers over electrical equipment are ill founded
and providing the design is made to cover any possible problems there is no
problem. Position sprinklers away from equipment to avoid drips, use
concealed or guarded heads to avoid impact damage,etc. Can zone room with
flow switch to speed up locating fire. 
Going to pre-action etc is lower reliability but eases some worries.
Add Gas Flood and sensitive smoke detection as additional early responses.
Most Electrical/switch/computer Rooms I have seen over 50 yrs of designing
have contained additional fire loads like spare components etc in cardboard
and plastic packaging so there are hazards. We protect all
electrical/computer rooms unless fully separated by 2hrFRR walls, ceilings,
floors and doors. 
IF Gas Flood use Inert Gas such as Inergen IG541. Much safer in a Hospital
situation with no asphyxiation or products of decomposition problems.

Russell Gregory
Christchurch 
New Zealand

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Aaron Peck
Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2014 9:28 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Fm 200 or co2

Something I found out, literally like within the last week, that it's a
British standard for requiring FM200 or CO2. I'm right now in Bahrain and it
was asked why do we have sprinklers inside these very rooms.

Evidently from what I'm told that they usually don't have protection inside
small electrical/communication rooms. For larger ones the special systems
are used.

Don't forget NFPA does allow you do omit sprinklers from electrical rooms, I
don't have the code number but you have to meet all 4 criteria. Two that I
know off the top of my head is that all walls are 2 hours rated and only dry
type equipment is located in them. As far as the other two I'm not
remembering.

Aaron M. Peck SET
+1 (202) 407-9079 Skype
+855 (78) 700-407
Sent from my iPad

 On Nov 19, 2014, at 11:19 PM, Art Tiroly atir...@atcofirepro.com wrote:
 
 The primary fire protection will be wet fire sprinkler. If the owner 
 wants a clean agent for additional fire suppression you can use FM200. 
 CO2 can be lethal to human occupancy. If the owner wants a variance 
 they may be able to use just the FM200. I do not kjnow what country you
are working in.
 
 Art
 ATCO/Tiroly
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Sprinklerforum 
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
 On Behalf Of Engr. belal alrwadieh
 Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:00 PM
 To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 Subject: Fm 200 or co2
 
 Gentlemen,
 Im having a hospital project, and im having electrical room and 
 communication room in each zone apmost 3 room per floor.
 As per th IFC drawing it is covered by sprinkler sysetm .. 
 What i want to clarify is there any clear statement to define the 
 precise description for the fire suppression in this case or whether 
 it regular wet sprinkler or it should be FM 200 ...
 
 Many thanks inadvance
 
 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
 
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
 er.org
 
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
 er.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


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

RE: Baghouse Fire Suppression

[Russell Carol Gregory]

There is an FM Data Sheet which covers Dust Collectors etc.

Russell Gregory

Russell Gregory
41A Diamond Avenue,
Christchurch 8024
New Zealand 
 
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, C.E.T.
Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014 11:46 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Baghouse Fire Suppression

Looking for some information on installing fire sprinklers in a
baghouse/dust collector.  I haven't been able to find anything in the NFPA
standards or elsewhere that gives any design criteria or sprinkler placement
requirements.  NFPA 654 just says  10.5.2 Automatic sprinklers, where
provided, shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems. 
NFPA 13 Chapter 22 looked promising but nothing there either.

There is an existing explosion suppression system installed in the baghouse
but that is a separate matter.

Any insight is appreciated.

Thank you.

Reed Roisum



Reed A. Roisum, C.E.T. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 |
http://www.kfiengineers.com

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


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

RE: Sprinkler statistics

[Russell Carol Gregory]

When I joined Wormald in New Zealand 50 years ago they used this type of
table in the promotion of Fire Sprinkler systems.
The figures came from the records that Wormald kept on all sprinkler fires
in Australia and New Zealand. I also think that Mather and Platt did a
similar record in the UK.

In the book Fire - Automatic Sprinklers in Australia and New Zealand 1886 -
1968 by Harry Marryatt there is very good analysis of that time period. It
was updated his 1986 edition which I think was called A Century of Fire
Sprinklers( I don't have a copy of the later book).
The figures in 1968 were;
66.6%   1 head
15.6%   2 heads
5.9%3 heads
3.2%  4 heads
1.6%5 heads
So 93% of sprinklered fires were 5 heads or less.
There were 5720 recorded fires in this study.
Satisfactory operation was 99.76% with 0.24% unsatisfactory incidents (14)

Wormald still keep a record of sprinkler saves on our systems, but the NZ
and Australian Fire Protection Associations and the NZ Fire Service try to
keep a full list, but it lacks the Technical Detail that was recorded for
over 100 years in the Wormald record.

Trust this is of interest.
Russell Gregory
Christchurch, New Zealand

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Frans Stoop
Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2014 4:53 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sprinkler statistics

Gentlemen,

Once I saw a sprinkler statistic table saying something like this (I don't
remember the exact percentages):

Regarding fires that are succesfully controlled by sprinklers
50 % of the fires by 1 sprinkler
66 % of the fires by 1 or 2 sprinklers
75 % of the fires by upto 3 sprinklers
80 % of the fires by upto 4 sprinklers
83 % of the fires by upto 5 sprinklers
etcetera...

Does anyone recognize this table?
If so, any idea where I can find it?

I already found some statistics on the NFPA, AFSA, FM, SFPE and CIBV
websites, but couldn't find this simple table.

Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,

Frans Stoop
TOS architecture  fire protection
Netherlands f.st...@tosfire.com
Tel. +31-24-324 0112 

___
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: pendent sprinkler inside a 40x40mm channel

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Why not place sprinkler in centre of Luxalon panel(130mm wide) and use an 
approved recessed escutcheon plate or concealed sprinklers??
Regards,
Russell Gregory
Christchurch New Zealand
email rcgreg...@snap.net.nz



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Phong - Indochine Engineering
Sent: Saturday, 5 July 2014 2:45 p.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: pendent sprinkler inside a 40x40mm channel

The photo is at below link

https://www.mediafire.com/?y2gicudhgqymk42

or

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202690158710459set=a.10200507596787775.1073741826.1093386470type=1theater

Please can you help. Appreciated.


Regards,
Le Vu Phong
Mobile:  +84 (0) 902 363 525
  





phong_indochineengineering


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Phong - Indochine Engineering
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 9:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: pendent sprinkler inside a 40x40mm channel

Dear All,

Not sure if you can receive the attached file, am looking for a product can be 
installed like that. Many thanks.

Regards,
Le Vu Phong
Mobile:  +84 (0) 902 363 525
___
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: Deluge System Pull Station

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Bob,
You don't say what the system is protecting but if it were an Aircraft
Hangar then NFPA 409:2011 clauses 6.2.8.2.2 and 7.7.4 refer to manual
actuation stations inside and outside the hangar area. These will be on the
main detection system. There will also be a manual emergency release at the
Deluge Control Valves which must not be part of the Detection system so
should the detection system fail it is still possible to release the deluge
system.
Spacing of manual actuation stations should be similar to the Detection
system NFPA 72? I have usually worked on 30m maximum travel to actuation
stations from any point in the Hangar.  This is similar to our national fire
alarm standard.
If the risk is say an LPG tank then the manual actuation stations should be
30m travel maximum but no closer to the tank than say 10m and never in line
with the ends of horizontal cylindrical tanks.
Positioning is very much on a job by job basis so they are accessible and
safe to reach in an emergency.

Cheers,
Russell Gregory
Christchurch, New Zealand  

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Saturday, 5 April 2014 2:05 p.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Deluge System Pull Station

I've been reading for a couple of hours and my eyes are about crossed.
Other than at the riser, how do you determine if and when a manual pull
station is required for a deluge system.  I've read a good bit of literature
and code, but I haven't seen anything that clarifies this.  Is it based on
distance of travel, length of pipe, etc... or is this something that spec
would determine?

Thank You,

Bob Knight, CET III
208-318-3057
www.Firebyknight.com




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


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

RE: Single interlock PA equal to Wet

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Are we the victims of an April 1st joke; or does Brad seriously believe that
fires do not occur in Freezers and Cold Stores. 
For instance when multiwall paper bags of frozen peas are in the cold store
they are very brittle and have very low moisture content. The paper or
cardboard outer of packaging is very easily ignited if a flame or high heat
is applied. There have been fires from electric forklift trucks short
circuiting or hot exhaust from diesel forklifts; or light fittings have
melted and dropped hot plastic or metal parts onto stored goods.
The paper bags become very brittle and tear/split easily leaving paper wicks
ready for heat source.
So the theory of only needing sprinklers in above freezing temperatures is
hogwash.
Fires do occur in freezers/cold stores so sprinkler protection is needed.
Also it is inherit that a DIPA system has a higher risk of failure to
operate correctly than say a wet pipe sprinkler system with dry drops due to
the increased number of devices/stages that must operate to put water on the
fire.Each of these stages has a chance of failure and is more to maintain.

Russell Gregory
Christchurch
New Zealand
 

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Casterline
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2014 3:49 p.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Single interlock PA equal to Wet

Adieu Ron. It is freezer protection that makes me wonder the most about
who's writing the rules. Wouldn't it take a day or two for the contents to
thaw to room temperature so that we can start worrying about accidental
fires? No matter how high class or interlocked the system is, a normally
closed control valve on top of it all would only have to be opened, if the
cooling system breaks down, or they convert the space to a swimming pool. (
might not need anything above pools though pretty soon I hear).

 On Mar 31, 2014, at 7:35 PM, rongreenman . rongreen...@gmail.com
wrote:
 
 I've always seen a SIPA as a wet with empty piping until a smoke 
 alarm, or some other detection that's more sensitive than heat 
 detection filling the pipe in anticipation of a head fusing. Same with 
 a DIPA except it's becomes a DPV when that sensitive detection 
 releases it to respond as a normal dry pipe would if a head also 
 fuses. since both are pre-action what is: 1, the pre-action and 2, 
 the action? Viking's definitions seem to suggest pre means changing 
 from a state similar to a closed control valve on either a SIPA or 
 DIPA into post pre state, becoming the equivalent of a wet or a dry pipe
respectively.
 
