Re: FW: VERY DANGEROUS PC VIRUS
Read this before everybody freaks. http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_postcard_virus.htm Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Fire line FDC and Inside controls
The FDC has to be installed downstream of the backflow At 03:48 PM 11/13/2008, you wrote: Forum, I have a situation where the fire department is requiring a post indicator valve and free standing FDC outside the building. We will also need a backflow preventer installed inside in the sprinkler control room. Is it permissible to install the FDC so it ties into the fire line prior to the backflow control valves, or would we need to install a separate FDC line into the building? I know 8.16.1.1.1.3 does not allow a shutoff valve in the line, but it seems contradictory with Figure A.8.16.1.1 2007 NFPA 13. Thanks, Jamie Seidl ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: design and coordination roles and responsibilities.
One of the consistent problems we have up here is the electrician. They don't take part in the coordination process, they often don't even have CAD drawings and they just run everything where they want. And the GC's tend to let them get away with a lot of it. I find that more problems with the architect's concepts surface in the sprinkler design that any of the other trades. At 11:54 AM 11/12/2008, you wrote: Well if you want to be innovative then by all means be so. On projects such as this if the contractor has a better idea, I'm all for it and then we will sit down and see how it will integrate into the overall picture. But if there was no direction given on projects like this where there's 20lbs stuffed in the 10lb bag, guess who will be the loser every time, you guessed it boys and girls, the sprinkler contractor. So if you get innovative and there's extremely limited space and you venture off on your own, get ready to install it and reinstall it more than once, at your expense. Did you coordinate like the specs directed you? The problem with a lot of AE firms is even IF they do have competent design/3D modeling persons, they can't coordinate with something that isn't there. If it's not in the model, it doesn't exist is pretty much the normal viewpoint. So if you're not part of that effort, you're on your own. Hope you bid high enough. Fire protection is always treated as the red-head step child in the engineering world. To most people fire protection is a waste of money, it makes no profit, is expensive and takes up valuable space, then it becomes a life-long maintenance headache. So any time we can get it recognized as being a vital discipline and building system and included in any level of detail in the overall project design, I'll take it. We're just trying to put a better product on the streets than the typical big X on the drawing whenever possible to make the more complex projects flow better. Hopefully at the end of it all everybody goes home with a few more bucks in their pocket and a positive experience, instead of saying OH $%^* I wish we had never taken that job! Oh and I know that ALL disciplines have been engineering in 3D since the beginning of time. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: White papers and definition of roles Right on George. With all the special systems I would expect more than $2k difference in the specialty equipment quotes and the prices should be closer if you take away the opportunity for innovation of design by the bidders. Our prices are higher on jobs requiring 3D or BIM. We find there is very little coordination and more here is where we are so now you (sprinkler) can go around us. It's like a 3D retrofit. The only thing that changes is we spend more design time to come up with the same product. Besides we FP contractors have been doing 3D since the beginning of time, it's just that the presentation has been 2D. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: White papers and definition of roles Ummm, maybe the two bidders had breakfast together on bid morning? Don't throw your elbow out patting yourself on the back. Coincidence or a comp price is far more likely to produce bids within .001% of each other than quality of the bid documents. Seriously, if you'd given em a stocklist, a finished, coordinated dwg, and a rational schedule, there'd be more difference in the price than this just on how different companies allocate OH, backlog needs, lift pricing renting vrs owning, mileage from office to site variance, mix of each contractor's design talent pool $ cost, workman's comp experience reflected in what could be drastically different rates, skill of the two estimators, whether someone got something last night- There are so many variables, I'd suspect a comp number before a headless piping layout as the root cause for the close resemblance. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: White papers and definition of roles Speaking of bid prices. We performed our first AutoCAD based 3D integration of fire protection on a recent project. Our typical corporate deliverable is the design criteria and a floor plan with equipment on it. (I have had a couple
Re: Viking concealed sprinkler
It needs to be replaced? At 08:38 PM 11/10/2008, you wrote: Hi What does purple paint on a Viking concealed sprinkler indicate? Thanks Forest Wilson Cherokee Fire Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Terri Leyton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:51:17 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RB-64, Home Builders Assn. Letter ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: White papers and definition of roles - segue #4
Welcome to the world of 3D. The only way to go Todd Williams Autosprink and former Fireacad user At 08:45 AM 11/11/2008, you wrote: Speaking of bid prices. We performed our first AutoCAD based 3D integration of fire protection on a recent project. Our typical corporate deliverable is the design criteria and a floor plan with equipment on it. (I have had a couple complete installation level design requests but they are rare in this industry) Typical criteria based design, no piping, or heads or anything else. (because the contractor will do it for free). Anyway, as we've progressed into the 3D realm I've pushed to get fire protection included in the 3D modeling. Convincing the powers that be that by at least including mains and branch lines into the model and coordinating their locations and elevations will aid the contractor during installation, reduce his design time and reduce change orders and bring us tighter bids as there is less for the imagination and more solid information to work with. So they let us do the piping layout but no heads, so we did the layout in the model dealing with equipment, steel and other modeled obstructions. Two weeks ago the project went out for bids. We had 3 bidders. One dropped out due to various personal reasons but the bids came back yesterday from the other two. The fire protection bids on the project were within $2,000 of each other. Now that may not sound like a big deal but understand the total above ground fire protection is valued at almost $1.5 million dollars. For two bidders to be that close is pretty unusual. But it validated the need for better design other than the old floor plan with the note follow NFPA 13 and similar stuff. Hopefully we can continue this trend within our company. I know this would be difficult for many companies because there is a lack of qualified people who can actually layout a fire protection system and this project ran the gamut of system types from wet, dry, pre-action, foam-water deluge, low expansion foam, dry chemical, CO2 and a proprietary, IR triggered, high speed, deluge curtain system (that is really cool by the way). Now I'm hoping that our management sees the value in this effort and will continue down this path. Convincing some to allow us to provide more than the bare minimum of fire protection information is a tough fight. For whatever reason is has been for years. Maybe it has to do with the lack of qualified people, some of it is based on economics, some of it is perceived value, like I said, most AE firms feel the contractor provides the engineering effort for free so why do anything other than a spec and some fancy notes. I actually had one PM complain that the sprinkler contractors ALWAYS put their pipe in the wrong place and it has to be torn down and removed. He caught me on a good day so I graciously (stop snickering) reminded him of the directive we typically give sprinkler contractors: 1. coordinate with everyone and everything. But at the same time all we give them is a floor plan of the building, no process piping layouts (because there is no such animal), no steel plans, no duct layouts, etc. So how can he coordinate with things that don't exist or haven't been designed yet? Hence my sales pitch for getting it in the model and then giving that info to the contractor. But this is one I will put in the WIN column. They come far and few between so forgive me while I savor the moment 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:16 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: RE: White papers and definition of roles Then there are those jurisdictions such as ND where you not only don't get registered in a specific discipline, but complaints will not be investigated unless there is a problem with the design. E.g., simply being trained in structural engineering and signing someone's sprinkler system design is not a problem that will be investigated. It may violate the engineers' code of ethics, but it won't see action from the State Board unless there arises some issue with the design. So if you're a PE not trained in sprinkler design, just get some non-PE designer to complete the work and then you can seal it. Effectively there is no problem. If the building burns as a result of improper design, then you've got a problem. Of course, how many MEs even attempt to design a system? It's pretty difficult to hold an engineer to the fire when his design boils down to do it per code. I have had MEs ask me why I would ever attempt to provide a complete
Re: White papers and definition of roles
I had another phrase in mind other than shut up, but the gist is the same. Thank you for the pro bono professional consultation. At 04:59 PM 11/10/2008, you wrote: Todd, I can provide some assistance with all six of your concerns. 1) Tell him to shut up 2) Tell him to shut up 3) Tell him to shut up 4) Tell him to shut up 5) Tell him to shut up 6) Tell him to shut up or identify himself [gotta throw a little diversity in there] As you are a fellow professional, there will be no charge for this assistance. PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website Todd Williams - FPDC wrote: Personally, I don't think any one profession has a lock on either ignorance or stupidity. Right now I have to deal with the following: 1) an architect who can't figure out how to provide separate areas for a wet and dry system; 2) an AHJ who rejected a plan because it didn't show the riser nipples per NFPA 13 (there aren't any); 3) a contractor who filed a grievance against my license because I drew a plan for a job he was thrown off of; 4) an engineer who can't grasp why 4 pipe can't go through a 2-1/2 space; 5), a building owner who can't understand why he can't feed three standpipes from a 250 gpm pump; and 6) a mystery designer whose calculations he used for the hydraulic placard were off by 250 psi. Talk about multi-cultural. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1778 - Release Date: 11/9/2008 2:14 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Viking concealed sprinkler
Barney was there? Seriously, folks A purple glass bulb would be for 300 degree sprinklers, but the paint would be red. Is the paint all over the sprinkler or just in certain areas? Could it be a custom finish for a specific area? At 07:03 AM 11/11/2008, you wrote: Really bad taste? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Viking concealed sprinkler It needs to be replaced? At 08:38 PM 11/10/2008, you wrote: Hi What does purple paint on a Viking concealed sprinkler indicate? Thanks Forest Wilson Cherokee Fire Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Terri Leyton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:51:17 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RB-64, Home Builders Assn. Letter ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Russian sub fire
If I recall my history, wasn't phosgene used quite a bit during WWI? At 09:28 AM 11/10/2008, you wrote: Freon! If they used freon (R-12 ) it's no wonder that fatalities occured. When freon and flame combine the product is a deadly gas called phosgene. Ergo On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Stewart Kidd [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: According to the BBC the fire fighting gas was 'freon' Stewart On 9 Nov 2008, at 16:52, Todd Williams - FPDC wrote: It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next few weeks. http://www.cnn.com./2008/WORLD/europe/11/09/russia.submarine/index.html Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Interesting letter from the WABO
Ok, I'll start this off. If organizations send people to meetings, so what? How many companies or other groups send people to attend conventions, meetings or other functions? A lot. This is pretty much a non-issue, in my book. Although, I can't understand how I was overlooked amongst the hundreds of people the sprinkler industry sent to Minneapolis. Who in this business has that kind of money? Are they hiring? The rest of it seems to be clerical and procedural issues that the ICC should look into if there is probable cause. A letter from a disgruntled organization who lost the vote may not meet the probable cause criteria, but that is for the ICC to sort out. As long as our industry is clean and ethical, we have nothing to worry about from things like this. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: White papers and definition of roles
Personally, I don't think any one profession has a lock on either ignorance or stupidity. Right now I have to deal with the following: 1) an architect who can't figure out how to provide separate areas for a wet and dry system; 2) an AHJ who rejected a plan because it didn't show the riser nipples per NFPA 13 (there aren't any); 3) a contractor who filed a grievance against my license because I drew a plan for a job he was thrown off of; 4) an engineer who can't grasp why 4 pipe can't go through a 2-1/2 space; 5), a building owner who can't understand why he can't feed three standpipes from a 250 gpm pump; and 6) a mystery designer whose calculations he used for the hydraulic placard were off by 250 psi. Talk about multi-cultural. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Russian sub fire
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next few weeks. http://www.cnn.com./2008/WORLD/europe/11/09/russia.submarine/index.html Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Fire Pump Suction
Sadly I hang my head when I hear where was the EoR. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey I wonder how may projects there are out there with no EoR? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Fire Pump Suction
It's nice to see that I don't get all of this stuff to figure out. I wonder where the EoR was on this project? I also love the term had access. Is this a pump he mis-ordered for another job and got stuck with? If this were my crisis, I would run a test increasing the flow in 100 gpm increments until I got to the -3 suction. That would give me what I can run the pump to flow wise. Assuming you hit the -3 before the 600 gpm, you essentially have three choices: install the correct pump, change out the suction line or come up with a way to live with the existing situation. This would probably include discussions with the owner, pump rep and the AHJ. Best of luck. I am working on a hospital with a 250 gpm pump that is trying to feed 3 standpipes. I'll let you know when this pump becomes available (just kidding) At 11:58 PM 11/6/2008, you wrote: The concern is the size of the suction pipe. The pump selected was 250 gpm, to match the 222 gpm, 40 psi demand. But the contractor had access to a 400 gpm, 70 psi pump which got installed instead. An overkill, but that is what happened. The suction piping from the tank to the pump is 4. The engineer is pointing to NFPA 20, 2003 section 5.14.3.2 which requires gauge pressure at pump suction flange to be no less than -3 psi. Although the flow is not mentioned in this particular section, from section 5.14.3.1 it can be deduced that it is 150% of the rated flow. Now flowing 600 gpm through the 4 suction piping and avoiding cavitation is the problem. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: November 6, 2008 1:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Pump Suction If I understand your concern you are worried the tank will run out before 30 minutes because of overflow due to a supply calc vs. a demand calc. You are worried about calc'ed world vs. real world. Fine but in what real world will the actual design area operate. Odds are you won't be in the remote area which increases overflow meaning less than 33 minutes. Odd are less than the calc'ed number of heads will flow decreasing the demand meaning more than 33 minutes. Odds are 2 heads (or less) will flow and you won't have anywhere near 222 gpm coming out. This probability is the driving force showing in reality the tank will last more than 33 minutes. Overflow is good from a fire suppression standpoint anyway. More water per time equals higher probability of suppression and quicker time. It's also not linear, you get more bang for the buck with increase in density. I don't know of specific figures, just going from experience. If you put the fire out in 10 minutes and the tank runs dry in 20 is there a problem? IMHO the system failed if the full remote area operates in the first place. Or at least a serious investigation is warranted to determine why. If you still need the sprinklers after about 10-15 minutes there is a problem. The extra heads and 30 minutes already have a deal of safety in them. The actual produced is always a balance between flow and available pressure. So yes if the entire remote area opens you will in reality drain the tank faster than 33 minutes. Could be much quicker depending on the shape of the pump curve and the overflow. But assuming you are light hazard based on the very little information provided I don't see a problem. If you are really curios start running system supply calc's for different areas and you should see the tank will never last 33 minutes with a full sized calc'ed area and much longer when less than the full area. Now maybe you are 45 minutes from the closest FD and this becomes an engineering question to consider. Some day the code may differentiate between available levels of fire service but not yet. But hey maybe I missed the point of your question. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Pump Suction The maximum sprinkler demand as per hydraulic calcs. is 222 gpm. The water supply is by means of storage tanks having a total volume of 7448 gallons. Just barely enough for approx. 33 minimute at maximum demand. The contractor has installed a 400 gpm fire pump. NFPA 20 requires gauge pressure at the fire pump suction flange to be 0 psi or higher when pump is operating at 150% of rated flow, which in this case is 600 gpm. Is this realistic? I know, if the suction pressure is 0 psi or higher for 600 gpm flow, it will work for all cases. However, I would expect a flow between the supply and demand with all design sprinklers flowing. Anyone with experience with
RE: -- Fire on exterior wall of a building
Valve or FDC sleep with one eye open or oft up to p Haiku At 03:10 PM 11/7/2008, you wrote: Manual valve or FDC, sleep with one eye open, or often get up to p Longfellow -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: -- Fire on exterior wall of a building sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org To take the fire on an exterior balcony and give it a slight twist, consider this... I have someone in a cold town, with many 4 story wooden buildings. Owner of one of these buildings wants protection of their 4 story structure (wood cornices, wooden exterior paneling and windows) from fire in their neighbor's structure. Some buildings were lost as fire extended from original structure onto exposures. Freezing is a problem. Neighbor's structure is 15 feet away. Both structures have windows at each level, and my building has ornate 3 ft wooden cornice. I am considering a compliment of old-school open cornice sprinklers for the cornices and open window sprinklers (same manuf. makes both) for the windows and exterior paneling Using 15 psig I can use get a 20 ft wide coverage. These are open sprinklers, so we will provide a unique FDC to this exterior system. but connecting to the city main would be a good back up plan, using a simple control valve to hold back the deluge on the one exterior wall facing the neighbor. I can see the need to provide sprinklers underneath each window, as the water coming from above, will not flow down over a broken window, and i can see a sprinkler over each window, for reasons that windows break... but where on the exterior wall there is a continuous vertical path from cornice to ground, what vertical interval is suggested for prevention of radiative or brand/piloted ignition? I am not trying to meet a code. I have read NFPA 80A. Here, I am trying to meet a clients performance objective. Save my wooden building, if and when my neighbor's building is burning. scot deal excelsior fire ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Fire resistant barriers between transformers
There is a pre-fab fire barrier system that is used on off-shore oil rigs. That might be a place to look At 10:04 AM 11/6/2008, you wrote: Fellow forumites, I realize this is not a sprinkler related topic, but it is fire protection related. Does anyone know of prefab or easy site built fire barrier walls? Our client is wanting to know if there are cheaper alternatives to building cast in place concrete barriers to separate oil filled transformers. Thanks in advance. James L.(Jim) Roberts, PE/SET Fluor Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Drive - C104F Greenville, SC 29607 864.281.5149 864.281.4916(Fax) The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Plastic rack storage question
Craig is on target with his observation. I had posted something else regarding mixed commodities a while back and I believe Joe Hankins chimed in with some good explanation as to why it would have to be designed based on the most hazardous product. At 11:19 AM 11/6/2008, you wrote: We have a building that has some rack storage of plastic products. We are following FM data sheet 8-9 for the design criteria. The maxim storage for this product is 25ft in a 45ft building for the design criteria chosen. The owner would like to store a lesser class commodity above the plastics. IE: Build the racks to 35ft. store plastics for 25ft and fill the remainder with a different commodity. If the overhead design is capable of supporting this, can it be done? I have done some oil storage racks where this was allowed. Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: water test standards
Thank you TAt 08:50 AM 11/4/2008, you wrote: NFPA 291 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 6:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: water test standards I think I am going through a cerebral meltdown. Where is the NFPA reference for hydrant flow testing? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Attic Rule
Jimmy, I would assume that there is no engineer to throw this question back on. I have looked at some similar situations and have used a couple of approaches: First, I try to get them to fill the space with insulation, thus eliminating the need for sprinklers. Next I try to take a practical approach and see what it would take to flood the space and get coverage. The typical spacing rules are probably out the window, because you physically can't meet all on them. I don't know how long this space is, but it sounds similar to the canopies on strip malls. I tend to keep the deflector distance and distance from the peak within code, make sure the single sprinkler can get water to the entire cross-section of the space and shrink the sprinkler spacing (8-10 ft instead of 12-14). If a single sprinkler goes off in this space, it is probably going to flood it in a matter of seconds. The previous being said, each situation has to be looked at individually and what works in one might not in another. You'll have to spend some time trying to figure out what is going to happen. (yes, that is a disclaimer) It would be also good to talk with the AHJ about it. You want to make sure he is on board. Todd At 11:38 AM 11/4/2008, you wrote: Dear Forum Members, We are working on a retrofit for a church. The building is entirely wood construction, built with large glu-lams and 14 composite trusses (parallel to the glu-lams). We are protecting a small cold space above a balcony. The roof pitch is 12 in 12, and the cold space dies into a full height wall. So the space is a right triangle (with the slope being the hypotenuse), instead of a typical attic and a typical peak. 8.6.4.1.4.2 (07) says I have to have a head within 12 of the bottom of the top chord (TJI). First, does this rule still apply when I don't have a two slopes to protect? Secondly, if this rules does apply, I'd have to add a second line (in a very small space) and I couldn't maintain 6 feet between heads, while still being more than 5 feet from the eave? Please help. Thanks Jimmy Waite Burtell Fire Protection 406-652-7697 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Fire Pump Suction
That is a very legitimate concern. My guess is that you could very easily have a problem, especially if your static head is less that 4.6 psi. In my experience, there are very few good uses for 4 pipe prior to the system riser. With 6 pipe, your friction loss would be about 2 psi. At 01:32 PM 10/31/2008, you wrote: 400 gpm fire pump supplied from tanks with suction flanges higher than pump suction flange. Approximately 100 feet of 4 piping (including fittings) from tanks to pump. NFPA 20 permits the gauge pressure at the pump suction flange to drop to -3 psi, with the pump flowing at 150% (600 gpm in this case). The friction loss in the piping for 600 gpm flow is about 7.6 psi. Is there a concern for the pressure available at the pump suction, when the water level drops in the tanks? I have been told that it will, so checking the opinion of the forum. Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mezz design area
Russell, If you do the calc, why not submit it with the package? At 07:55 AM 10/30/2008, you wrote: I always calc. beneath a mezzanine and may or may not include them with my submittal package for AHJ approval, but rather to have them just in case they are requested and as not to find out that the piping I've already had fabricated and in most cases installed just to find that it doesn't meet the demand. Besides, how else could you come up the pipe sizes if you don't? With experience one can usually get it right by guessing but I find that I'm fooled sometimes too. Don't like to have egg on my face. That's just the way I usually approach the situation. This may not even be connected to what you are asking. If not, please except my apologies. Russell Rewis Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc. 107C Hemlock Street Valdosta, Georgia 31601 229-244-8130 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
flow test conundrum
I did a couple of flow tests last night and the results, to me, don't make sense. There is a looped 6 main in Liberty St and a dead end 6 that branches off to Chase St. There is a hydrant at the intersection where we read pressures (P), a hydrant on Liberty that we flowed (F1) and one on Chase St that we also flowed (F2). For the first test, we flowed F1 and read the pressures at P. We got a static of 90 psi, and a residual of 72 psi at a flow of 470 gpm. On the second test, we flowed F2 and read the pressures again at P. Those results were a static of 90 psi and a residual of 26 psi at a flow of 380 gpm. The tests were done about 15 minutes apart. I am having a hard time reconciling these two tests. The water department foreman said that the 6 main in Chase St could be severely tuberculated, but offered no other options. If that were the case, I would have thought that both the flow and pressure would have been dramatically different. Any thoughts? Of course the project in question is at the end of Chase St, but fortunately, there is brand new 6 PVC main from the hydrant to where the building is. The other irony is that this 6 is connected to a 12 main about 0.1 miles away. A test on the 12 in 2006 had a static of 82 and a residual of 80 at a flow of 1400 gpm. I am going to the water department today to look at the system amps. Perhaps there is a weird piping configuration that creates this disparity. SSDP (P stands for project) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: flow test conundrum
Ed, that is exactly what I was thinking. The residual pressure should be much higher on the second test. I read the gauges personally and verified the flows. Hydrant P ties into the 6 on Liberty St about 10 ft from the connection to Chase. Given the difference between the 2006 flow test abut 1/4 mile away on Liberty (12 main that connects to 6) and the Liberty St test last night, it seems to me that there may be a systemic problem, not just this connection. At 09:00 AM 10/29/2008, you wrote: Todd, it makes sense that F2 would flow something less than F1, but the huge difference in residuals blows me away. The 2nd flow test should have given a residual closer to 78, not 26. Something is definitely amiss. Did you personally read the static/residual gauge of both tests? Does hydrant P tie into the looped main on Liberty, or does it tie into the dead-end main on Chase? If it ties into the dead-end main, there could be a major restriction somewhere between the point the 2 mains connect and the point where hydrant P connects. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: flow test conundrum I did a couple of flow tests last night and the results, to me, don't make sense. There is a looped 6 main in Liberty St and a dead end 6 that branches off to Chase St. There is a hydrant at the intersection where we read pressures (P), a hydrant on Liberty that we flowed (F1) and one on Chase St that we also flowed (F2). For the first test, we flowed F1 and read the pressures at P. We got a static of 90 psi, and a residual of 72 psi at a flow of 470 gpm. On the second test, we flowed F2 and read the pressures again at P. Those results were a static of 90 psi and a residual of 26 psi at a flow of 380 gpm. The tests were done about 15 minutes apart. I am having a hard time reconciling these two tests. The water department foreman said that the 6 main in Chase St could be severely tuberculated, but offered no other options. If that were the case, I would have thought that both the flow and pressure would have been dramatically different. Any thoughts? Of course the project in question is at the end of Chase St, but fortunately, there is brand new 6 PVC main from the hydrant to where the building is. The other irony is that this 6 is connected to a 12 main about 0.1 miles away. A test on the 12 in 2006 had a static of 82 and a residual of 80 at a flow of 1400 gpm. I am going to the water department today to look at the system amps. Perhaps there is a weird piping configuration that creates this disparity. SSDP (P stands for project) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: flow test conundrum