 Supervisory air in a SIPA has nothing to do with activation, just 
 notification if the system integrity is compromised, and the higher 
 pressure air in a DIPA fulfills that function when the detection is 
 holding the valve in a pre state.
 
 I think (that might be a problem) that the definition of pre-action 
 and the explanatory annex material  (2013) is wholly inadequate, and 
 the commentary in the handbook regarding DIPA sounds like it was 
 written by a salesman trying to promote the most complicated, and 
 therefore, costly system. Apart from the comment that accidental 
 discharge is rare, it sounds like the only way to alleviate such a 
 fear is with DIPA, in my opinion (there's that problem again) an 
 inappropriate solution unless rapid freezing (two or three hours or 
 less, or getting a technician out would be longer and it's so cold 
 that a freeze-up would occur faster than that, say a freezer 
 warehouse, or a loading dock in Frozen Butte, Montana in winter) is
anticipated.
 
 But the book says what it says and Roland will tell me to write a 
 change suggestion if I don't like it, and I'm speculating and not 
 directly addressing the topic, and Steve M. having to weigh in 
 recently and probably still a little sensitive, and of course opening 
 myself to the possibility of another salvo from Steve L. (although 
 with admittedly the best filthy epithet fired in my direction in recent
memory), I shall bid you all adieu.
 
 
 On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Brad Casterline
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.comwrote:
 
 Picking up where your but... left off Ron I thought the same thing if 
 you were thinking this is a matter of Definition trumps Operation. 
 And we cannot plan for failure of the detection system any more than 
 we can plan for the fire not starting in one place on the floor, 
 but... half-way up a combustible wall in a room with a combustible
ceiling.
 
 On Mar 31, 2014, at 5:33 PM, rongreenman . 
 rongreen...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 Seems odd as it should be filled with water before a single head 
 fuses so it should act like a wet, but if the detection fails to 
 trip the valve no number of heads opening will make it act like a 
 dry. It would have deterioration characteristics similar to dry 
 sitting around with wet air
 in
 it all day so the 100C would make sense

RE: Bailed Paper

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Try Baled Waste Paper in FM Data Sheets
Russell Gregory
Christchurch; New Zealand

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
proud-texan
Sent: Monday, 17 February 2014 3:50 p.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Bailed Paper

I'm looking for guidance such as density/area for storage of bailed paper
cubes (3'x3'x6') stacked 9' high (3 tiers).  I see all sorts of guidance for
rolled paper but none for bailed and banded paper. Any suggestions?
___
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: jockey pump only

[Russell Carol Gregory]

In New Zealand most of our Fire Sprinkler Systems have this arrangement of a
manually controlled super-pressure pump which is used to raise the
installation pressure above the sprinkler alarm valve by approx 450 kPa.
This allows us to have two pressure sensor settings at approx 150 kPa
intervals for signalling defect and fire. If the water supply pressure is
say 500kPa then the installation standing pressure would be 950kPa. Defect
would be signalled at 800 kPa and Fire at 650 kPa. Most of our systems are
connected to a national receiving centre. Defect calls are on sent to
maintenance company and fire calls go direct to the Fire Service. This is
specified in our New Zealand Standard NZS 4541. We still have a water motor
alarm gong on the building.

Russell Gregory
Special Projects Engineer 
Wormald
Christchurch, NZ

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt
Grise
Sent: Saturday, 1 February 2014 5:57 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: jockey pump only

I ran across a system where the owner has elected to use a small pump to
pressurize the system in order to prevent municipal water surges from
causing false trips on the flow switch. Has anyone seen this before? Are
there any codes that address something like this?

(not something that we installed, or specified... just found it this way)

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II  
Sales Engineer 
Alliance Fire Protection 
130 w 9th Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116

*Licensed in KS  MO 

913.888.0647 ph 
913.888.0618 f 
913.927.0222 cell 
www. AFPsprink.com 


___
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: ceiling slope

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Reference to Factory Mutual Data Sheet 2.0 clause 2.2.1.6 gives their take
up to 20deg.slope. Use IRS over 10deg.


Russell Gregory
Christchurch NZ
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
teemsprinkdave
Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013 5:35 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: ceiling slope

yes, FM, wanting sprinklers. Approx. 6000 sq. ft. area with this ceiling
slope. Thought of flat ceiling, but wanted to make sure I didn't miss
anything. thanks


DAVE 

From: Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: ceiling slope


I'm assuming he wants to/has to install sprinklers. Install a flat ceiling
over the storage and go from there.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
http://www.fpdc.com/

On Sep 16, 2013, at 1:13 PM, teemsprinkdave teemsprinkd...@bellsouth.net
wrote:

  NFPA 13, 2007 ed. chap.12.1.2, ...system criteria specified in this
chapter is intended for ceiling slopes NOT MORE  than 2 in 12.  I've got a
customer storing 20' on racks, unsprinklered building, and have a slope more
than 2 in 12. Is there an option I'm missing?? 
  
 DAVE GROVER
 Teem Sprinkler Co.
 Superintendent 
 NFPA 25 Level II Inspector
 P 336-650-9005
 F 336-650-9007
 C 336-399-9006
 ___
 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: Cantilever Racks

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Not enough info.
What is being stored? Sheets or pallets?
What size of cantilever arms? 
Total depth of racks etc?


Russell Gregory
Christchurch, New Zealand
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill,
Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013 12:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Cantilever Racks

I appreciate the thought. Its the design with barriers within the rack and
at the top. So a little less exposure to the overhead. The deluge activation
is also about 40' above the top of rack so lesser chance of exposure to
overhead. And finally future project in next couple years to convert deluge
to something else making the issue moot. As I said there is a lot to this
story.

Chris Cahill
Fire Protection Engineer
Burns  McDonnell
952-656-3652
ccah...@burnsmcd.com Ed Vining wrote:
Wet blanket thought.  Will FM agree that that interpretation will apply to
deluge nozzles as wel as sprinklers?  In rack sprinklers should reduce the
number of sprinkler which open, but not the number of deluge nozzles.


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Cahill, Christopher
ccah...@burnsmcd.comwrote:

 High piled double row rack storage with in-rack sprinklers.  Per 
 design selected (FM) longitudinal flue heads at every upright and not 
 to exceed 10' o.c.  This is a design that allows one not to consider 
 the overhead sprinklers.  Long story but seemingly the best approach 
 for a reconverted hangar from the 1950's with unknown deluge design.

 Cantilever racks with uprights (columns) variable at 2'-8' spacing.  
 Of course the uprights are more like 18 steel columns with 6 
 flanges.  Does one put a head at every upright? Down to 2' o.c. seems a
little ridiculous?
  No matter where you put the head there is a large shadow on the other 
 side of the rack/column.  I believe NFPA says locate heads 3 from 
 upright but I think they are talking about the little few inch wide 
 typical rack design not cantilever columns. Thought about solving that 
 problem with a row down each side of the upright but then stuck with the
every upright or 10' o.c.
  Anyone done a cantilever with in-racks lately?

 Chris Cahill, PE*
 Senior Fire Protection Engineer

 Ed Vining
4819 John Muir Rd
Martinez CA 94553
925-228-8792
Cell 925-787-0465
*Note the e-mail address change*
___
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: Drains

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Some years ago I was involved in a multi storey bank building from the
building design stage to completion. It had a computer room on the 1st
floor(one above ground). The building was fully sprinkler protected with a
wet pipe system, including the computer room and sub floor. Scuppers with
flaps, were put in the outside walls to drain out sprinkler water from the
400mm deep sub floor. The Sprinkler Pipework was run at low level on the
concrete floor and the flat spray sprinkler were on sprigs up under the lift
out tile floor. Also all electrical junction boxes in the sub floor were on
raised stand-offs 50mm above floor level so water would not run into the
connections. An alarm sensing water/moisture on the floor were installed
connected to the computer alarms.
This arrangement worked well when, a few years later, the CPU which was
water cooled blew a joint, the water covered the floor and drained out
through the scuppers so never got deep enough to cause problems. Fire
Service and Computer staff were called by Fire Brigade Alarm/ Computer Alarm
along with the Sprinkler Maintenance contractor.

Drainage is worth having along with flow switch, sectional stop valve and
water leakage alarm.

Russell Gregory
Fire Protection Engineer(retired?)
Christchurch New Zealand
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Easter,
Timothy
Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2013 2:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Drains

For example in data centers, I thought it would be a good idea to have floor
drains (under raised floors) installed for water removal upon sprinkler
discharge. However, I was told no requirement exist. Does a requirement
exist that I can't find. Thanks.
Regards,

Timothy Easter
E.I.T.
Graduate Fire Protection Engineer
URS Corporation



This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential
information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this
message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain,
distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy
the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
___
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: Window sprinklers

[Russell Carol Gregory]

I presume you mean a window with two panes separated by a vertical mullion.
By most Codes/Rules: If the sprinkler/drencher is located centred on the
mullion then one is OK. If mullion is less then 40mm proud of surface it can
be ignored. Otherwise each pane of a window must be sprayed individually.



Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013 7:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Window sprinklers

I have two windows, each 2'-6 wide, separated by a vertical mullion. Do I
need two window sprinklers?

Tony 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Fire Service intervention model and sprinkler activation

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Nicky,
Like Roland, I think that the Fire Brigade attendance time is of lesser
importance as they should only be needed to mop up and tidy up after the
sprinklers have controlled or extinguished the fire.

It might be helpful to our Worldwide colleagues to explain that we in NZ
mostly super-pressurize our wet pipe sprinkler systems to 400+kPa above
water supply static pressure and call the Fire Service direct upon pressure
drop to at least 150kPa above the System Design Pressure. There is a Defect
call sent to the maintenance contractor at a pressure of 150kPa above the
Fire call pressure.
What this means is that when a sprinkler operates the sprinkler head flows
at a pressure at least 400kPa higher than the design pressure. The system
pressure falls and sends a signal to the maintenance contractor then a
signal to the Fire Service all before the Sprinkler Alarm Valve opens. On
large volume sprinkler systems this time from sprinkler operation to alarm
valve opening could be into 1- 5 minutes.

I was on site for a large multi storeyed residential system where a
sprinkler was accidentally activated and the workman (a tile layer using a
portable LPG heater to warm the room) responsible had time to run to the
Valvehouse where I was before the Fire Brigade was called and the Alarm
Valve hadn't opened. I was able to isolate the FBA and shut the main stop
valve before the Town Main water flowed into the system. This all took 3 -
5min I estimate.

So, the time for the Fire Service to come is extremely variable and only
relevant to clean up and evacuation. If flow switches are fitted in the
various branches of a system then evacuation by staff can be started earlier
but if sprinklers are operating then fire is controlled so not such an
important issue.

Regards,
Russell

Russell Gregory
Christchurch, New Zealand
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013 5:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Fire Service intervention model and sprinkler activation

As already stated, it's hatred to see what you are actually trying to
determine.  As all know, even small increments of time on a non-protected
fire can make a huge difference but on a sprinklered system what's the issue
unless you are looking at the extent of water flow/damage. Nonetheless, all
the other variable pale in comparison to the time delay allowed on the water
flow switch an the up to 90 seconds to get to the monitoring station.

Roland


On Feb 17, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Nicky Marshall ni...@protechdesign.co.nz
wrote:

 Does anyone know of any information that is available to assist with the
development of a Fire Service Intervention model with regards to sprinkler
operation.
 The model is intended to calculate how long it takes from sprinkler head
operating to Fire Service arriving and spraying water.
 We are looking for information on 'depressurisation'. How long does it
take once a sprinkler head has operated, for the alarm valve seat to lift
(and send signal to Fire Service)?
 Obviously there are a number of factors that influence this. Historically
only hazard and area of installation were taken into account. But now we
have such a variety of sprinkler heads, hazards and designs - has anybody
reviewed this?
 Is there a table or a formula that could be applied to better reflect
today's sprinkler systems?
 Is there a program that calculates sprinkler alarm valve operation 
 time (eg as SprinkCalc FDT calculates how long for water to reach a
minimum pressure at a sprinkler head for a dry pipe system?) Thanks in
advance for your help.
 
 Nicky Marshall
 Branch Manager (Blenheim)
 
 Protech Design
 Specialist Fire Protection Consultants
 03 579 5577

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20130219/08bc0c75/attachment.html
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: FM data sheet 8-34 Automated storage and retrieval systems

[Russell Carol Gregory]

What is shown would seem to be a double row rack, so stacker aisles are to
either side of rack shown. The centre sprinklers are in the longitudinal
flue.
Not good draughting.

Regards,
Russell 

Russell  Carol Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne
Martinez
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 10:10 AM
To: SprinklerFORUM
Subject: FM data sheet 8-34 Automated storage and retrieval systems

I am told to design an in-rack system per Fig 4 of this data sheet.  It
shows what appears to be sprinklers in the aisle between the racks where the
retrieval system would travel.

Am I looking at this correctly?  Anyone have any experience with this data
sheet?

 

Thanks,

Dewayne Martinez

Design Build Fire Protection

262-784-7900 (w)

262-784-8401 (f)

414-349-0468 (cell)

 

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20130213/1e75067b/attachment.html
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Sprinklers

[Russell Carol Gregory]

The Grunau head we used in NZ in the 70's/80's was an Institutional Head for
use in cells and the like

Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
Letterman
Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2012 10:12 AM
To: Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sprinklers

Does anyone have any information on a Grunau Fire Sprinkler?

Todd Letterman CFPS,CET
Senior Fire Protection Consultant
Hughes Associates Inc
2535 Camino Del Rio South/Suite 320/ San Diego  Ca 92108 Cell 951-691-7993
Office 1-619-344-0310 Fax: 619.344.0908
[cid:image001.jpg@01CDDF7C.CE7671A0]http://intranet.haifire.com/KnowledgeBa
se/graphics/HAI%20Logos/Code%20Consulting.GIF
[cid:image002.png@01CDDF7C.CE7671A0]

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20121221/fe1d869e/attachment.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4678 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL:
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20121221/fe1d869e/attachment.jpg
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1199 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL:
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20121221/fe1d869e/attachment.png
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Is it possible that the tank had a plastic liner and no steel base? I have
seen tanks of that type, fail when the water gets over the top edge of liner
then liner peels away from wall and water gushes out under the bottom of
wall and buckles tank. The water can slosh over in an earthquake as we had,
or, pump or test discharges can cause water to bubble up over the top edge
of liner

Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2012 8:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

Scot,

I tried searching OSHA and couldn't find anything more.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.comwrote:

 I wrote that Brad. I can also lift heavy things.


 On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Brad Casterline
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.comwrote:

 scot,

 i searched the archives yesterday when you posted this ('lake 
 placid') because i remember George Church first posted it several 
 months ago. I did not reply because none of those posts said whether 
 tank was bolted or welded. Mistakes? as i type i am reminded of a 
 quote i heard years ago and i use it nearly daily, since it fits me 
 to a tee-- I MIGHT BE SLOW BUT I MAKE A LOT OF MISTAKES. (author 
 unkown, to me anyway).

 -Original Message-
 From: å...  [mailto:eurekaig...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:18 AM
 To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

 Tank fail was in FL, not NY--that they were wearing short sleeve 
 shirts in early April should have been the clue.  Make mistakes?  I do.

 I don't expect a response on this question, in part due to my 
 conviction that we work with Fire Codes that provide safety 
 conditions  a-level-above-the-minimum.  If not, and we really were so 
 close to Occam's dividing line between unsafe/safe, would we not be 
 quicker to offer and solve each other's life safety challenges and 
 questions better?  It appears to me, that money and liability take a 
 priority before volunteering to improve safety.  And that luxury 
 suggests we are above-the-minimum level of safety.

 best of health to you,


 scot deal
 excelsior fire




 Does anyone know and care to share, whether the ~ 300,000 gallon tank 
 that failed about the 7th of April in Lake Placid, NY in 2011 was a 
 welded, or a bolted tank?  I am doing no litigation work, nor I am 
 being paid by any party relative to this incident.


 http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-
 tank-bu 
 rsts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wavehttp://www.wtsp.com/news/t
 opstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bursts-kills-two-foll
 owing-tsunami-like-wave

 Scot Deal
 Excelsior Fire Engineering
 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
 scrubbed...
 URL:
 
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta
 chment 
 s/20121116/9d054781/attachment.htmlhttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org
 /mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121116/9d054781/attachm
 ent.html
 
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum




 --
 Ron Greenman
 Instructor
 Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College
 1101 So. Yakima Ave.
 Tacoma, WA 98405

 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

 http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

 253.680.7346
 253.576.9700 (cell)

 Member:
 ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

 They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis 
 Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)




--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20121116/d9e42d04/attachment.html
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum

RE: Water Hammer Problem

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Mike,
Many years ago(1970's) we had a problem with pressure switch tripping where
the water supply was from a city main and there was a well pump close to the
tee off from the street.
Problem in the end was a faulty check valve on the well pump which allowed
the water to back flow into the well when the pumped stopped, then the check
valve slammed shut and sent a water hammer surge up the pipe into the nearby
sprinkler takeoff.
The Sprinkler Alarm Valves were about 50m away and the pressure wave would
lift the alarm valve and pass into the installation. The pressure wave then
bounced in the closed installation pipework and produce rapid rises and
drops of pressure in the installation at the Alarm Valve. This is all
without water actually flowing and is the effect of pressure waves.
We observed this on a number of cycles. One evening, and were able to
convince the City Council to pull the pump and repair the check valve. 
What was more amazing is that the sprinkler system was kept pressurized at
least 300kPa above normal supply pressure(700kPa)as we use drop in pressure
Fire Brigade signalling in NZ with a manually controlled jockey pump to
super pressure the system.

Regards,
Russell

Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Hairfield
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 9:27 AM
To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM
Subject: RE: Water Hammer Problem


We used restricted unions with 3/32 holes.
 
Mike
 

 Subject: Re: Water Hammer Problem
 From: jac...@sympatico.ca
 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:24:36 -0500
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 
 Are the two checks with with small holes present in the sensing lines, 
 might solve your problem. See NFPA 20 for suggested arrangement
 
 Regards,
 Jamey
 
 On 2012-11-06, at 2:52 PM, Mike Hairfield fsl...@msn.com wrote:
 
  
  
  I have a dry system fed by a booster pump that takes suction off of 
  a pumped well system feeding a plant.
  
  The darn dry pipe valve keeps tripping and my thoughts are that when 
  the plant well pumps shut off it's sending a water hammer into the fire
pump suction line.
  
  I believe the water hammer is causing the pump sensing line to act 
  erratic causing the pump to run thus tripping the dry pipe valve.
  
  Anyone have any suggestions about how to fix my problem, a expansion 
  tank or water hammer arrestor comes to mind.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Mike Hairfield
  
  
  -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
  scrubbed...
  URL: 
  http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/at
  tachments/20121106/3f3e2708/attachment.html
  ___
  Sprinklerforum mailing list
  Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
  http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
  
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20121106/eb61a0c1/attachment.html
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: BIG BOY HEADS

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Since the ESFR requirement of 12 heads @ 'x' kPa became used, we always used
4 spks on 3 branchlines as the shape and didn't worry about shape.
With the advent of FM Data sheet 2.0 and the new tables in 8-9 where No. of
Spks x Press became the design criteria, one has to read FM DS 3-0 to get
the correct shape and number of heads on branch line. So instead of 4hds on
3 branch lines it can be 3 hds on 4 branchlines or 5hds on 2bl + 2hds on
next bl. If slope over 5deg could even be 6sprk on 2 bl. It all depends on
roof slope, max/min spacing between spks and shape factor.

See 2.1.2.2.3 and 2.1.2.2.3.2. of FM DS 3-0 p20/21. I think the most
critical thing to watch is the rounding used in the NORSBL formula. Also
note the change of SF above 5deg slope. So for FM the Shape Factor is
important.

Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June 2012 11:09 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: BIG BOY HEADS

Vince, no, not exactly yet. If you are calcing a certain number of heads,
the shape factor is not applicable. If you are calcing an area per FM, the
shape factor is tied to ceiling slope, as I posted. This is not 'word of
mouth', but my understanding from what I found in FM's data sheet on
hydraulics of fire protection systems (i think 3.0). You are welcome
nontheless :). Tomorrow, when i have a more pedictable internet connection,
i will reply off forum to explain what i mean by (you know what i mean?).

Quoting Vince Sabolik vi...@wtfp.net:

 Hey Brad Thanks!

 So FM did ditch the 1.4?  I  don't know any other underwriter that 
 requires 1.4, so if no one barks here I think I'll stick with the 1.2.

 Thanks again for today's 'lesson', Brad


 At 04:07 PM 6/19/2012, you wrote:
 Vince,

 Re FM's 1.4, as far as I can tell, for ceiling slopes of 1/12 and 
 less, 1.2, and if greater, 1.4. For number of heads, last one I did 
 was 6, 3 on two lines, so 1.2 and 1.4 was N/A. FM was the only AHJ 
 though so there was no question. If FM is not the only AHJ in your 
 case be careful! (know what I
 mean?)

 -Original Message-
 From: Vince Sabolik [mailto:vi...@wtfp.net]
 Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:38 PM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: BIG BOY HEADS

 Regarding those big boy heads with large K's that are specified by 
 the number of operating heads. Is the shape factor different than the 
 usual 1.2

 or 1.4? Did I read here that FM scrapped their 1.4? Help,help  thanks!

 Vince

 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
 scrubbed...
 URL:
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/att
 achment
 s/20120619/ae801fdb/attachment.html
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
 signature database 7233 (20120619) __

 The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 http://www.eset.com
 []


 Vince Sabolik, West Tech Fire Protection, Inc.
 11351 Pearl Road / Strongsville, Ohio 44136   440 238-4800  
 Fax 440 238-4876
 
  -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
 scrubbed...
 URL:  
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta
 chments/20120619/c3b20d15/attachment.html
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum




___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: RTI

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Brad,
In NZ our Sprinkler Rules were based on FOC (UK) rules and from the 1970's
our NZS4541 has been modifications to those rules. Hence we used mainly
conventional deflectors(old style) in most situations, up until the
publication of NZS4541:2007. At this time we radically changed the Extra
High Hazard section of our rules to become close to NFPA/FM. The base
document we used at the time was an draft Australian Standard which was
going through the same changes. Our source of Sprinklers etc was becoming
mainly US based so we were influenced by testing and changes taking place
there, especially in regard to rack storage protection.

Back to RTI's. In the NZS4541;2003 we mandated the use of Special
Response(RTI 80) Conventional sprinklers for the use in IRS. Ceiling
protection would be 20mm 68 or 93degC conventional sprinklers (although we
could use spray sprinklers if no exposed steelwork). The In rack sprinklers
would be 15mm 68deg conventional sprinklers. I think this type of IRS was
used by FOC and VDS rules at this time.

With the change to the High Hazard section in 2007 the protection of racks
changed to spray type sprinklers as in NFPA or FM with 141degC sprinkler at
roof for K80 and k115. If roof sprinklers are larger k160 - k360 then can
use 68degC 

Also about this time Fire Engineers were trying to use tested RTI instead of
generic group RTI in their calculations. The local SFPE published a notice
which suggested that the use of the following RTI be used;
Fast Response 3mm bulb=50; Intermediate(special) Response 4mm bulb=80;
Standard Response 5mm bulb=135; Standard Response 8mm bulb=250. TYCO have
4mm bulb sprinklers but I think they only have Conventional deflectors.

Our Standard requires Listing by our Sprinkler System Certifier(SSC) of all
major components and is usually based on UL, FM, or LPC acceptances.

Trust this is of interest

Regards,
Russell   

Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Casterline
Sent: Saturday, 9 June 2012 12:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: RTI

Thanks Russell! I thought I had answered my own question using 'pure
reasoning' alone :), especially since the original question dealt with
needing to differentiate RTI, and 30 must be a UL mandated tolerance. Does
NZS541 require UL, or some other testing agency? Is it available (free)? I
would like to know if Special Response is required in certain situations,
and if so where and why. Thanks again sir, Brad Casterline 

-Original Message-
From: Russell  Carol Gregory [mailto:rcgreg...@snap.net.nz]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: RTI

In our NZ Standard NZS541 a sprinkler with RTI between 50 and 80 is
designated a Special Response Sprinkler. These usually have a 4mm bulb. 
Std Response has a 5mm or larger bulb and the Fast Response has a 3mm
bulb.

Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 10:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE:RTI

correction, meter, not feet. i should have looked in 13 instead of trying to
recall and thinking i needed to convert. but i now have another (perhaps
stupid) question re the definition of fast response and standard response:
if fast is RTI=50 or less and standard is 80 or more, what is in between
called? I am really more interested in the reasoning for the DEFINITION in
NFPA #13, not some box of heads in RTI limbo. Any TC members out there not
totally fed-up with me yet?

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Shelf storage for pharmaceuticals

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Why not cut a 100mm (4) slot across the centre of each 2.3m(7'-6) shelf
thus producing a transverse flue and reducing the shelf size to that of a
pallet and it becomes open shelves. If product could encroach on flue space
fit edge barriers or mesh to ensure flue is kept clear. 

Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of J.P. Merlino/
Ing.L.Lagomarsino y Asoc.
Sent: Saturday, 9 June 2012 8:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Shelf storage for pharmaceuticals

Gentlemen:

We are dealing with a warehouse for pharmaceutical commodities (class IV),
where  we have racks and also 5 rows of solid shelf structure 20 ft high
with solid shelves spaced vertically 14 inches. 

Shelf dimensions are 7,5 ft x 3 ft. ( 23 sq ft), arranged so that the
lateral flue space is of 5 inches.

Roof height is 40 ft.

The question regards protection criteria for the solid shelf structures.

Per NFPA 13 definition, our shelves do not comply with the maximum depth of
30 inches. Our shelves have 36 inches.  Also there are not provisions for
shelf storage with a height above 15 ft.

Commentary to 14.2.1 on the handbook ( 2010 Edition, page 562) says that
shelf storage exceeding 15 ft. can be protected according criteria for rack
storage in chapter 16.

The issue is that it does not seems possible or effective  to protect this
solid shelve structure with in-rack sprinklers. 

It appears that there is no criteria to protect this with only ceiling
sprinklers. CMSA and ESFR does not apply to shelf storage.

Any idea on how to solve this? 

J.P. Merlino
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20120608/797aea76/attachment.html
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: RTI

[Russell Carol Gregory]

In our NZ Standard NZS541 a sprinkler with RTI between 50 and 80 is
designated a Special Response Sprinkler. These usually have a 4mm bulb. 
Std Response has a 5mm or larger bulb and the Fast Response has a 3mm
bulb.

Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 10:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE:RTI

correction, meter, not feet. i should have looked in 13 instead of trying to
recall and thinking i needed to convert. but i now have another (perhaps
stupid) question re the definition of fast response and standard response:
if fast is RTI=50 or less and standard is 80 or more, what is in between
called? I am really more interested in the reasoning for the DEFINITION in
NFPA #13, not some box of heads in RTI limbo. Any TC members out there not
totally fed-up with me yet?

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Wedding sprinkler

[Russell Carol Gregory]

I remember some years ago, when Horizontal sidewalls QR were first used here
in NZ, in a new five star hotel they had a similar incident where a guest
hooked a suit on a hanger over the bulb. It went off and flooded down two or
three storeys. ( Which proves that fire rated floors sometimes leak) Also
there was a case shortly after, in the same hotel, of a drunk Rugby player
holding a cigarette lighter to the bulb of a HSW. A problem with low ceiling
heights in hotel rooms. Makes a case for concealed heads in these
situations.
Just shows that there are idiots all over the world.
Sprinklers are an extremely reliable device as long as you don't mess with
them.


Russell Gregory
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2012 3:01 AM
To: news...@wsbtv.com; talk...@wsbtv.com
Cc: waggo...@nfsa.org; rmva...@flsamerica.com; welm...@collegeparkga.com;
sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; Dewar, Buddy (de...@nfsa.org);
billygw...@mac.com
Subject: Wedding sprinkler

Gentlemen:
I've been in the fire sprinkler business for 37 years, so I have some
experience and familiarity with them. Some folks have called me an expert.

We had a similar experience at one of our customer's locations, when the
bride hung her wedding dress from the sidewall sprinkler in the Bride's
Dressing Room. Yes, there was a sign under it noting not to hang clothing
from it, but why pay attention to warning signs? She broke the sprinkler's
activating mechanism, and as it should, water came shooting out. The black
oily water is characteristic of water sitting in black steel sprinkler pipe,
quite normal.

The bride's dress in your case wasn't soiled by the sprinkler water, so I
doubt she's the culprit in this situation.  However, our most-often quoted
statistic for sprinklers failing without mechanical injury or fire is one in
16 million per year. There might be 16 million sprinklers in all of Georgia,
and look at your own experience- how many stories do you cover where a
sprinkler just lets loose?

I'm not saying that human intervention took place, I'm just pointing out
that the reliable experience our industry has makes it statistically
improbable. Matter of fact, Chief David Hilton of Cobb County was
instrumental in getting residential sprinklers in place going back to the
early 1980's, a pioneer of the industry with vision. It is likely his
actions have saved hundreds of lives; you might check how many teeth have
been knocked out by sprinkler systems, and compare it to how many lives were
saved from fire in apartments and condos in Cobb County in the past 30
years. I'll bet its one tooth, and hundreds of lives saved.