This discombobulates everyone, including the water department. The municipal water maps show nothing enlightening. The only way I can think these results could be obtained is if there is a problem with the gate valve where the Chase St main is tapped and hydrant P is actually tapped off the main in Chase St, after the valve. This hydrant is decades old and was probably installed before wet taps were available. They might have cut into the branch main because they would only have to shut down a small dead-end line instead of the one in Liberty St, which is a main feed. Only speculation at this point. They are installing a new hydrant at the end of the Chase St main on Saturday and when they get to flushing it, I am going to do a gradient, plus a couple of other checks. Right now, it is still in the idea and pondering phase. At 01:14 PM 10/29/2008, you wrote: Totally discombobulates me. It'll be interesting to see what the city water maps reveal. Please keep us posted. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: flow test conundrum Ed, that is exactly what I was thinking. The residual pressure should be much higher on the second test. I read the gauges personally and verified the flows. Hydrant P ties into the 6 on Liberty St about 10 ft from the connection to Chase. Given the difference between the 2006 flow test abut 1/4 mile away on Liberty (12 main that connects to 6) and the Liberty St test last night, it seems to me that there may be a systemic problem, not just this connection. At 09:00 AM 10/29/2008, you wrote: Todd, it makes sense that F2 would flow something less than F1, but the huge difference in residuals blows me away. The 2nd flow test should have given a residual closer to 78, not 26. Something is definitely amiss. Did you personally read the static/residual gauge of both tests? Does hydrant P tie into the looped main on Liberty, or does it tie into the dead-end main on Chase? If it ties into the dead-end main, there could be a major restriction somewhere between the point the 2 mains connect and the point where hydrant P connects. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: flow test conundrum I did a couple of flow tests last night and the results, to me, don't make sense. There is a looped 6 main in Liberty St and a dead end 6 that branches off to Chase St. There is a hydrant at the intersection where we read pressures (P), a hydrant on Liberty that we flowed (F1) and one on Chase St that we also flowed (F2). For the first test, we flowed F1 and read the pressures at P. We got a static of 90 psi, and a residual of 72 psi at a flow of 470 gpm. On the second test, we flowed F2 and read the pressures again at P. Those results were a static of 90 psi and a residual of 26 psi at a flow of 380 gpm. The tests were done about 15 minutes apart. I am having a hard time reconciling these two tests. The water department foreman said that the 6 main in Chase St could be severely tuberculated, but offered no other options. If that were the case, I would have thought that both the flow and pressure would have been dramatically different. Any thoughts? Of course the project in question is at the end of Chase St, but fortunately, there is brand new 6 PVC main from the hydrant to where the building is. The other irony is that this 6 is connected to a 12 main about 0.1 miles away. A test on the 12 in 2006 had a static of 82 and a residual of 80 at a flow of 1400 gpm. I am going to the water department today to look at the system amps. Perhaps there is a weird piping configuration that creates this disparity. SSDP (P stands for project) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection
RE: flow test conundrum
I doubt if it is a leak. I would think the same thing would show up for both, but I will consider it. As I said in my last post, I am going to do a gradient when the new hydrant goes in and hopefully be able to isolate the problem. I did not gauge F2, but plan to as part of the next phase. At 03:45 PM 10/29/2008, you wrote: Still sounds like an obstruction. I had two identical buildings, side by side within 100ft of each other, both on dry systems, govt jobs, had to do a trip test and flow at the inspector's test within 60 seconds of the valve tripping. One building was less than 40 seconds and the other over a minute and a half. We went over everything from the installation to water flow tests on the mains, you name it. Long story short we finally had to break the line at the flange at the floor and ran a line directly to the outside to see what the flow looked like. Opened the PIV to the building and while expecting a torrent, we got a trickle. The state guy brought one of those fiber optic scopes and fed it down the riser and found a conglomeration of debris at the base of the elbow. My UG sub swore up and down he had flushed it and the GC signed off as witness. Taught me not to take their word for it next time, if there was a next time. Anyway, flushed the system, put it all back together and everything worked as planned. Depending on how old the dead end leg is, there may be other issues that are causing the problem. Did you put a gauge on the hydrant (F2) and see what the static was there? If the static is less than at hydrant(P) then there could be leak in that line. If the static is the same then obstruction comes up as first choice. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:53 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: flow test conundrum This discombobulates everyone, including the water department. The municipal water maps show nothing enlightening. The only way I can think these results could be obtained is if there is a problem with the gate valve where the Chase St main is tapped and hydrant P is actually tapped off the main in Chase St, after the valve. This hydrant is decades old and was probably installed before wet taps were available. They might have cut into the branch main because they would only have to shut down a small dead-end line instead of the one in Liberty St, which is a main feed. Only speculation at this point. They are installing a new hydrant at the end of the Chase St main on Saturday and when they get to flushing it, I am going to do a gradient, plus a couple of other checks. Right now, it is still in the idea and pondering phase. At 01:14 PM 10/29/2008, you wrote: Totally discombobulates me. It'll be interesting to see what the city water maps reveal. Please keep us posted. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: flow test conundrum Ed, that is exactly what I was thinking. The residual pressure should be much higher on the second test. I read the gauges personally and verified the flows. Hydrant P ties into the 6 on Liberty St about 10 ft from the connection to Chase. Given the difference between the 2006 flow test abut 1/4 mile away on Liberty (12 main that connects to 6) and the Liberty St test last night, it seems to me that there may be a systemic problem, not just this connection. At 09:00 AM 10/29/2008, you wrote: Todd, it makes sense that F2 would flow something less than F1, but the huge difference in residuals blows me away. The 2nd flow test should have given a residual closer to 78, not 26. Something is definitely amiss. Did you personally read the static/residual gauge of both tests? Does hydrant P tie into the looped main on Liberty, or does it tie into the dead-end main on Chase? If it ties into the dead-end main, there could be a major restriction somewhere between the point the 2 mains connect and the point where hydrant P connects. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: flow test conundrum I did a couple of flow tests last night and the results, to me, don't make sense. There is a looped 6 main in Liberty St and a dead
Re: Mezz design area
I would tend to go with the 1500 sqft, unless there is a draft stop around the opening. The hole in the first floor issue is sort of dealt with the escalator and water curtain section. Now what about a room with ceiling clouds. The deck or the bottom of the clouds? How much area has to be covered for one to take precedent over the other? At 04:34 PM 10/29/2008, you wrote: I think we've talked about this before but couldn't come up with anything in the archives. Roof elv. just over 20'. All quick response heads. 50' x 50' mezzanine in a corner so that one 50' side is open to above. This situation also comes when you have a hole in a first floor open to the second. At the roof the design area is 1500 but what about under the mezz? I tend to lean to a full 1500 sq.ft. under the mezz. but that's just conservatism and I don't think it's really supported in code either way. Even if the wall is around all 4 sides you might have a stair opening wrecking the reduced remote area if that's otherwise allowed. What about a two story 1,000,000 sq.ft. building with a 33.34' x 30' stair opening in the middle? I can see doing by the opening 1500 sq.ft. but what is by the opening mean. How far away until you are no longer near. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pitot Chart
...And teach you the ways of NFPA, I shall. At 07:05 PM 10/26/2008, you wrote: Remember the second Star Wars movie, when Luke tells Yoda that he's not afraid? And Yoda says, You will be. You WILL be. Same thing, but the green midget doesn't come out until 1:36 in the AM. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 2:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Pitot Chart This George's Room thing is starting to scare me. At 04:25 PM 10/24/2008, you wrote: Thank You, one and all! Got what I needed. Sure do enjoy monitoring this site and I pick up goodies all the time. I will make an effort to do San Diego next year, mainly to find out what happens at George's Room. __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3557 (20081026) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Occupancy hazard for labour accomodation
Sam, Welcome aboard. By 'labour accommodations', I assume you mean living quarters for workers. If so, then the occupancy would be Residential and would need to be protected by either NFPA 13R or NFPA 13 Light Hazard, depending on the arrangement of the building, local codes, etc. This, of course, is under the assumption that Dubai is using the NFPA standards. At 03:34 AM 10/25/2008, you wrote: Hi everyone. am a new kid on the block. a beginner to Fire protection Engineering and am working in Dubai. Found this forum as a very informative one I have a doubt regarding the occupancy hazard classification needed for labour accomodation. Labour accomodation is in portable cabins and is a G+1 Construction. Please give your valuable advice. sam ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Pitot Chart
This George's Room thing is starting to scare me. At 04:25 PM 10/24/2008, you wrote: Thank You, one and all! Got what I needed. Sure do enjoy monitoring this site and I pick up goodies all the time. I will make an effort to do San Diego next year, mainly to find out what happens at George's Room. - Original Message - From: George Church [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:09 PM Subject: RE: Pitot Chart From Denise at hydro flow: Here are the pitot formula and coefficients for all sizes of the Hose Monsters and Nozzle Inserts. Q = 29.83 * ¡îP * D2 * Coefficient Where Q = flow rate in GPM, P = pitot pressure, D = nozzle diameter Product Coefficient Nozzle Insert 1 1/8¡± 0.99 Nozzle Insert 1 ¨ú¡± 0.975 Hose Monster 2 ¨ö¡± 0.906 The 4¡± and 4 ¨ö¡± Hose Monsters actually use a different formula because they are not using a pitot, but these numbers work for the above pitot formula. Product Coefficient Hose Monster 4¡± 0.71159 Hose Monster 4 ¨ö¡± 0.54816 The Pitotless Nozzles are different also. Links to flow charts for low, normal and high pressures: http://www.hosemonster.com/downloads/FCHM2H.pdf http://www.hosemonster.com/downloads/FCHM2HLP.pdf http://www.hosemonster.com/downloads/FCHM2HHP.pdf * * * * Obviously, the chart is pretty darn convenient when you're in the field; rather than use a calculator when I've gone out without the chart, I just use my cel to call the office and ask someone for the GPM for my pitot pressure. Saw the pitotless nozzles last week at AFSA- pretty neat. They've come a long way! TGIF glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 2:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Pitot Chart Dennis, Why would the pitot have a chart? Is this actually a diffuser or nozzle with a built-in pitot? What I did with my Hose Monster was to use the chart and calc backwards to come up with the K factor, then I wrote it on the HM with a permanent marker. That way, if I lose the chart, oh well. At 02:10 PM 10/24/2008, you wrote: I have a Sierra brand Pitot I bought circa 1990 and my Fitter lost the chart yesterday while doing a flow test. I think it is the very similar to the one listed in the Potter Roemer catalogue. I was hoping someone could email or fax me a copy? Hate to buy a new one over the chart. Thanks in advance. Fax 541 245 0498 Phone245 0466 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1742 - Release Date: 10/23/2008 3:29 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Fire Sprinkler Pipe through Mechanical Duct
Seen it done before, although it is the last alternative. Everybody should sign off on it, though. It may require some re-configuring by the HVAC engineer. At 12:43 PM 10/23/2008, you wrote: After review of NFPA 13, I cannot find a section that prohibits fire sprinkler pipe from passing through mechanical duct. Does anyone know of something in the Mechanical Code that would prohibit steel fire sprinkler pipe from passing through mechanical ductwork? Case in point, 2 1/2 fire sprinkler line passing through a +/-60 square duct. Mechanical contractor would seal the penetrations. Thanks, Gregg Fontes Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. (209)334-9119 This email was scanned by DG Technology Group Secure Scan and found to contain no virus or harmful content. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1740 - Release Date: 10/22/2008 7:24 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: sizing expansion tanks
Unfortunately, not all of us can afford the luxury of time off to go to conventions (let alone the extra $$). So we just glean what we can from here and move forward. At 04:46 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote: Travis, nNice mention of being an AFSA member. I don't recall if I did my annual pre-convention plug for membership, so Steve has at least one good thought when he sees me. Those that didn't go to Convention missed another great opportunity for education that pays dividends, camaraderie, networking, the big trade show full of new and current products you may be using or should be using, and seminars. Note the seminars and the education that pays dividends are separate since you can learn more talking to people and sharing experiences than in the seminars. As the late, great Bob McCullough said when asked if he had a lot of competition in the sprinkler business, he replied I have a lot of friends in the sprinkler business. One trip to a convention and you'll see and meet many of the finest people in the industry. Frankly, I cannot believe people wrestle with the decision- it should be a no-brainer. There will be a Sprinkler Forum reception in San Diego next year, and I understand the hotel should have a system with a pretty decent design- by one of our own here on the Forum. San Diego is a great place to visit, too. KUDOS to the AFSA staff for pulling off another one they should be proud of!!! Thanks to all George Church Rowe Sprinkler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: sizing expansion tanks Thanks to everyone who replied. I have received several spreadsheets that provide the answer. You guys are awesome! This forum alone makes the AFSA membership fee worth every penny and then some. Travis ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: sizing expansion tanks