If you'd like further information on the likelihood of an accidental
discharge, or accurate information on fire sprinklers in general, please
feel free to contact either of the two representatives of the Georgia Fire
Sprinkler Association (GFSA) or the two from the National Fire Sprinkler
Association (NFSA):

GFSA Executive Director: Billy Wood
Phone: (404) 226-8304
Email: billygw...@mac.commailto:billygw...@mac.com

GFSA President: Ray Vance
Fire  Life Safety America
Email: rmva...@flsamerica.commailto:rmva...@flsamerica.com
Phone: (770) 717-8812

Wayne Waggoner
Tennessee/Southeast Regional Manager
Associate Director of Regional Operations (South) PO Box 9 Andersonville, TN
32179
Cell: (865) 755-2956
Fax: (865) 381-0597
waggo...@nfsa.orgmailto:waggo...@nfsa.org

Buddy Dewar
Vice President of Regional Operations
200 West College Street
Tallahassee, FL  32301
Ph: (850) 222-2070
Fax: (850) 422-1752
Cell: (850) 566-8733
de...@nfsa.orgmailto:de...@nfsa.org

Fair and balanced reporting is an integral part of good reporting. Currently
your viewers only know there was a large BOOM, 5 people went to the
hospital, a tooth was knocked out, because the sprinkler system kicked on.
With the likelihood of this happening without help from the wedding party in
the room bumping the sprinkler being maybe 1 in 16 million, balanced
reporting would, IMHO, require a follow-up with the reliability of our
systems duly noted so the public isn't scared of a life-saving technology
they should be embracing. Yes, I DO have them in my house, and when I
travel, I stay in sprinklered hotels.

I'm sure the bride and groom will look back at this and it will all seem
funny. I can tell you that reading the reports of folks experiencing their
first sprinkler activation is pretty funny to those of us who know the
technology and understand what is and isn't possible. Seriously, water
shooting from a sprinkler is responsible for a tooth being knocked out? Only
as an indirect consequence.

Thanks in advance,

George L.  Church, Jr., CET  [cid:image001.jpg@01CD4305.28103260]
President
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
7993 US Hwy 522
PO Box 407
Middleburg, PA 17842
877-324-ROWE
570-837-7647
570-837-6335 fax

Factory Mutual Data Sheet 2.0 - Sprinkler Orientation and Spacing

[Russell Carol Gregory]

Has anyone seen tested evidence for the FM complete change in philosophy on
the orientation of sprinklers and the distance between sprinklers.

For all my near 50 years  of sprinkler designing we have always had the
sprinkler at 90° to the “ceiling” and all design measurements were
horizontal (assuming a level plane).

 

The FM rules now require all sprinklers on roof slopes greater than 5° to be
vertical. This may seem a good idea to some “boffin” but it creates
difficulties in installation particularly when pipework is above the
ceiling. 

1.   Has anyone seen tests that show there is a better performance?

2.   Are there escutcheon plates available that will accept 5° - 20+°?

3.   If this vertical orientation is so good why are the spacings not
still horizontal as logic points to delivered density on the floor.

4.   Also, if discharge patterns are plotted on sloping ceilings with
exposed members, the vertical head will experience interruption of the spray
pattern at a purlin and create a large droplet barrier that prevents full
coverage.

I have carried out many sprinkler demos over the years and this does not fit
with what I am used to seeing.

We have many roof slopes over 20° particularly in non-storage occupancies
and this latest set of rules does not help at all. Luckily we normally use
NZ Standards which are similar to UK and Australia so this problem only
arises on FM Approved jobs. Our Standard is being reviewed at the moment and
I am concerned that the new FM will be included in our amendments.

I asked the senior FM engineer what he thought about the vertical situation
and he would be happy with 90° to the ceiling up to 10° slope. He didn’t
think  that FM had carried out any sloping ceiling tests to prove this.

 

There are other points but I will leave those until I see what feedback I
get.

 

Cheers,

 

Russell Gregory 

 

 

Russell Gregory

41A Diamond Avenue,

Christchurch 8024

New Zealand

 

Ph  03 338 4853

Cell(Russell) 0274 917 909

 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120523/f9830adb/attachment.html
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Residential Utility Closet

[Russell Carol Gregory]

This situation is about both getting heat up to the sprinkler and getting
some water down, at least onto the door.
At design stage then slatted shelving or keeping the shelf back from the
door face by say 50mm. This would then allow heat up and water down the
inside of door.
At this completion stage I would drill a number 50mm or 80mm holes in shelf
with hole saw and produce vents between the two parts.
A bit academic but good practise is to have the shelf with the gap at the
door edge. If the closet is in a sleeping space (bedroom) then there is a
good case for remedial action due to the risk of a fire building up in the
lower space before actuating the sprinkler, and producing larger amounts of
toxic gases. I would expect a quick response standard spray sprinkler would
be used.
 
Russell Gregory
Christchurch, New Zealand
Ph  03 338 4853
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012 5:14 AM
To: Charles Thurston; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Utility Closet

I have run into similar situations and a grated shelf was required.


At 12:55 PM 4/25/2012, you wrote:
Hello RFletcher,

 From the way I read this the shelf blocks ALL of the space side to 
side AND front to rear in the space below the AC unit.  How does the 
Sprinkler water get to the space where the hot water heater is?

Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 10:10:03 AM, you wrote:

 2'-10 x 2'-10 closet with 9 ft ceiling. A full width and depth 
 shelf is at 4'-2 above the floor. AC unit sits on the shelf and 
 water heater is below, there is a typical 6'-8 door on the closet .
 Applicable code is 2002 NFPA #13. The inspector is insisting that we 
 add sprinkler beneath the shelf to cover the water heater because of 
 the obstruction from the shelf supporting the AC. Of course it is 
 near the end of the project and this is the first time the issue has 
 been raised. We pointed out that 6.4.6.3.1 in 13R (2010) and the 
 handbook says one head is enough in 400 sqft. closet. The inspector 
 says that 13R doesn't apply and that 13 is blah blah blah. He is 
 technically correct but holy cow 2 heads in a six square feet closet?

 I thought that if I could find the ROP and ROC for what is currently 
 6.4.6.3.1 in 13R that there would be something in the substantiation 
 we could send to the inspector. Or do you think the inspector is 
 right, do we need another sprinkler?


 Ron Fletcher
 Aero Automatic
 Phoenix, AZ



 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


 -
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4958 - Release Date: 
 04/25/12




--
Best regards,
 Charlesmailto:charl...@mbfsg.com

 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any 
 attachments, is for the sole purpose of the intended recipients and 
 may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized 
 review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not 
 the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860.535.2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents

[Russell Carol Gregory]

I agree. 
After nearly 50yrs in the Fire Protection business I prefer to use well
tested and proven agents. I also think that the only way to check  Gas Flood
systems is to do real discharge tests so Inert Gases like Inergen have been
my top choice. At least they can't ban the use of Nitrogen or Argon so it is
always going to be available.
Cheers,
Russell

Russell Gregory
Retired Special Projects Engineer
Wormald New Zealand
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Pat
Sent: Saturday, 14 April 2012 10:12 AM
To: Smith, David L.(FAC); sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents

Understand that this is my personal take on the subject; as with many
(most?) posts in the forum the statements made by individuals are opinions
and should be taken on face value. I say this not to disparage the value of
the forum; I believe that the collective experience and input of the
participants is valuable indeed.

I have over 40 years in the fire protection industry and like all
grey-haired fogies I have seen many things change over the years. For
instance, there was a time that carbon tetrachloride was listed and commonly
used in portable extinguishers. Anyone remember NFPA 12B? It was the
standard for Halon 1211 systems. Again, a product that was listed and used
in its day that has gone bye-bye. There are more examples of products that
at their time had a listing (and even their own NFPA Standard) that we no
longer use.
 
In my review of these aerosol products what jumps out at me is not what they
say but what they infer. Nowhere do they state that they are listed as safe
for human exposure, but the inference is clearly there. Why? - I can only
surmise that it is because no data exists to substantiate it.
The only thing they state is that they are 'listed' and then they paint a
picture that touts their 'advantages' over clean agents. It is a dangerous
position to make the assumption that 'listed' makes them appropriate for a
given application. The listing must be examined to determine what the
product has been tested and 'listed' to do.  

Maybe it is a grey-haired characteristic or that I am skeptical by nature,
but the presentation of information on the websites from the proponents of
aerosols makes me suspicious.

A video clip of people breathing the aerosol only proves that no immediate
toxicity is observed; but the inference is safety. Where's the testing and
data (and/or 'listing') to support human exposure safety? I submit it does
not exist. BTW- liver damage from carbon tet exposure was not immediately
evident either.

Bottom line to this old fart is that aerosols may in fact have a place in
fire protection, but until data is produced and listings established for
their use in occupied spaces I'll be sticking to the clean agents that we
have available.



Pat Thompson
Special Hazard Sales
NICET #101475
SimplexGrinnell
A Tyco International Company
907-743-9128 direct
907-561-4650 fax
pthomp...@simplexgrinnell.com 


-Original Message-
From: Smith, David L.(FAC) [mailto:david.smi...@lakelandgov.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:49 PM
To: Thompson, Pat; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents

Take s look at WWW.statx.com
And let us know what you thinks

Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents

[Russell Carol Gregory]

We used to call this product Russian Rocket Fuel as it seems to have been
developed by the Soviet Soyuz project. 
The use of Aerosol units like Pyrogen or Micro-K is OK in the enclosed
flammable liquid risks or electrical switchboard cupboards or small
electrical rooms. The small particles produced by the rapid combustion of
the chemical do leave a dusty residue which may be harmful to disc drives
and other small electronic componentry. So it would seem less suitable for
Computer Rooms etc.
The major use in NZ has been in small vessel engine rooms, flammable liquid
storage rooms and the like where dust or residue is of lesser concern.
 
With multiple canister installations the integrity and security of the
actuation firing circuits becomes an issue. These must be duplicated,
supervised and should not be run together. The first unit  that fires may
cause a circuit disconnect before later units are fired thus all units may
not discharge.

The ongoing testing and maintenance does not allow checking of the firing
device inside the container thus one can never be certain that it is going
to work. This was the same problem with pyrotechnic squib actuators but at
least you could replace them at 3 - 5 year intervals and actually fire them
all off when replacing them. Micro-K didn't use an electrical filament but
was set off by pulling a friction plug inside the chemical. This enable all
actuation components to be tested up to the friction plug connection.

I attended training courses on Pyrogen when it first came out, but have
always been concerned that it can be over sold and used in unsuitable
applications because of the cheaper initial cost.

Kind Regards,
Russell

Russell Gregory Ph  03 338 4853
Christchurch, New Zealand
e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Nicky
Marshall
Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 11:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents

I have been looking into Aerosol systems lately so that we can advise
clients if these are suitable for their use.

As mentioned below NFPA 2010 does cover the 'system' and multiple aerosol
units can cover reasonable size rooms.  
I still have concerns about the dust/particles and it is my opinion that
this is not a replacement for gaseous systems.  Suppliers advise the
particles are not of concern but there is also advice that it is not
suitable for applications such as tape storage arrays.

I have come to a conclusion of sorts that this is a cheaper option for those
wanting to protect information rather than equipment.
A full system with alarms and warning would be preferred (as per NFPA 2010),
but even cheaper still is just the aerosol unit with no alarms which is
obviously a significantly cheaper option.  But with no monitoring and
alarms, if no one knows the units have discharged in an unmanned room - what
is being achieved?  Air handling remains on and the extinguishing capacity
reduced 

If I was recommending to a client, it would be gaseous system, aerosol
system, aerosol units.  In that order - decreasing cost gives decreasing
protection and benefits. Not to say that aerosol is less effective in fire
suppression as I have not been able to find that type of information. 

Regarding the comment about large companies not producing this type of
product,  it also made me more wary of the product.  However I do note that
Ansul/Tyco used to produce an Aerosol known as Micro-K.  Not sure what
happened to it.  Maybe someone else on the forum could comment on this?


Kind regards


Nicky Marshall
Branch Manager (Blenheim)

Protech Design
Specialist Fire Protection Consultants
03 579 5577
021 433 488
skype: nicky-marshall
105A Alabama Rd, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201, New Zealand PO Box 4022,
Redwood Village, Blenheim 7242, New Zealand


-Original Message-
From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com [mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com]
Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 1:10 a.m.
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents

Reza my friend haven't heard from you in a long while,  E-mail me off the
forum.

NFPA 2010 addresses aerosol fire extinguishing systems.  It would seem
however that the NFPA 2010 systems are a bit different than what Firepro and
the others you mentioned are offering.

Firepro is actually UL Listed for use in the US and approved for use by
other international governing agencies.   The technology has actually been
around for more than 30 years so it's not new.

The market for aerosol may be small so if there are not substantial sales
the big companies who are already invested in other means of extinguishment
probably will leave it for someone else.  It's not a matter of them not
approving aerosol since they can't approve of an item, they can only
choose to offer a similar item or not.

I would agree that the aerosol extinguishing

RE: Flow Test

[Russell Carol Gregory]

The problems you describe with lack of information at tender time must be
worldwide.

In New Zealand our Sprinkler Standard NZS4541 require the flow tests of town
mains to be done by one of two methods;
Method 1;
Make sure Local Authority are OK with test and that they are not carrying
out any isolations or repair work.
Test at the time of day and week when demand is likely to be highest.
Use two adjacent fire hydrants for tests points(on the same main between
other feed points). Use a flow meter on one and the pressure gauge on the
other. Consider the direction of flow in the main and position the press
gauge downstream of the flow gauging hydrant. If in doubt of flow direction
repeat tests with the gauge positions reversed.
Record static pressure and at least two flowing pressures with the highest
flow at or greater than the expected design flow. Make sure flows and
pressures stabilise before recording. Check static pressure at completion of
tests to check that pumps have not been brought in at higher flows. Always
take test on steadily increasing flows from static as this is how a
sprinkler system would be as more heads open.
The results are plotted on n1.85 and then adjustments are made for static
height difference to Sprinkler Valve location, friction losses in main from
point of connection to Control Valves. After these adjustments are made we
can then use 80% of available pressures shown by the adjusted 100% line, for
design purposes.

Method 2 
The tests are carried out as above but in addition we fit a pressure
recording gauge for 14 days to check for daily lows. If there is a know
seasonal variation then a pressure recording of mains pressures in that
period for 21 days is obtained and the lowest recorded static pressure,
other than short transient blips, is deduced.
This Lowest Static pressure is then plotted and a line drawn parallel to the
adjusted 100% line (as in method 1) but using the new reduced static as the
starting point. We can then use 90% of the pressures for design purposes.  

These tests can be carried out by the Fire Brigade, Local Water Authority or
an Approved Sprinkler Inspection Company. This means they are third party
certified.

May be you need to have a similar de-rating to the flow/pressures to
accommodate fluctuations and reductions in pressures. We have two yearly
flow tests of Town Main supplies through the control valves as part of
ongoing maintenance and acceptance of sprinklers here.

Russell Gregory
41A Diamond Avenue,
Christchurch 8024
New Zealand 

e-mail rcgreg...@snap.net.nz-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin
Sent: Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:03 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Flow Test

I believe the answer lies within the realm of 'NFPA documents cannot cover
every contingency - they are minimum design guidelines.' 

Unfortunately, too many - particularly engineers - treat them as
paint-by-numbers documents that give you, the bidding contractor, everything
you need to design a system. But NFPA 13 DOES cover the basic rules for
water flow testing: 

23.2.1.2  The volume and pressure of a public water supply shall be
determined from waterflow test data or other approved method.

A23.2.1.2  An adjustment to the waterflow test data to account for daily and
seasonal fluctuations, possible interruption by flood or ice conditions,
large simultaneous industrial use, future demand on the water supply system,
or any other condition that could affect the water supply should be made as
appropriate.

O.k. - pretty generalized, but the appendix information covers the
information we were discussing. I think it just proves that this is NOT a
paint-by-numbers process. Experience, and an understanding of the potential
water supply issues (like the ones we mentioned), is often necessary to
adequately design these systems.  But the fact is, local municipal water
supplies are usually well understood by the local contractors - or at least
they know them well enough to get by. So the engineer of record is rarely
caught by a situation like yours - and when such a situation arises, they
tend to put it off on the contractor because it's covered somewhere in NFPA
13. Unless the contractor puts up a fight; but that is risky if you have to
work with that engineer again. Catch 22.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey
Prentice
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 4:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Flow Test

The original flow test information was provided to all contractors as part
of the original tender package by the EOR, we advised him at this time that
the water flow results appeared inadequate for the building and the
stipulated future additions, needless to say we were not awarded the
project. 
Today we are in the situation

RE: Grounding

[Russell]

It's amazing that someone on this forum feels compelled to criticize another
member's reply to a post about not being relevant to the original posted
question can be such a hypocrite.


From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Grounding

Where do I get the budget to go on a drunken spending spree with OP money?
When do I get the the step rauses I've earned and are mandated by law, both
the extra, on my time, work and continuing education I am REQUIRED to do
and
that earn then supposedly earn me a raise. I am paid two steps below my
actual grade and will soon be promoted another step with
increased responsibilities and no commensurate pay raise. Then there's the
COLAs that have not been funded since way before 2008. Yes indeed, I'm
living large on the public teat. But of course there's those ridiculously
over compensated benefits that make up for it like my 401K retirement plan,
and the insurance with continually rising employee contributions,
deductibles, and co-pays. And the mandatory furloughs. I love being forced
to take off days I can't afford. Sure am glad I love to work (no sarcasm in
that statement) 'cause without the side work I couldn't afford the
increasing tuition it's costing to put my kid through school. Sure do have
it easy as a public employee. I feel for you suckers. Sorry Steve, you hit
the exposed nerve.



  There is a local jurisdiction here that requires it.  He tells me
  it is in
  the NEC.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Sanding Booth

[Chris Russell]

Hello,

I wonder if anyone has experience with my situation and or thoughts on my
assessment of it.

We have a customer that built a sanding room and laid some beams spaced 4-0
apart on top. This would be open to the dry system above but they stapled
visqueen to the beams for dust control. Our customer says it is not a
problem because if there is a fire the plastic would burn away. I cannot
find any code reference to support this. I think if they want dust control
they need to put a proper lid on the beams and drop heads in to the booth.

 

Thanks,

Russell

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Adjacent hazards

[Russell]

Please bear with me for not letting this topic go but I need to confirm 
something. I cannot remember the last time I dealt with adjacent hazards that 
were not separated by a partion.
NFPA 13 '10 A11.1.2 leads me to believe that if a .3 density hazard requires 
2500 s.f. then the remote area for that hazard would take in that area and as 
much of the .2 density hazard area as necessary to fulfill the 2500 s.f. 
(understanding that the .3 would not be required for the .2 area).
That doesn't seem just to me. If the .3 area plus the 15' border doesn't cover 
enough area to attain 2500 s.f. then use only all the area it does involve plus 
the border because the .2 occupany isn't the same fire threat.
Does that make any sense?

Russell
 





Sent via the WebMail system at brownautomatic.com


 
   
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Indiana School for the Deaf Fire

[Russell]

Underneath the story is a link (WXIN-TV, INDIANAPOLIS). Go there. At the
very top click on Contact. You will see Contact Fox59. A Name of the
Interactive Media Manager Anthony Wright is listed. Let's all shoot him an
e-mail.

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
ParsleyConsulting
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Indiana School for the Deaf Fire

Once again, we've done more harm than good.

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-fire-at-deaf-school-060310,0,3872297.story

Not one newshole bothered to ask the school administrator how much 
more damage dead kids stacked up like cordwood was when compared to some 
wet floors and walls.

And yet, we insist on putting these dangerous systems in buildings. 

My my my.
-- 
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2916 - Release Date: 06/03/10
14:25:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Indiana School for the Deaf Fire

[Russell]

Well, I guess he just can't take a little criticism.

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 10:48 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Indiana School for the Deaf Fire

Russell, it appears that your plan worked, because the link now doesn't
work.

Benjamin Young



On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Russell russ...@brownautomatic.com wrote:

 Underneath the story is a link (WXIN-TV, INDIANAPOLIS). Go there. At the
 very top click on Contact. You will see Contact Fox59. A Name of the
 Interactive Media Manager Anthony Wright is listed. Let's all shoot him an
 e-mail.