Being a one-man-band does not give a lot of opportunity to get away. There is no one to cover. The last 3 days I had off was Intermediate Autosprink class and I had to put in 5-6 hours design time outside of class each day so I wouldn't get projects pulled. I can't imagine doing a convention on a schedule like that. Fortunately the New England Chapter of SFPE has a couple of good one day seminars that I can usually get to without creating too many problems. At 06:00 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote: A Penny wise and Pound foolish Attitude. You Can NOT afford to miss the training, and learning experiences offered! We make the time, and recognize the rewards thru the year for the time spent. Time management is as important a tool as AutoCAD. Learn to schedule 3 days to attend, and you'll never know how you justified missing the opportunity before. 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: sizing expansion tanks Unfortunately, not all of us can afford the luxury of time off to go to conventions (let alone the extra $$). So we just glean what we can from here and move forward. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
suction tank and geothermal heat source
I am working on a project for an addition to a local church where they are required to install sprinklers. There is no public water, so a pump and tank will be required. Their latest idea is to install a cistern underneath the addition and use a vertical turbine pump. They would also like to use the water in the cistern as a heat source for a geothermal heating system. Has anyone run into this yet? I'm not sure of the exact configuration and I have my questions (direct pump vs. coils with transfer fluid), but I would appreciate any thought from the gallery. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Retro-fit with Backflow Device
Tim, I have used the 11.2.2 method in the past, but tend to be very conservative with it. Hydraulic calculation is an option as well; just be aware of what you might find. And yes, the BFP should be sized accordingly. At 02:58 PM 10/20/2008, you wrote: What does the forum say about retrofitting a pipe scheduled system with a backflow device? Do we have to use the water supply demand of the NFPA 13 11.2.2.1 (2002 Edition) or calculate various areas to determine the most remote area (no plans available)? If the NFPA 13; 11.2.2.1 is used, does the backflow device HAVE to be sized accordingly? I have my own ideas but want the input from the forum please. Timothy W Goins A T Services For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;. KJV Romans 1:16 Reply to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: What does Rated Fire Flow mean to you
Do the tanks supply hydrants off the pump? If yes, available flow at 20 psi. If not, then that question has no value. At 04:51 PM 10/20/2008, you wrote: We have been asked to supply the rated fire flow on a project I am involved with. Based on what I can determine when I google this term, this is usually the flow at 20 psi. If I have a tank(s) in the building supplying the fire protection requirements, do I have this flow value? Thanks to anyone that can clear up my confusion. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Firematic Model D
I have one, but it is dated 1994. If that would help. let me know and I'll fax it over. At 08:16 AM 10/17/2008, you wrote: Anyone out there have product cut sheets for a Firematic Model D 4 Dry pipe valve (1980). Daniel L. Merkle, CET NICET # 118915 Automatic Sprinkler System Layout, Level III COLONIAL Fire Protection Systems Inc. 937 Linden Ave. W. E. Rochester, N.Y. 14445 Office-(585) 381-7362 Fax-(585) 381-8263 E-mail - [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Over-kill? A true situation
I'll go out on the limb; it does seem like overkill. We all know the benefits of sprinklers, but economics has to come in at some point. A blanket regulation without regards to occupancy, exposure or other factors, to me, is, well, overkill.. Section 903 of the ICC gives guidance where sprinkler are required and it is based on occupancy classification. I believe that with the exception of Group H and I, that the minimum is between 5000 sqft and 12000 sqft. That seems like a realistic approach, although you could argue with the area sizes may need to be looked at, given the increase in values since they were established, but a blanket 750 seems unreasonable. I applaud the owner for actually building it and Redondo Beach should consider themselves lucky he built there. In this part of the world, that could be a deal breaker. You sell the land and build in the another town where regulations are more in line with the Code models. At 05:07 PM 10/15/2008, you wrote: Redondo Beach has a sprinkler and standpipe ordinance. 1) Any new construction greater than 750 square feet is required to have fire sprinklers installed. 2) If any portion of a (new) building cannot be reached with 150â of hose stretched from a fire engine parked on a public way, fire standpipes shall be installed. A business owner opened a garden center on a 40â x 200â lot. A sales/display building sits with the rear of the building 180â from the public way. The building is single story, 1100 sqft. The business owner was required to put in a full blown 13 system with a single 2 ½â standpipe half way down the lot. That means a 4â supply with a DCVA and a 2 x 2 ½â FDC . The owner had to trench across the street to reach the main ($30,000.00). All said and done, $ 62,000.00 to protect a 1100 sqft., single story garden center. Is that an AHJ run-a-muck or am I crazy for thinking so? I would love to hear what you folks have to say. BTW, the standpipe ordinance was written in 1991 when the fire trucks carried 150' of preconnect, quick attack hose. In 2001 the fire trucks were reconfigured with 200' and 300' preconnect hoses. Owen Evans Gone from the RBFD plan check office for 6 years. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Pesticides Storage
Ray, Get MSDS's on the stuff and see exactly what you are dealing with. At 11:29 AM 10/16/2008, you wrote: Esteemed Collegues: Can anyone give guidance on a Pesticides Storage warehouse and the approriate fire protection requirements? NFPA-434 doesn't give prescriptove requiremetns or a definitive path to follow. It only indicates a risk analysis be done by a competent individual (I read PE or FPE) to determine the extent and type of fire protection to be provide. Without regard to storage arrangement and heights, what TYPE of commodity would be appropriate to consider, since the amount stored is over 10,000 lbs and is extermely varied in the types and configurations of products to be stored? I am leaning towards NFPA-30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids to begin my analysis, but would like the opinions of anyone who has had experience with this process. Thanks in advance, Ray Vance -SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.comblocked::blocked::http://www.waynefire.com/ (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Placard fact check
This weeks crisis, so far... I am working on a plant in MA where they need to add in rack sprinklers. The existing ceiling system is a pipe schedule and the placard at the riser says it can deliver .45/2500 at a flow of 1220 gpm at 52 psi. It seemed light, but I don't jump 'til I crunch the numbers. In actuality, it requires 1558 gpm at 286 psi at the supply. Everybody, including the HPR carrier, has bought into the numbers on the riser. Now the excrement is about to impact the vortex generator. Moral of the story; don't believe everything you read. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Placard fact check
This section of the building was built in the 1950s and was all pipe schedule. At some point, some one allegedly did hydraulics (due to the rack storage) and this is where the placard came from. There have been at least 5 owners that I am aware of. When and how this was done is beyond me. As far a due diligence, the last time I saw an FM Global guy on a job, he was training someone new in hydraulics. His line was Ignore the riser nipples, they don't have any impact. Just include the elevation. I doubt if many insurance companies actually do hydraulics before they write a risk; they just look at the placards. At 11:25 AM 10/15/2008, you wrote: I wonder what the inspectors were doing when they reviewed the info on the hydraulic placard simple math and some common sense would have indicated that something was wrong. The density 0.45 gpm per sq. ft. times the area of operation 2,500 sq. ft. times 1.3 (30% increase for hydraulic inefficiency of tree system) indicates a flow requirement of 1,462.5 rounded up to 1,465 gpm for the system. It appears that the hydraulic placard was based on the design density multiplied by area of operation plus 100 gpm. What happened to the HPR carriers plan review of the shop drawings and hydraulic calculation or due diligence when taking over the account from another carrier. I hope that the sprinkler contractor doing the annual inspection is following NFPA 25 to the letter and not using any modified version of the NFPA 25 inspection form. Just goes to show that you must verify all info given to you. Jim Davidson Davidson Associates 302-994-9500 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Placard fact check This weeks crisis, so far... I am working on a plant in MA where they need to add in rack sprinklers. The existing ceiling system is a pipe schedule and the placard at the riser says it can deliver .45/2500 at a flow of 1220 gpm at 52 psi. It seemed light, but I don't jump 'til I crunch the numbers. In actuality, it requires 1558 gpm at 286 psi at the supply. Everybody, including the HPR carrier, has bought into the numbers on the riser. Now the excrement is about to impact the vortex generator. Moral of the story; don't believe everything you read. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Bio-Diesel
Containers can also be large (5000 gallons not uncommon) so be aware of that as well. This would probably fall under a Group H in the Building Code, so take a look at those requirements as well. There is someone on the Forum from the Jacksonville area (name escapes me right now) who has done this before and gave me some great answers when I asked a similar question. Hopefully he'll pipe in, but the responses so far have been on target. At 04:38 PM 10/6/2008, you wrote: Bio-diesel itself is considered a Class IIIB Combustible. Flash point is higher than standard diesel, usually around 240-250F. Check with your client and get a list of ALL the chemicals that will be used in the process and for support and maintenance. Usually the other two components are Methanol and Sodium Hydroxide (caustic). There are some blends which use different additives so getting the whole list is critical. Plus they will often times have solvents and other potentially flammable substances on hand for service and cleaning of equipment. Since it's a hydrocarbon, it is not water miscible. Foam-water is the best choice but standard water based sprinklers are accepted by most AHJ's. That is another place to start. Contact the local AHJ or fire department to see if there are any local restrictions or guidelines for these types of installations. You'll start with NFPA 30 and most likely end up in NFPA 16. If this is an amateur setup I'd walk away, if it is a legitimate business, tread with caution and do a lot of research. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Thurston Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:54 PM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Bio-Diesel Hello sprinklerforum, I know I am not the first to be ask to protect a space that will be storing Bio-Diesel and the products to produce it. What hazard should it be? I was ask if I could find out as nobody else involved had a clue Thank You -- Best regards, Charles Thurston mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Coastal Fire Protection ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Bio-Diesel
I was thinking more about 5K of Methanol than the Bio-diesel itself. I think that would put it in an H-3. At 05:09 PM 10/6/2008, you wrote: It would only be an H occupancy if it exceeded 13,200 gallons of storage or in use, closed systems for unsprinkled, IIIB. Double that if you have sprinklers. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 5:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Bio-Diesel Containers can also be large (5000 gallons not uncommon) so be aware of that as well. This would probably fall under a Group H in the Building Code, so take a look at those requirements as well. There is someone on the Forum from the Jacksonville area (name escapes me right now) who has done this before and gave me some great answers when I asked a similar question. Hopefully he'll pipe in, but the responses so far have been on target. At 04:38 PM 10/6/2008, you wrote: Bio-diesel itself is considered a Class IIIB Combustible. Flash point is higher than standard diesel, usually around 240-250F. Check with your client and get a list of ALL the chemicals that will be used in the process and for support and maintenance. Usually the other two components are Methanol and Sodium Hydroxide (caustic). There are some blends which use different additives so getting the whole list is critical. Plus they will often times have solvents and other potentially flammable substances on hand for service and cleaning of equipment. Since it's a hydrocarbon, it is not water miscible. Foam-water is the best choice but standard water based sprinklers are accepted by most AHJ's. That is another place to start. Contact the local AHJ or fire department to see if there are any local restrictions or guidelines for these types of installations. You'll start with NFPA 30 and most likely end up in NFPA 16. If this is an amateur setup I'd walk away, if it is a legitimate business, tread with caution and do a lot of research. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Thurston Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:54 PM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Bio-Diesel Hello sprinklerforum, I know I am not the first to be ask to protect a space that will be storing Bio-Diesel and the products to produce it. What hazard should it be? I was ask if I could find out as nobody else involved had a clue Thank You -- Best regards, Charles Thurston mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Coastal Fire Protection ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
limited combustible concealed space
An attic space is non-combustible, except for 2x6 joists and plywood sheathing for the roof. The joist spaces are going to be filled with batt insulation and the only exposed combustibles are the edge of the joists. Does this fit the definition of a limited combustible concealed space as stated in NFPA 13 (2002) 8.14.1.2? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
shallow pitched roof.