 Russell Rewis
 Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
 107C Hemlock Street
 Valdosta, Georgia 31601
 229-244-8130
 russ...@brownautomatic.com
 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
 ParsleyConsulting
 Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:00 PM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 Subject: Indiana School for the Deaf Fire

 Once again, we've done more harm than good.

 http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-fire-at-deaf-school-060310,0,3872297.story

 Not one newshole bothered to ask the school administrator how much
 more damage dead kids stacked up like cordwood was when compared to some
 wet floors and walls.

 And yet, we insist on putting these dangerous systems in buildings.

 My my my.
 --
 PARSLEY CONSULTING
 Ken Wagoner, SET
 760.745.6181 voice
 760.745.0537 fax
 parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net e-mail
 www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.orgto%3asprinklerforum-requ...@fire
sprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2916 - Release Date: 06/03/10
 14:25:00

 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

 To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.orgto%3asprinklerforum-requ...@fire
sprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date: 06/04/10
02:25:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Pipe Size

[Russell]

Increasing the pipe sizes upstream of the remote sprinkler can cause a
situation called over spray or excess discharge. This increased
discharge increases the total water demand on the supply which in turn
lowers the available pressure which will decrease the safety margin. Just
from my experiences.

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
lamarvau...@charter.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Pipe Size

Charles ,
 The AHJ can require new calculations if you are reducing pipe size . In
your case you are increasing the end piece which always tends to balance the
head flows more efficiently.This should actually make the system better.JMHO
 BTW , make sure you are using the same type of pipe.


 John Drucker john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: 
 2002 NFPA-13 
 
 14.1.2 Deviation from approved plans shall require permission of the
 authority having jurisdiction.
 
 14.4.4.5 Friction Loss. Pipe friction loss shall be calculated in
accordance
 with the Hazen-Williams formula with C values from Table 14.4.4.5, as
 follows:
 (1) Include pipe, fittings, and devices such as valves, meters, flow
 switches in pipes 2 in. or less in size, and strainers, and calculate
 elevation changes that affect the sprinkler discharge.
 
 John Drucker, CET
 Fire Protection Subcode Official 
 Fire/Building/Electrical Inspector
 Fire Marshals Office
 Borough of Red Bank, NJ
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
 craig.pr...@ch2m.com
 Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:09 PM
 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; coastalf...@sc.rr.com
 Subject: RE: Pipe Size
 
 If you change pipe sizes, then yes you'd have to recalc.  That's pretty
much
 a given since your system hydraulics can change and you'll have no idea of
 the overall affect on the system performance.
 
 Craig L. Prahl, CET   
 Fire Protection Specialist
 Mechanical Department
 CH2MHILL
 Lockwood Greene
 1500 International Drive
 Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
 Direct - 864.599.4102
 Fax - 864.599.8439
 craig.pr...@ch2m.com
 http://www.ch2m.com 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
 [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Charles
 Thurston
 Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:32 PM
 To: sprinklerforum
 Subject: Pipe Size
 
 Hello All you Fine folks of the Sprinklerforum,
 
 I am looking at replacing all the pipe in a 2 story parking deck  due to
 external corrosion (The fitters will love to be to look at the beach while
 they work). 3 main fed from a 500 GMP ??PSI pump. The building the pump
 feeds is 16 stories of  condos. 
 
 
 Each branch line feeds 5 heads now.
  1 1/4 from main feeds heads 1-4 and 1 to the 5th head. It will be
cheaper
 to run the branch line all the way out in 1 1/4 fitting and machine
 adjustment wise. The AHJ ask if it was allowable to change the pipe size
 without re-calcing the entire system. It is planned to measure out the
pipe
 lengths and out the heads back in the same locations. I have not found
 anything in NFPA 13 2007 addressing this. Does anybody know a reason not
to
 run 1 1/4 all the way out other than to balance the flow in the last
 head.
 
 -- 
 Best regards,
  Charles Thurston  mailto:coastalf...@sc.rr.com
   Coastal Fire Protection/ Myrtle Beach Fire  Safety Group.
   AFAA Guest
 
 Electronic Privacy Notice:
 This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may  
 be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also  
 confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended  
 recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from  
 retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this  
 information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that  
 you have received this communication in error, and then immediately  
 delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation
 
 
 
 
 
 ===
 Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
 (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.14970)
 http://www.pctools.com/
 ===
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
 
 To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
 (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
 http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
 
 For Technical

RE: Pipe Size

[Russell]

To clarify my comment, I didn't mean the pipes that carry water to the
remote sprinkler such as the mains, I meant to say the up sizing of all the
1 end pipes of the BL's not inside the design area.

Russell



From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Pipe Size

Without a doubt it will increase the total amount of water discharged  
at available pressure but that is not a bad thing.  The larger pipe  
will not only reduce the required pressure, it will also lower the  
required Q by reducing excess discharge / overage.   If the system  
demand is less then the surplus pressure is greater and once that is  
shown to the AHJ, every one should be a happy camper.

Roland

On May 12, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Russell wrote:

 Increasing the pipe sizes upstream of the remote sprinkler can cause a
 situation called over spray or excess discharge. This increased
 discharge increases the total water demand on the supply which in turn
 lowers the available pressure which will decrease the safety margin.  
 Just
 from my experiences.

 Russell Rewis
 Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
 107C Hemlock Street
 Valdosta, Georgia 31601
 229-244-8130

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2869 - Release Date: 05/12/10
02:26:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Pipe Size

[Russell]

Well, what I'm getting at is that the more water that is flowing from the
remote area the less residual pressure you have available at the source. The
less residual, the less the safety factor. The same as trying to use
sprinklers with a k-factor of 8.0 in a light hazard design. It'll kill your
calc's.

Russell

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Pipe Size

[Russell]

I give. 

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Pipe Size

Actually K8.0 could be a very good choice for LH if you use 14x14 spacing.

Thom McMahon, SET
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
P.O. Box 882136
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
Tel:  970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:19 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Pipe Size

Well, what I'm getting at is that the more water that is flowing from the
remote area the less residual pressure you have available at the source. The
less residual, the less the safety factor. The same as trying to use
sprinklers with a k-factor of 8.0 in a light hazard design. It'll kill your
calc's.

Russell

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2869 - Release Date: 05/12/10
02:26:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: boat storage

[Russell]

Tom, I have some papers written on this. Contact me off line because it's
large .pdf's.

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com

-Original Message-
Subject: boat storage

Ii have a in rack boat storage facility, 4 stories, I am thinking that ESFR
16.8 for 12 spkrs however I am not sure what to use as a density, flr to flr
is 20' - 4 racks per floor, just go for the rated flow/psi per head ?
Tom Poisal, CET

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Pipe type for foam

[Russell]

A strange thing just happened to me. If you recall my post yesterday
concerning the use of stainless steel piping with foam concentrate, well I
just received a phone call from a representative of Ansul. He was making
what could be considered a sales call. I was quite shocked and bewildered
by receiving his call and asked how he got info about my post. After
questioning him it turns out that he was contacted by a Tyco (owns Ansul)
representative who gave my post to him. Obviously there are people who
monitor this forum to pick up on opportunities to make a sell. Sounds like
backdoor advertizing to me and I thought that was not allowed on this forum.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate someone's help I just don't like the way
they went about it. Is this common knowledge among the forum members and I
just learned of this?

 

 

Russell Rewis

Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

107C Hemlock Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31601

229-244-8130

russ...@brownautomatic.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Pipe type for foam

[Russell]

I agree, as I said I appreciate the help. The thing is I was so bewildered
by the call. It just came out of nowhere. I had visited the Ansul website in
order to get the info I was looking for so I thought that the website had
somehow made note of my personal information. The all knowing all seeing
computer.
I would have preferred to have had a heads-up, that's all.

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Foam system piping

[Russell]

The last time I designed a foam system was over 20 years ago and I don't
recall very much of the specifics. I used stainless steel pipe to carry the
foam concentrate to the porportioner. I do know that it needs to be
corrosion resistant. What I don't remember is why stainless. Was it required
by the foam manufacturer, the project specifications or a fire code? Can
someone help me out here? One more thing I don't remember is what type foam
concentrate it was. Not much info, huh.

 

Russell Rewis

Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

107C Hemlock Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31601

229-244-8130

russ...@brownautomatic.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Foam system piping

[Russell]

My concern is that I may be overlooking a standard or code or something that
might turn around and bite me. My next move will be as you suggest, call the
guy that makes it! Glad you brought up the alcohol resistant feature.
Thanks Craig.

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:42 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Foam system piping

The foam concentrate lines are typically dictated by the mfgr.  Only mention
of specifics is that the foam concentrate piping NOT be galvanized.  Some of
the concentrates can have a somewhat corrosive nature to them.  Consult the
manufacturer of the foam you intend to use.

Foam concentrate ratio (3% or 6% are typical) are dependant on the hazard
being protected.  Again it's best to consult with the mfgr.  Also they can
tell you the specific design density to use and whether you need air
aspirating type sprinklers or standard heads will be suitable.

Once you give them the MSDS on the chemical to be protected they will also
tell you whether you need Alcohol Resistant or standard AFFF.  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Foam system piping

[Russell]

There I go again. A lack of info. It's a repair hanger at the terminal.
Sorry.

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com

So what's the application is we may ask?  Just curious? 



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2810 - Release Date: 04/14/10
02:31:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Architectural Desktop

[Russell]

Autodesk has a discussion group that can fix any thing that is fixable.
http://discussion.autodesk.com/forums/index.jspa

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Architectural Desktop

Here's one for the computer jockeys. Has anyone had problems 
converting drawings from architects drawn in Architectural Desktop? I 
am running in to situations where ceiling plans, walls at angles, 
etc. are not showing up or just showing as a large rectangle covering 
the overall area. I am using Autosprink, but the same thing is 
happening when I open it up in regular Autocad (2006). Thoughts?