NFPA 13 (2002) Table 8.6.2.2.1(a) details sprinkler spacing and areas for unoccupied attics, wood joist construction, member less than 3 ft o.c., pitch 4:12 or greater. The spacing and pressure requirements are very specific. If you are working with a building with all of the above except 3:12 pitch, would the design be based on just the combustible construction with members less than 3 ft. o.c.? Seems like a pretty dramatic change in design for minimal change in slope. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Protection below steel grating
From dirt we come and to dirt we shall return? At 06:20 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote: All this time to discover it's people that turn to dirt, not water? Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. Aristotle postulated that water turned to dirt Craig L. Prahl, CET ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
overhang concealed space
I am working on a project on a wood frame building which has a 3' wide overhang around the perimeter. The framing is likewise wood, the space between the joists is greater than 6 and the space is separated from the main building by 2x4 blocking. My claim is that is is a combustible concealed space and requires protection and the architect's claim is that it is an overhang less than 4 ft, so sprinklers are not required. I said that is for below the overhang only, but he disagrees. I should be able to argue this successfully but I've been working too many 12 hour days and weekends so I'm a little cooked at the moment. Am I on target? This is a child care occupancy. The building permit was issued on 8/8 and they have to turn over the building on 11/5. I got the design contract 5 days ago. There is no time to get a big argument going, so this needs to be solved fast. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: overhang concealed space
Let's see. The building permit was issued on 8/8, the sprinkler contract was given out on 9/18 and the building has to be turned over on 11/5. At what point is there time for and RFI? (I may put it in that format anyway) At 03:02 PM 10/1/2008, you wrote: Todd, For what it's worth I agree with you also. Too bad you have that PE. A moron like myself could easily write a short disclaimer stating my objection to the architect's interpretation, citing chapter and verse of course, file a copy with everyone involved and their mothers, ask the architect for written direction through an RFI, do what he wants and then bill him for the revised plans required after his idea is rejected by the local John Drucker. On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Ray Vance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Todd, In my opinion, you are correct in that you are actually addressing two very specific issues: (1) The combustible concealed space created by the framing of the overhang (2) The use of the space BENEATH the combustible overhang Each of the scenarios needs to be addressed separately and again I am in agreement with you. The combustible concealed space created by the framing needs to be protected in accordance with ONE of the allowable protection schemes per NFPA-13, most likely either sprinklered or filled with nocombustible insulation. The space beneath the overhang should not be required to have sprinkler protection since it is less than 4ft wide and I am presuming no combustibles are stored or handled beneath it. Ray Vance - SET Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: 2008-10-01 14:12 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: overhang concealed space I am working on a project on a wood frame building which has a 3' wide overhang around the perimeter. The framing is likewise wood, the space between the joists is greater than 6 and the space is separated from the main building by 2x4 blocking. My claim is that is is a combustible concealed space and requires protection and the architect's claim is that it is an overhang less than 4 ft, so sprinklers are not required. I said that is for below the overhang only, but he disagrees. I should be able to argue this successfully but I've been working too many 12 hour days and weekends so I'm a little cooked at the moment. Am I on target? This is a child care occupancy. The building permit was issued on 8/8 and they have to turn over the building on 11/5. I got the design contract 5 days ago. There is no time to get a big argument going, so this needs to be solved fast. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- Ron Greenman at home ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: overhang concealed space
Reed, I must have missed that, although there was a 2 week period around then when I got nothing from the Forum. Most of the space is blocked off from the open attic with 2x4 or 2x6 blocking. There are some openings and they do make some vent channels (The name escapes me, but they were recently used in an attic that was filled with insulation on a project in MA.) that might help.We'll see what the RFI results in. Todd At 04:36 PM 10/1/2008, you wrote: Todd, I had the same argument with an architect a few weeks ago and I posted the question to the forum (Subject: combustible overhang 8-18-08) to see how this is typically handled. I didn't get any responses. Typically, the space can't be filled with insulation because it needs to remain open for venting the attic. Therefore, it seems to me that 13 is clear that the space shall be protected by sprinklers (8.15.1). So forum, is this scenario typically ignored and the combustible concealed space created above the overhang go unprotected? I'm quite sure that you are on target with your argument Todd, but I would like to know how to best protect this area for future reference. Reed A. Roisum, CET Fire Protection Technician Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 3350 38th Avenue South Fargo, ND 58104-7079 Direct Number: 701.280.8580 Mobile: 701.212.8810 Main Office: 701.280.8500 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 1:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: overhang concealed space I am working on a project on a wood frame building which has a 3' wide overhang around the perimeter. The framing is likewise wood, the space between the joists is greater than 6 and the space is separated from the main building by 2x4 blocking. My claim is that is is a combustible concealed space and requires protection and the architect's claim is that it is an overhang less than 4 ft, so sprinklers are not required. I said that is for below the overhang only, but he disagrees. I should be able to argue this successfully but I've been working too many 12 hour days and weekends so I'm a little cooked at the moment. Am I on target? This is a child care occupancy. The building permit was issued on 8/8 and they have to turn over the building on 11/5. I got the design contract 5 days ago. There is no time to get a big argument going, so this needs to be solved fast. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Alternate to pitch?
There are other issues that are being addressed as part of this project. Engineering, internal investigations, pendent sprinklers, alarms, etc are all on the table as well. The cost to heat this place is over $1 million per season. At 02:25 PM 9/30/2008, you wrote: If you modify the system in regards to pipe pitch are you obligated to bring the system up to current code standards? There seem to be several critical issues with the system that makes pipe pitch seem like the least of the concerns. Actual functionality would seem to be the first and foremost concern. Has anyone performed a cost comparison to do the necessary modifications to change this to dry (the right way) versus maintaining the building temp at 40F? Have they shut off all plumbing and other potable supplies? Any fire alarm panels, smoke detectors? They don't operate or operate properly below certain temperatures either. Might need to check with the mfgrs on that as well. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com On Sep 30, 2008, at 4:49 AM, Todd Williams - FPDC wrote: The existing systems are all OH pipe schedule (with 3/4 pipe) and the vacant building would be LH. The other consideration is that they currently have two 1500 gpm pumps taking suction from a pond and part of the program would be to connect it to the public supply. Hydraulics and other factors would be taken into consideration, but the pitch issue is the most complicated. Besides, with 1,500,000 sqsft of pipe network, we'd have to bring in anti-freeze in tank cars ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Alternate to pitch?
The existing systems are all OH pipe schedule (with 3/4 pipe) and the vacant building would be LH. The other consideration is that they currently have two 1500 gpm pumps taking suction from a pond and part of the program would be to connect it to the public supply. Hydraulics and other factors would be taken into consideration, but the pitch issue is the most complicated. Besides, with 1,500,000 sqsft of pipe network, we'd have to bring in anti-freeze in tank cars At 07:29 AM 9/30/2008, you wrote: When converting systems from wet to dry don't we also have to consider the hydraulics ?. Is it acceptable to simply convert them to antifreeze and retain the wet performance ? John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Alternate to pitch? What about pitching the lines and then heat tracing the mains and aux drains per 8.16.4.1.3 (13 02ed)? I don't think this is the best option but you were looking for alternative ideas. Dewayne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Alternate to pitch? I visited a site the other day which consisted on 1.5 million sqft of vacant industrial buildings built in the 1950's. The cost to heat these building is astronomical and the owners are looking for cut costs. They would like to convert the 30 +/- systems from wet to dry. Obviously the biggest obstacle is pipe pitch. Some of the lines appear to pitch, but most lines and mains are flat (caveat: I have not gone in with a level to check it, but rod lengths looked the same). The lines look like they could be pitched, but the mains would be a challenge. Are there any alternatives out there? I don't know of any, but I didn't know if the collective mind had run across anything. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Alternate to pitch?
What isn't? At 08:13 AM 9/30/2008, you wrote: It's $1.29/share -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Alternate to pitch? BUY STOCK ??, George turn on your television !...which station doesn't matter the news is all the same. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Alternate to pitch? So we should buy stock in Noble? glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Alternate to pitch? The existing systems are all OH pipe schedule (with 3/4 pipe) and the vacant building would be LH. The other consideration is that they currently have two 1500 gpm pumps taking suction from a pond and part of the program would be to connect it to the public supply. Hydraulics and other factors would be taken into consideration, but the pitch issue is the most complicated. Besides, with 1,500,000 sqsft of pipe network, we'd have to bring in anti-freeze in tank cars At 07:29 AM 9/30/2008, you wrote: When converting systems from wet to dry don't we also have to consider the hydraulics ?. Is it acceptable to simply convert them to antifreeze and retain the wet performance ? John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Alternate to pitch? What about pitching the lines and then heat tracing the mains and aux drains per 8.16.4.1.3 (13 02ed)? I don't think this is the best option but you were looking for alternative ideas. Dewayne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Alternate to pitch? I visited a site the other day which consisted on 1.5 million sqft of vacant industrial buildings built in the 1950's. The cost to heat these building is astronomical and the owners are looking for cut costs. They would like to convert the 30 +/- systems from wet to dry. Obviously the biggest obstacle is pipe pitch. Some of the lines appear to pitch, but most lines and mains are flat (caveat: I have not gone in with a level to check it, but rod lengths looked the same). The lines look like they could be pitched, but the mains would be a challenge. Are there any alternatives out there? I don't know of any, but I didn't know if the collective mind had run across anything. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field
Alternate to pitch?