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.790 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2749 - Release Date: 03/15/10
15:33:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Concealed spaces

[Russell]

Talking with the architect I suggested that any non- or limited combustible
material can be used. As for taping/mudding the joints, he said that he will
have the gypsum joints tight enough so that a knife blade would not pass
through. After the comments from you and John as well as more thought I felt
that it is an acceptable method.
As for why not sprinklers, well the Tyco CC sprinklers are a little pricey
and more pipe will be necessary because the piping needed for the pendants
is not in location to reach a large number of CC's mainly due to the 12'x12
required spacing. This is a state involved building (it's an old court
house) so 90% of the labor on the project is free. They use prisoner labor.
It's amazing just how many electricians, plumbers, mechanical qualified
people are in prison. Fortunately no sprinkler people, on this job anyway.

Thanks Chris and John for helping me make a decision.




Russell

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Concealed spaces

[Russell]

I failed to add that the gypsum will be applied directly to the floor joist
and a suspended tile ceiling will be installed a couple feet below the
gypsum.
The gypsum, if not sealed at the joints could allow fire to enter the
concealed joist space thus defeating the purpose of the gypsum. That's just
what I envision but it may not pose a problem. My theory, however; will not
be what he architect is looking for.

Thanks



Russell

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Concealed spaces

[Russell]

I need some facts or opinions. Mine doesn't seem to count any longer. I have
2x9 solid wood floor joist (150 year old historical building) that I'm
attaching gypsum board to the bottom in order to eliminate having to
sprinkler a concealed combustible space. The architect is asking me if the
gypsum board needs a fire rating and do the joints need to be mudded. I say
yes to both but he needs more than my opinion.

Can you help, please?

 

 

Russell Rewis

Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

107C Hemlock Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31601

229-244-8130

russ...@brownautomatic.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Elevator machine rooms

[Russell]

I need to do a better job of reading what I'm reading. 2.8.3.1.3 states that
traps and shutoff valves shall be provided in accessible locations outside
the hoistway. To me this could indicate that the valve SHALL be provided,
or it could mean IF a valve is provided it shall be outside the hoistway and
saying nothing about the machine room. And the struggle with interpretation
goes on.
Craig, your number 3 line states specifically a valve will be provided.
Where did this statement come from?


Russell




It doesn't say that exactly.  From the excerpt I have it says;

Sprinkler protection in elevator hoistways, machine rooms or machinery
spaces.

c. Standard sprinkler protection conforming to the requirements of NFPA 13
may be installed in these spaces, subject to the following. 

1. All risers and returns shall be located outside these spaces.

2. Branch lines in the hoistway shall supply sprinklers at not more than one
floor level.

3. Shutoff valves shall be provided for each branch line in accessible
locations outside these spaces.

4. Means shall be provided to automatically disconnect the main line power
supply to the affected elevator prior to the application of water.  This
means shall not be self-resetting.  the activation of sprinklers outside of
the hoistway or machine room shall not disconnect the main line power supply
(also see Rule 210.5)


d. Other pipes or ducts conveying gases, vapors, or liquid and not used in
connection with the operation of the elevator shall not be installed in any
hoistway, machine room, or machinery space.



Typically it's best to contact the local AHJ as there seems to be a lot of
disagreement on when or when not to or where to provide sprinklers.  


But technically there's nothing saying you couldn't go through the room if
you put valves on the supply side of the branchline.  But we know that's all
up to the interpretation of the AHJ. 

NOTE: A newer version of the Code may have additional or different wording.



Craig L. Prahl, CET   
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
http://www.ch2m.com 


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 2:52 PM
To: AFSA
Subject: Elevator machine rooms

Does anyone have ASME 17.1 elevator code? I need the paragraph stating that
sprinkler pipe cannot enter the machine room, supply a sprinkler and then
exit through another wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Russell Rewis

Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

107C Hemlock Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31601

229-244-8130

russ...@brownautomatic.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2648 - Release Date: 01/27/10
07:36:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Elevator machine room

[Russell]

What you guys have provided is exactly what I needed. I want to thank all
who took the time to respond to my post. I felt confident that my situation
would be resolved here. If you ever get down my way, lunch is on me!

 

 

Russell

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Elevator machine rooms

[Russell]

Oh, okay. I need to get off my cheap behind and put out some money for the
various codes and standards that affect fire protection! Writing a check is
comparable to pulling off a finger nail.

Russell



Subject: RE: Elevator machine rooms

I have an older copy of the excerpt that was part of a code clarification
from an AHJ.  Like I said in the post, a new edition may have additional or
different wording that what I had. 


Craig L. Prahl, CET   
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
http://www.ch2m.com 


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Elevator machine rooms

I need to do a better job of reading what I'm reading. 2.8.3.1.3 states that
traps and shutoff valves shall be provided in accessible locations outside
the hoistway. To me this could indicate that the valve SHALL be provided,
or it could mean IF a valve is provided it shall be outside the hoistway and
saying nothing about the machine room. And the struggle with interpretation
goes on.
Craig, your number 3 line states specifically a valve will be provided.
Where did this statement come from?


Russell




It doesn't say that exactly.  From the excerpt I have it says;

Sprinkler protection in elevator hoistways, machine rooms or machinery
spaces.

c. Standard sprinkler protection conforming to the requirements of NFPA 13
may be installed in these spaces, subject to the following. 

1. All risers and returns shall be located outside these spaces.

2. Branch lines in the hoistway shall supply sprinklers at not more than one
floor level.

3. Shutoff valves shall be provided for each branch line in accessible
locations outside these spaces.

4. Means shall be provided to automatically disconnect the main line power
supply to the affected elevator prior to the application of water.  This
means shall not be self-resetting.  the activation of sprinklers outside of
the hoistway or machine room shall not disconnect the main line power supply
(also see Rule 210.5)


d. Other pipes or ducts conveying gases, vapors, or liquid and not used in
connection with the operation of the elevator shall not be installed in any
hoistway, machine room, or machinery space.



Typically it's best to contact the local AHJ as there seems to be a lot of
disagreement on when or when not to or where to provide sprinklers.  


But technically there's nothing saying you couldn't go through the room if
you put valves on the supply side of the branchline.  But we know that's all
up to the interpretation of the AHJ. 

NOTE: A newer version of the Code may have additional or different wording.



Craig L. Prahl, CET   
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
http://www.ch2m.com 


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 2:52 PM
To: AFSA
Subject: Elevator machine rooms

Does anyone have ASME 17.1 elevator code? I need the paragraph stating that
sprinkler pipe cannot enter the machine room, supply a sprinkler and then
exit through another wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Russell Rewis

Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

107C Hemlock Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31601

229-244-8130

russ...@brownautomatic.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2648 - Release Date: 01/27/10
07:36:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject

RE: Elevator machine rooms

[Russell]

You know, I'm in agreement with that.

Russell





Subject: RE: Elevator machine rooms

It seems like we are all referencing different editions of the code. In Mr.
Wiseman's post from the 2007 section 2.8.3.1.3 is under the section of steam
and hot water pipes. It looks to me like 2.8.3.1 is Steam and hot water,
2.8.3.2 is ducts and 2.8.3.3 is sprinklers. Each section has its own
requirements. It's really going to depend on the elevator inspector and the
edition of the code they are currently using.

Thanks,
Eric Tysinger CET
NICET 108988
Designer
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
4370 Motorsport Drive
Concord, NC 28027
p: (704)782-3032
f: (704)795-6838
C: (239)633-9703



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Elevator machine rooms

[Russell]

We've always installed a sprinkler in the machine room and left it to where
it could be plugged off if a cat fight started. We just back off and watch.

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Elevator machine rooms

I recall a GC supt years back noting his SOP was to have an easy to plug
location for the elevator shaft sprinklers so they could be readily
installed for the FM, removed for the elevator inspector, and left in the
manner prescribed by the latter of the two being onsite.

glc


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Elevator machine rooms

[Russell]

Does anyone have ASME 17.1 elevator code? I need the paragraph stating that
sprinkler pipe cannot enter the machine room, supply a sprinkler and then
exit through another wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Russell Rewis

Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

107C Hemlock Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31601

229-244-8130

russ...@brownautomatic.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Dry Drops

[Russell]

The dry drops I'm familiar with have a weep hole in the bottom. I assumed
they all did. No?

Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Dry Drops

Bad installation or handling could have damaged the internal mechanism
allowing water to fill the dry tube.


Craig L. Prahl, CET   
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
http://www.ch2m.com 


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matthew J.
Willis
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Dry Drops

Speaking of this time of year, and me chasing freeze ups all weekend and
going.,

 

What would cause a dry drop to break? I found 6 so far in a school's
stadium. Some, the seats and bulbs were completely gone, some had no
noticeable damage but the water was evident and witnessed. They are around
8 long, installed in tees and plugs.

 

R/

Matt

 

Matthew J. Willis, CET

Automatic Fire Sprinklers

Norred Fire Systems L.L.C.

318-387-1134 Voice

318-387-1163 Facsimile

m...@norredfire.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.130/2607 - Release Date: 01/08/10
07:35:00

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Bonding of sprinkler systems

[Russell]

Put me down for photos Joe.




To anyone who wants I can forward 2 good pictures that we can debate
whether
it's bonding or grounding. 

Joe Burtell


Russell Rewis
Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
107C Hemlock Street
Valdosta, Georgia 31601
229-244-8130
russ...@brownautomatic.com


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Electrical Grounding

[Russell]

An electrical inspector is wanting to use the sprinkler system as a ground
for the electrical system. A long time ago this came up once but I cannot
remember any details. I have researched NFPA13, 24 and 780 and could not
come to any conclusion. Most wording is related to lightning protection.
NFPA70 2008, section 250.52 by my understanding allows grounding to water
pipe.

Would someone please help me out with this?

 

Russell Rewis

Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

107C Hemlock Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31601

229-244-8130

russ...@brownautomatic.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Electrical Grounding

[Russell]

Excellent! I would have preferred that the author of that section would not
have been so specific. He uses the word underground and should the
inspector want to get technical on me he could, even though logic tells one
the inside portion of the system is directly connected to the underground,
with a few exceptions. But I'm sure he won't be so hard nosed. I don't think
he's argumentative, just questioning maybe. We'll see.

Thanks to you and George for the responses.

Russell

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)