I visited a site the other day which consisted on 1.5 million sqft of vacant industrial buildings built in the 1950's. The cost to heat these building is astronomical and the owners are looking for cut costs. They would like to convert the 30 +/- systems from wet to dry. Obviously the biggest obstacle is pipe pitch. Some of the lines appear to pitch, but most lines and mains are flat (caveat: I have not gone in with a level to check it, but rod lengths looked the same). The lines look like they could be pitched, but the mains would be a challenge. Are there any alternatives out there? I don't know of any, but I didn't know if the collective mind had run across anything. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Flow Hydrant vs. Test Hydrant
The way that I have always done it was to try to get the effective point of the test as close to the building as possible. The effective point is the junction of flowing and non-flowing water. Often is turns out to be the intersection of the hydrant spur with the main line. There could be exceptions depending on the arrangement of the hydrants and the lead in, but that would need to be looked at individually. At 10:12 AM 9/23/2008, you wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: O.K., can someone please help a dummy out (that would be me)? When looking at a Civil Site Utility plan what method do you use to determine which hydrant you want to flow and which one you put the gauge on? I've heard a couple different ways, just wanted to get a popular opinion Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.383) Database version: 5.10760 http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Flow Hydrant vs. Test Hydrant
When I was at FM, that was the correct way to test a loop; flow one side, then the other, then both. However, most of the sprinkler designs were based on the flow of both. I don't understand the water company's logic unless there is a possibility that the loop could be modified, disconnected or impaired. Was the loop all on the property in question? At 10:43 AM 9/23/2008, you wrote: Todd. I did a test the other day. The water purveyor insisted that we shut one of the control valves on the loop and test the hydrant furthest downsteam. The gauge hydrant was upsteam ofc the test hydrant. The purveyor insisted that the loop should not be fully open. Is that corect? We were getting infp for a future system. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Todd Williams - FPDC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:38:39 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Flow Hydrant vs. Test Hydrant The way that I have always done it was to try to get the effective point of the test as close to the building as possible. The effective point is the junction of flowing and non-flowing water. Often is turns out to be the intersection of the hydrant spur with the main line. There could be exceptions depending on the arrangement of the hydrants and the lead in, but that would need to be looked at individually. At 10:12 AM 9/23/2008, you wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: O.K., can someone please help a dummy out (that would be me)? When looking at a Civil Site Utility plan what method do you use to determine which hydrant you want to flow and which one you put the gauge on? I've heard a couple different ways, just wanted to get a popular opinion Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.383) Database version: 5.10760 http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: PDF drawings
Thanks, Gregg. I'll take a look. At 08:52 AM 9/22/2008, you wrote: Todd, Here is a program that I found last week that converts pdf to dxf files. the dxf can then imported into autocad and converted to dwg. it makes the drawing usable in autocad. when you download it you get 20 free uses . maybe worth checking out. It is called Aide PDF to DXF Converter 9.0. info can be found at http://www.aidecad.com/ Gregg Todd Williams - FPDC wrote: I am running into situations more and more where I am given PDF files instead of paper copies of plans. Some of the CD's I am getting have 50 to 60 drawings on them. I have to open each one, figure out what it is and plot it if necessary. Then if I need to refer to something else, I have to start opening files again and search through. This takes significantly more time than going through a set of paper plans. There is a lot of additional time and expense with PDFs, which I don't have built into my cost. Has anyone been charging a surcharge for receiving PDFs only? I'm thinking about doing that and was wondering if anyone else is? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
PDF drawings
I am running into situations more and more where I am given PDF files instead of paper copies of plans. Some of the CD's I am getting have 50 to 60 drawings on them. I have to open each one, figure out what it is and plot it if necessary. Then if I need to refer to something else, I have to start opening files again and search through. This takes significantly more time than going through a set of paper plans. There is a lot of additional time and expense with PDFs, which I don't have built into my cost. Has anyone been charging a surcharge for receiving PDFs only? I'm thinking about doing that and was wondering if anyone else is? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: viscosities
IN case the angry mob finds me, does anyone have a painless way for removing tar and feathers? Wear a flesh-toned body suit, but don't sen any pics. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: (no subject)
I-2 has to be 13. Are the occupants able to get out on their own in case of fire? If it is an institutional occupancy, chances are they may not be able to. When they say group home, you have to be sure who the group is. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt. (Assumption IBC with no state modifications) At 11:37 AM 9/19/2008, you wrote: Occupancy I 2.We can use NFPA 13r for this occupancy can't we? The architect is implying that it needs to be 13. Its a single story group home 3200 sq ft. Forest Wilson Cherokee fire Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Travis Mack, SET [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:09:57 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: viscosities Ed: This system is entirely in the attic. The riser is the only portion that is in the heated space. I do these calculations in 2 parts. I calculate the system back to the interface of anti-freeze solution / water and get a pressure flow demand at that point utilizing the DW calcs. I then do a second calculation using HW that is from the city supply to the interface point. It is basically how we used to do rack systems calculations. You calc the rack system and get a k-factor with pressure/flow demands. Plug that into the overhead system and there you go. In several people that I have talked to today about this, I am getting about 50/50 of saying to use each temp. It is pretty funny. I am still waiting on the AHJ. Hopefully, I can get a pretty decent concensus soon. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:43 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: viscosities Travis, This doesnt address your question, but I'm curious if the entire AF system is subject to outdoor temps (or just part of it). I ask, because if a significant part of the system is in a heated area, then it further complicates selecting an appropriate viscosity. My limited understanding of HydraCalc is that a single viscosity and a single density is entered for the entire calc (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me). Do you use the high viscosity (extreme min temp), the medium viscosity (average min temp) or the low viscosity (room temp)? Obviously the room temp viscosity wouldn't be appropriate, but how's a designer to choose? As in your example, the selected viscosity can make a whale of a difference in system costs. I've yet to calc an AF system using Darcy-Weisbach, so I'm hoping someone can enlighten me. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO Ok..another viscosity question. When using HydraCalc to calculate antifreeze systems using the Darcy method, it asks for viscosities of solutions. I have a data sheet with the viscosities at various concentrations and various temperatures. My question is, do you use the average daily minimum temperature for an area, or the extreme daily minimum for an area? For this particular project, the difference is 40°F in the 2 temperatures. With the average daily minimum temperature, the system works with the available pressure. With the extreme daily minimum, the city supply is not even close. There is a 100+ psi swing in the demands. So, do we go with average minimums, or extreme minimums? There is always the option to go to a dry system, but the increased design areas and reduced c factor will also force a pump on this project. An anti-freeze system at average daily minimum works without a fire pump. However, we don't want to design/install an inadequate system. Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Dr Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __ NOD32 3453 (20080918) Information__ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing
Re: Hydro and UG Test Thoughts #2
The Forum is alive! I haven't heard anything for about 3 weeks. Cool At 12:00 AM 9/16/2008, you wrote: I just went through this on a recent department store inspection. I agree that the inspector should conduct a thorough inspection of any acceptance test. Many look at the gauge and leave, I try to walk them through and point out system components. In Ohio we have around 200 building departments and 400 fire districts and every area is different. that's why its good for ahj's to join an organization like the afsa or Nfsa so they utilize the training and know what they're doing. Unfortunately, many don't and the inspections turn out to be an added cost of doing business. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Dave Phelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:12:31 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Hydro and UG Test Thoughts #2 After posting on the underground flush topic last week I got a few emails of encouragement and such that brought another idea to mind and I figured why not take my soapbox out for another spin . The hydrostatic test is apparently overlooked or not witnessed by AHJ's in a good portion of the areas represented. Im sure many reason that it's a wasted trip to look at a gauge and no one is going to come back in two hours to re-check it. I agree as far as not standing there for 2 hours watching a gauge but how about not standing but instead walking . You call for a hydro test / inspection and I show up somewhere close to the time scheduled and sure enough the gauge reads 200 PSI time to start walking fellas - approved plans in hand we start from the base of riser and move outward through the trim and piping checking pipe size, trim, valves, head positions, head SIN's, hanging and bracing methods, seismic (GASP !!), numbers of branch lines, number of heads on branch lines, and of course the obstructions that never were conceived on the drawing table such as ducts, structural elements, etc . Wow, would you look at the time easily that process can take me 45 minutes on a 2,000 ft/2 restaurant and exponentially from there as height and area increases. Care to guess on the inspection of the 238,000 ft/2 big box store??? Before long the two hour test and contractor certification has real meaning because as an AHJ I spent a comprable amount of time checking the system itself. I dont want people thinking I run around with a ruler checking every little dimension but I can sure count heads on a branch and branches on a cross main and get an idea quickly if something isn't quite right. I am actually amazed myself at how often things come up 'short' in the field and send it back for either resubmission by the designer or field correction to match the approved plans. Note to self ... a hydro test is supposed to be about pipe integrity and the ability to hold itself together under pressure similar to those likely to be found under actual fire conditions. If all we were supposed to do was look at the gauge we could just call it a gauge test and skip all that fancy nomenclature. Getting it right is indeed 'good enough' in my inspection world. Thanks once again. Dave P. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Paint booths - explosion proof tamper switch
I have run into something similar in the past. I believe the reference may be in NFPA 33 or 72 on locations for explosion proof equipment At 11:40 AM 9/16/2008, you wrote: Has anyone heard of a rule that if an electrical device (ie: valve tamper switch) is within 3 ft from the paint booth opening that it and it's associated wiring must be in explosion proof casings? Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
anybody out there?
Was it something I said? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Xerxes tank suction line
I have two projects where I am considering using 20,000 gallon Xerxes tanks as suction sources from fire pumps. However, the arrangement of the anti-vortex plate (AVP) and suction line do not conform to NFPA 20, as I read it. Instead of the down-turned elbow with AVP at the intake, they have a straight suction line with an AVP on top of and extending beyond the end of the pipe. The Xerxes rep (who is a reputable person, in my experience) has assured that hundreds of them have been used and it is acceptable. I'm not convinced yet. Does anyone have experience with these tanks? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
underground through building
I am working on a church building with no public water. They proposal is to install a fire pump and 20,000 gallons of impounded water. The building is built and the underground partially installed, but is wrong and needs to be replaced. The fire pump room is in the middle of the building and cannot be relocated. The elevation of the bottom of the tank is going to be approximately 8 ft above the floor of the pump room. The site is on a side hill. The basement is walkout at the far end of the building and the front of the building is approximately grade level at first floor. The proposal is to go underground in the pump room with the new 8 line, over to a stairway by an outside wall, back up through the slab, up approximately 4 ft and out through the foundation wall to the tank. The pipe would then be run to the suction tank(s). By raising up inside, the 350' +?- of trench will only need to be 6 ft instead of 10-12. Is this proposal an acceptable arrangement? I could not find anything in NFPA 24 that says otherwise. Do I need or would any additional valve be installed on the indoor section of pipe? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: underground through building
This is an existing project where the original contractor screwed up and was thrown off the job. One of my regular clients took it and asked me to help straighten it out. There is no way presently to avoid running under the building. The requirements of 6.2 are being applied. The pump room cannot be directly accessed from the outside. If they can get the pump in, they should be able to get it out as well. The room, while tight, is adequate size. The local AHJ is aware of it and has supposedly accepted the arrangement. Drainage is another issue we are working on. There is more, but not for this post Todd At 11:54 AM 8/18/2008, you wrote: You've got a bunch of issues there. Pipe under buildings: check NFPA 24, 10.6.1 PIPE SHALL NOT BE RUN UNDER BUILDINGS. There is some allowance when it can't be avoided as listed in 10.6.2. Can the pump room be accessed directly from outside? Is there any way to service or even remove the pump if necessary once the building is done? Is there adequate drainage from the pump room to prevent it from being flooded? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 11:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: underground through building I am working on a church building with no public water. They proposal is to install a fire pump and 20,000 gallons of impounded water. The building is built and the underground partially installed, but is wrong and needs to be replaced. The fire pump room is in the middle of the building and cannot be relocated. The elevation of the bottom of the tank is going to be approximately 8 ft above the floor of the pump room. The site is on a side hill. The basement is walkout at the far end of the building and the front of the building is approximately grade level at first floor. The proposal is to go underground in the pump room with the new 8 line, over to a stairway by an outside wall, back up through the slab, up approximately 4 ft and out through the foundation wall to the tank. The pipe would then be run to the suction tank(s). By raising up inside, the 350' +?- of trench will only need to be 6 ft instead of 10-12. Is this proposal an acceptable arrangement? I could not find anything in NFPA 24 that says otherwise. Do I need or would any additional valve be installed on the indoor section of pipe? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Sterilization
Sterilization is, by definition, the elimination of bacteria or microorganisms. In order to make something truly free of microorganisms, the components would needs to be free as well. This means that the water to flush the system at the end of 8 hours would have to be sterile in order to make the system sterile. Where are you going to get the sterile water to flush? Is there a test for sterility required? Water in underground mains is not sterile. Once you introduce public water into the mains, it is no longer sterile. Decontaninated would be a better word. Note to all on Friday afternoon: I am fully aware that underground mains cannot by themselves reproduce, so that definition of sterilization was deemed not applicable Todd G. Williams, PE (son of bacterilolgist) Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
green dry chemical agent
A while back, there was a post that mentioned a dry chemical agent that was a more 'green' product that FM-200 or Inergen. I can't seem to find the reference. Anybody out there remember what it was? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: green dry chemical agent
Yea, that's the ticket... Thanks At 07:26 AM 8/13/2008, you wrote: NOVEC 1230 I believe. Andrew Weisfield Todd Williams - FPDC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/2008 07:21 AM Please respond to sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org To sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org cc Subject green dry chemical agent A while back, there was a post that mentioned a dry chemical agent that was a more 'green' product that FM-200 or Inergen. I can't seem to find the reference. Anybody out there remember what it was? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) This email is intended for named recipients only. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Backflows
I'm sure FM tests more than leakage. At 01:32 PM 8/7/2008, you wrote: Dear All, Question about UL listed FM Approved Flexible Pipes. A contractor told me: A. The cost of UL listed/FM approved Flexible Pipe is four (4) times as much as UL listed pipe. B. There is no history about leakage of UL listed flexible pipe, thus the addition of FM approval is redundant. I would appreciate any comments, public or private. Dan ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
pre action literature
Are there any good non-technical data sheets describing pre-action systems? I have an IT department that wants some kind of overview, but mfr. data sheets are a little too technical and are just specific to their product Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: pre action literature
Never explored that part of their web site. thanks At 11:49 AM 8/6/2008, you wrote: Todd, Viking has some nice data in their book under Tech Data. R/ Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: pre action literature Are there any good non-technical data sheets describing pre-action systems? I have an IT department that wants some kind of overview, but mfr. data sheets are a little too technical and are just specific to their product Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
indoor suction tanks
I am working on a project where we need to have a 20,000 gallon impounded water supply to feed a fire pump. One of the owner's options is to install two 10,000 gallon tanks in a basement. The latest similar project I was involved in turned out to be a disaster, because they ordered the wrong tanks and built the building over them before anybody found out (I was brought in to pick up the pieces). Does anyone have a good or bad experience with any specific tanks when they are installed inside? I was thinking steel because most of the fiberglass ones I looked at were designed for underground. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Panel Construction vs room less than 300 sqft.
I have applied this in the past, but only in specific circumstances where it would save extra sprinklers in a small space. It seems to meet the letter of the standard, but perhaps not the intent. I think we should apply for a grant to study this at the Bitter End Yacht Club on Virgin Gorda for about 3 weeks in February. Anybody wanna help? At 07:06 PM 8/6/2008, you wrote: Excellent question. Inquiring minds want to know Here's how it plays out in my mind and the discussion I would prompt within the technical committee. The describe scenario certainly traps the heat within an area less than 300sf. Is a standard drop ceiling an issue since beamed construction indicates a floor or roof assemblies that is a tad more robust than a drop ceiling? A final question, is someone interested enough in this issue to pay for a fact finding trip to some fabulous golf course. No wait, that's only applicable to Congress. What do you folks (non-gender specific) think? Roland On Aug 6, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Fletcher, Ron wrote: Okay, this is really reaching but what to heck. A 10'x15' light hazard room with a duct (bottom @24) running down the center and sometimes turning or teeing off at 90 degrees would require two and sometimes three sprinklers to comply with the obstruction rules. If each wall is considered a structural member capable of trapping heat could the 22 deflector distance for panel construction be used? The members (walls) are more than 7.5 ft apart and area of the panel is less than 300 sqft. At a 22 deflector it would spray under the duct It just makes no sense to allow 22 deflector distances for gluelam beams 8 ft. on center in a large open area but then enforce a 12 deflector distance in a 150 sqft noncombustible room. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Sprinkler Phoenix, AZ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Floating Ceilings
Almost concealed? Almost only counts in horseshoes and nuclear war. Now concealed spaces? At 02:47 PM 8/5/2008, you wrote: okay, I'll add more fuel to this pile. Check out the 2009 Report on Proposals, Item 13-210, for a new paragraph 8.15.22.3, which it appears that the committee accepted in principle. This would allow for a largely unsprinklered noncombustible space above a lower ceilings of an office or retail sales area...and the space above the ceiling doesn't even have to be cut-off from the storage areas. Sprinklers are required below the ceiling, but the sprinklers at the high roof would only extend into a portion of the space above the ceiling. The proposal even calls this an almost concealed space. I personally don't agree with this proposal, but it on the books for discussion. rick matsuda city of dallas ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: effective tank volume
The other detail is that I have to give them an elevation for the bottom of the tank. In addition, there is about 315 equivalent feet of pipe from the tank to the pump. the building requires a 500 gpm pump and I plan on calling for an 8 suction line. I was also thinking about insisting that the center line of the suction line be 6 ft above the centerline of the pump for just that reason. At 11:56 PM 8/2/2008, you wrote: Yes - but remember that you have positive pressure when the tank is filled. (Normally, a horizontal, split-case pump is taking suction from a tank whose water elevation - when filled - is above the centerline of the pump). It is only after the tank has nearly emptied that you'd have a negative pressure condition. At that point, you'll be in a siphon condition. Mark Sornsin, PE Ulteig engineers, Inc. Fargo, ND -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: effective tank volume Would not anything below the centerline of the pump impellor be a negative pressure? Split-case centrifugal pumps have to have a positive pressure on the suction side. Or have I misunderstood the situation? Russell Rewis Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc. 107C Hemlock Street Valdosta, Georgia 31601 229-244-8130 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 2:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: effective tank volume I recently completed a similar project. I agree with Mark, the available water is that part of the tank below the inlet of the overflow and above the bottom of the vortex plate. Also, reference NFPA 22 section 4.1.3 (03 edition). Ed Kramer Littleton, CO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 7:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: effective tank volume I am working on a project where the water supply for the facility will be fed from concrete tank(s). The absolute volume (completely full) of the tank is 10098 gallons. A 6 suction line with elbow anti-vortex plate will need to be installed. According to NFPA 22, the face of the suction elbow has to be a minimum of 6 above the bottom of the tank. The take-out for the elbow is 8 and the top of the pipe will be 4 (+/-) above that. I am trying to calculate the effective or usable volume in the tank based on what my minimum height above the floor can be relied on for suction. Would it be the 6 to the bottom of the elbow? 14 to the center line of the suction pipe? 18 to the top of the suction pipe? The tank is 10 feet tall, so this could have a significant impact on available water. (BTW, I am already assuming that the tank will only be filled 9 to 12 from the top; would that be reasonable?) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1585 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 6:39 AM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
effective tank volume
I am working on a project where the water supply for the facility will be fed from concrete tank(s). The absolute volume (completely full) of the tank is 10098 gallons. A 6 suction line with elbow anti-vortex plate will need to be installed. According to NFPA 22, the face of the suction elbow has to be a minimum of 6 above the bottom of the tank. The take-out for the elbow is 8 and the top of the pipe will be 4 (+/-) above that. I am trying to calculate the effective or usable volume in the tank based on what my minimum height above the floor can be relied on for suction. Would it be the 6 to the bottom of the elbow? 14 to the center line of the suction pipe? 18 to the top of the suction pipe? The tank is 10 feet tall, so this could have a significant impact on available water. (BTW, I am already assuming that the tank will only be filled 9 to 12 from the top; would that be reasonable?) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: effective tank volume
This tank in question is basically a concrete vault that will be retrofitted as a suction tank. We are going to have to add the suction line, fill line overflow and probably some sort of a fill gauge. I'm assuming that there is an opening in the tank for access. They don't want to pay the extra for a fiberglass tank with everything already installed, so we are going to have to make this work. My guess is that we are going to lose a total of 12-15 from the tank height, so the effective volume will be around 8700 gallons, instead of the 10,000 gallons rated. At 12:50 PM 8/1/2008, you wrote: Todd: I believe you want to use the '6 in. to bottom of elbow' option. Once flow begins to the pump, the pump will siphon the water up the elbow and out the tank until air can enter the pipe - which will occur when the level in the tank drops to the 6 inch depth (where the opening of the elbow is positioned above the floor of the tank). As to the upper elevation of the water, I think you can assume full depth of the tank - at least to the over-flow pipe. Mark A. Sornsin, PE Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ulteig.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: effective tank volume I am working on a project where the water supply for the facility will be fed from concrete tank(s). The absolute volume (completely full) of the tank is 10098 gallons. A 6 suction line with elbow anti-vortex plate will need to be installed. According to NFPA 22, the face of the suction elbow has to be a minimum of 6 above the bottom of the tank. The take-out for the elbow is 8 and the top of the pipe will be 4 (+/-) above that. I am trying to calculate the effective or usable volume in the tank based on what my minimum height above the floor can be relied on for suction. Would it be the 6 to the bottom of the elbow? 14 to the center line of the suction pipe? 18 to the top of the suction pipe? The tank is 10 feet tall, so this could have a significant impact on available water. (BTW, I am already assuming that the tank will only be filled 9 to 12 from the top; would that be reasonable?) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
beam strength for hangers
NFPA 13 (2002) 9.1.1.2(1) states that Hangers shall be designed to support five times the weight of water-filled pipe plus 250 lb at each point of piping support. Does this mean the hanger assembly only, or does make it incumbent on the structural steel to actually support this load as well? For a 10 ft piece of 4 sch 10, this would equate to a point load of 839 pounds. We have to get some information to a CE to figure out how to hang a system. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: beam strength for hangers
Never saw that one before. Thanks At 03:06 PM 7/25/2008, you wrote: Todd, see 9.2.1.3 (07) under building structure. Not sure which parag, in 02 R/ Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: beam strength for hangers NFPA 13 (2002) 9.1.1.2(1) states that Hangers shall be designed to support five times the weight of water-filled pipe plus 250 lb at each point of piping support. Does this mean the hanger assembly only, or does make it incumbent on the structural steel to actually support this load as well? For a 10 ft piece of 4 sch 10, this would equate to a point load of 839 pounds. We have to get some information to a CE to figure out how to hang a system. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Deperming Pier
I would be very concerned about joint restraint if plastic pipe is used. There cold be a significant water hammer with that type of flow from dry system. The EoR should be consulted, but it is always best to go into that discussion with as much information as possible. At 09:27 AM 7/24/2008, you wrote: I'd be concerned about two things with CPVC- Effects of sunlight, even under the pier you'd likely get strong reflections off the water; and where are you getting 6 CPVC? I have no idea if regular plumber's PVC would work; if you have a low-pressure DPV, and you're looking at a 2.5 DPV as your activating device (and combo exhauster, it's a pretty big orifice) then wouldn't the air never be at high pressure and so it shouldn't be a problem to use PVC? NFI, just a thought that would save my tax dollars versus SS316. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Deperming Pier What if you ran plastic, CPVC is approved for fire protection above grade per NFPA 13. See 6.3 of NFPA 13, 2007. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Green Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Deperming Pier I am installing a dry pipe system (no sprinklers) supplying four hose valves on a pier. The dry pipe valve assembly is located in a heated area. Extending out from the dry pipe valve assembly is 6 galvanized steel pipe. The steel pipe is routed below the pier out to the location of four hose valves. The pier is used for Deperming ships, submarines. Deperming is a procedure for erasing the permanent magnetism from ships and submarineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines to camouflagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camouflage them against magnetic detection vessels and enemy marine mineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mines. Anyway, there is about a 200' section of the pier that requires that all materials be non-magnetic. *Galvanized steel pipe that NAVY specified obviously want work. *CPVC plastic pipe will not work because installing dry system - correct on this right? *Provided them pricing for stainless steel, copper, brass and now they want pricing for Aluminum,. So a few questions o Ever used aluminum pipe for sprinkler installations? o Is there some other pipe type that I am not thinking about Help would be most appreciated. Rick E. Green District Manager East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. 1113 Cavalier Boulevard Chesapeake, Virginia 23323 757/485-7486(p), 757/295-0956(direct), 757/328-0131(cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: domed ceiling
This is kind of what I thought, but wanted to bounce it off the group before I shot my mouth off At 03:34 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Todd: I think the temptation is to suggest that since the dome is smaller than the required area of sprinkler operation of 1,500 sq.ft., then we shouldn't have to increase the design area for the sloped portions of the dome. If the room was no more than 1,500 sq.ft. in area, I would agree with that approach. But in this case, the remote area could include flat ceiling adjacent to the dome. A fire could conceivably open more heads within the dome (and outside the base design area) due to the sloped ceiling. Bottom line is that at there is no verbiage in NFPA 13 to suggest you can ignore the sloped ceilings of a dome when considering area increases. Mark A. Sornsin, PE Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 3350 38th Avenue S. Fargo, ND 58104-7079 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: domed ceiling This must be sloped ceiling day. I have a client with a church project where the sanctuary is a cross and at the intersection is a dome. The ceilings around the dome are flat at approx 28 ft and the dome rises to 57 ft. The room area is approx 6400 sqft and the dome is 1200 sqft. Do we have to include the 30% increase for roof slope in the design area because of the dome? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: sloped attic rrofs
Both are considered a peak At 09:50 AM 7/21/2008, you wrote: Does the reference to a peak in 8.6.4.1.4.2 2007 edition refer to where two slopes meet ONLY; or does it also refer to a single sloped roof that meets a vertical wall? Thanks, Greg McGahan ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
domed ceiling
This must be sloped ceiling day. I have a client with a church project where the sanctuary is a cross and at the intersection is a dome. The ceilings around the dome are flat at approx 28 ft and the dome rises to 57 ft. The room area is approx 6400 sqft and the dome is 1200 sqft. Do we have to include the 30% increase for roof slope in the design area because of the dome? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: ex cov sprinklers
Stick with the cut sheets; anything else could get you in trouble. At 04:15 PM 7/19/2008, you wrote: I have a big box retail project where the design criteria is 0.19 gpm / sq ft over 2000 sq ft. The design documents specify to use Tyco EC-11 ex cov sprinklers. The sprinklers are spaced at 16X16 sq ft. Per the data sheet, for OH2 (0.20 density), the sprinkler is req'd to discharge 51 gpm. However, the consultant is saying that because our specified density is 0.19 that we are able to only discharge 48.64 (256*.19)gpm per sprinkler. Has anyone done this before? Is it acceptable? I thought I had to go with the minimum the sprinkler cut sheet shows for OH2 (51 gpm). Any thoughts? T ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Is this going thru
No, It's not coming through. Can you speak louder? At 04:47 PM 7/17/2008, you wrote: Someone respond and let me know if this is being posted. Thanks in advance Geoffrey H. Dyce Sales Manager Contractor I, #87582700012007 NICET IV Industrial Fire Safety Inc. Ph:727-573-1556 Fx:727-572-7266 Cell: 727-644-8872 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Egress distance
CT uses Table 1015.1 At 08:11 PM 7/15/2008, you wrote: Gentlemen, Would you please share with me building code info of state that you are working in. I need to collect info related to egress distance for S-1 and F-1 occupancy in different states (with and without sprinkler system). Would you be so kind and let me know required egress distance, state and edition of International Building Code that your state is using (NC has those information in Table 1015.1 of Building Code). I would appreciate you help. Anna Reich E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
This could get interesting.....
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=8682369 I'll try to keep everyone informed as this develops Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Entry Vestibule situation...
If you find something, let me know. If it is part of the building egress, you may not have an option except to sprinkler it. At 11:24 AM 7/16/2008, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary==_reb-r1671FF6F-t487E15F9 Content-Language: en-us Forum Have a building with a situation that I need help in addressing small entry vestibule (148 x 7) which has glass exterior and interior doors and windows full height; with concrete walls, floor, and ceiling enclosing it. Access to this area is close to impossible Is there anything in NFPA that Im missing which would allow me to exclude this area? Thanks in advance. RFP Chuck No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1555 - Release Date: 7/16/2008 6:43 AM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: incoming vs. 'need'
Does the size of the existing underground pipe match the pipe sizing requirements of NFPA 20? At 01:12 PM 7/16/2008, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary==_reb-r4F874F0F-t487E2C2A Content-Language: en-us Another one to throw at all Just got off the phone with a g.c. regarding the need for an upsizing of the already installed, buried, and built-upon underground feed. He said that he would like to (at his own $$) provide a booster pump (instead of installing a larger underground feed) prior to the domestic / fire sprinkler service connection(s) which would inevitably increase the characteristics of the supply. This all came about as from bid to build changes galore have happened and thus we have had to double the quantity of heads on a proposed dry system! Im seeing several concerns in the grand scheme of things and I need some help in pinpointing something in NFPA that will say yay or nay to what they want to do. Thanks again Forum, RFP Chuck No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1555 - Release Date: 7/16/2008 6:43 AM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Explosives
I kind of go along with the comments that this should not be parked under a grandstand, especially when occupied. If this thing is moved, I would look into some form of self-contained protection, such as a dry chemical. But the purpose would only be to keep the combustible construction from igniting the fireworks. Why don't they get a container and put it on a trailer? At least that is all metal and would eliminate the wood construction. At 04:54 AM 7/15/2008, you wrote: - Original Message - From: douglas hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinkler board sprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:03 PM Subject: Explosives I have a customer who stores a quantity of less than 2 # of Class 1.4G explosives. These explosives are comparable to fireworks. The 1.4G is stored in a metal cabinet, not rated. The storage unit is 8 foot wide x 8 foot high x 12 foot long. The construction is wood frame, plywood floor, wood panel interior, and metal outside. If this sounds like a job trailer, your are right. The trailer is parked under a grandstand. the steel/wood grandstand is protected with a dry system, under the grandstands. Other contents are ordinary combustibles, wood, paper, cardboard. Upon occasion, the trailer is moved to other locations for shows. Then the trailer is parked under the grandstand. unless the trailer is put in the exact same spot, connection to the sprinkler system will be difficult. Can the flex head work for this application? As the 1.4G is in a cabinet, I would feel better with a sprinkler head in the cabinet, with a head or heads protecting the trailer. Any suggestions? Douglas Hicks General Fire Equipment Co of Eastern Oregon, Inc Oops, I was not clear enough on the these explosives are comparable to fireworks I did not mean the arial rockets. I meant the kind you get from the tents for the kids to fire off for the Fourth of July. Maybe I should have said pyrotechnics, as these are like you might see at a rock concert. But keep the comments coming. When I told the FM I would post on the Sprinkler Board, he was relieved to have the input from the Board. ___ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Institutional Sprinklers
100 psi water and don't open the door for 30 seconds. At 03:52 PM 7/14/2008, you wrote: Problem; we have some institutional sprinklers in a holding cell at a local jail that repeatedly are getting knocked out by the temporary inmates. Has anybody come up with a good solution to this problem from our end; specialty sprinkler guards or anything? Thank you in advance, Bobby Gillett Project Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] (731)-424-0130 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Water supply question
Without doing any engineering and no other information, I would say probably not. According to A.5.6.3, cartoned carpet tiles are a Group A plastic. The latex foam pads are another bundle of joy. 55psi may not be enough to handle the demand. More engineering is needed on this project to make an actual determination. (Disclaimer: my opinion only and may not have any basis in fact) At 10:10 AM 7/9/2008, you wrote: I am looking at a 25,000 sq foot former manufacturing facility that is being renovated and a wet system is being provided. A storage area- 4700 sq ft. will contain rolled up rugs (nylon type  and latex foam pads) that will be stored on 12 foot high racks along with boxes of water based adhesive and carpet tiles. The storage area has a 20 foot high ceiling with 30â steel joists and masonry construction. I was told that by an outside source that FM Global has design criteria for this type of material. Problem is the water supply is 55 static and 45 at 920 gpm residual. and 1808 gpm  at 20 psi (this was projected by the water provider.). I am questioning whether this is enough water for this type of hazard. Any thoughts? David Bryan fpii ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Water supply question
Sounds like tank time (at least for the sprinkler) At 11:17 AM 7/9/2008, you wrote: Thanks! We will have a pump but...the water supply (gpm) seems too low for the demand especially factoring in hose allowance. David Bryan fpii -Original Message- From: Todd Williams - FPDC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:55 am Subject: Re: Water supply question Without doing any engineering and no other information, I would say probably not. According to A.5.6.3, cartoned carpet tiles are a Group A plastic. The latex foam pads are another bundle of joy. 55psi may not be enough to handle the demand. More engineering is needed on this project to make an actual determination. (Disclaimer: my opinion only and may not have any basis in fact)   At 10:10 AM 7/9/2008, you wrote:  I am looking at a 25,000 sq foot former manufacturing facility that is being renovated and a wet system is being provided.à A storage area- 4700 sq ft. willà contain rolled upà rugs (nylon type à and latex foam pads) that will be stored on 12 foot high racks along with boxes of water based adhesive and carpet tiles. The storage area has a 20 foot high ceiling with 30â steel joists and masonry constructioon.à I was told that by an outside source that FM Global has design criteria for this type of material. Problem is the water supply is 55 static and 45 at 920 gpm residual. and 1808 gpm à at 20 psi (this was projected by the water provider.).  I am questioning whether this is enough water for this type of hazard. Any thoughts?  David Bryan fpii ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum  To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)  Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum  To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Pressure reducing valve location for a fire pump
If this location has an HPR carrier (i.e. FM Global, etc.), you had better check with them. They may dictate what you can and cannot do. Ran into this with an FM job with an oversized pump. At 12:07 PM 7/9/2008, you wrote: I have to install a pressure reducing valve on the discharge side of the fire pump. I know from past discussions that if standpipes are present, the valve must be installed after the last control valve for the fire pump to satisfy NFPA 14. What if this is a large warehouse falling strictly under 13? Could it be placed between the pump discharge and check valve (just like pressure relief valve on a diesel FP) and sized per minimum relief valve in 2-20 (NFPA 20 99ed)? I have a 2000gpm pump with a 8 discharge flange and would like to get a 8 pressure reducing valve to work instead of a 10in (size required for discharge pipe) to save some money. I checked the spec sheets and the 8 valve can handle the flow at 150%. Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Drawing Details
Anything specific you are looking for? At 02:10 PM 7/3/2008, you wrote: Hello sprinklerforum, I am looking for a good source of details in .DWG format to use in design drawings. I would like to find details like provided in many of the NFPA books but they will not release them. Any and All leads and links will be perused. Thanks -- Best regards, Charles Thurston mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Coastal Fire Protection ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Stolen fire sprinkler parts - again
What part could you steal off a sprinkler system that would render it useless without either shutting off a valve (activate tamper switch) or get somebody wet (and set off the flow alarm)? Another inside job? I have maintained for a long time that this business is ripe for sleeze-balls (I worked for one of the classics) because you get paid big bucks to install something that most likely will never operate. This puts a big burden on the local AHJs and those doing the NFPA 25 inspections to make sure that this is done right and stays that way. At 10:44 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: Here we go again. Another report of fire sprinkler parts being stolen off an active system. This time the system was protecting the Lehigh Valley Hospital in Allentown, PA. The story was reported at http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-lvhgarages0630-cn,0,1033688.story Ryan J. Smith ResidentialFireSprinklers.com - Your Source for Home Fire Protection http://www.ResidentialFireSprinklers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
LS pumps and transfer switches
I am working on a project (group home - non ambulatory) with a limited service fire pump taking suction from a tank. Main power is from the public utility and there is a back-up generator. The generator is hooked up through a standard transfer switch, which I am not sure is listed for use with a fire pump. The generator is sized to run the fire pump and emergency lighting only. The switch is satisfactorily sized, the system tested fine and the AHJ has signed off on it. Is there a problem? If this was a normal fire pump, I would say yes, but being limited service, I'm not sure. I know that the pumps can only be used when specifically approved by the AHJ, but don't know if they can accept a non-standard arrangement. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Flexhead on CPVC
I'm working on a project where the client wants to use flexheads (or one of the clones) off CPVC pipe. Is there any restriction on this? Could the bending of the flexhead potentially put some weird forces on the CPVC pipe and glued fittings that could cause a problem? They claim they do it all of the time, but I've never seen it. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
noncombustible insulation
Is there criteria or a definition for noncombustible insulation? A client wants to fill a space with insulation in lieu of sprinklering it (good idea). However, the question comes up as to what constitutes noncombustible insulation. Would fiberglass batt qualify? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Sand or silt clogging strainers
Would the local fire department be any help in getting this thing flushed? At 10:18 AM 6/24/2008, you wrote: We have 1500 gpm diesel pump equipped with a PLD. While running at full flow the strainers to the PLD and in the cooling line become clogged with sand or fine silt causing the engine to over heat and the PLD to fail. The city pressure and volume is not sufficient to adequately flush the 16 dead end main coming to the site so we have to live with the contaminated water for the time being. We are going to install a strainer in the suction to the pump but that will only catch rocks and stuff not the sand and silt. The problem is how to flush or prevent the strainers from clogging during a pump run. I have heard of cyclonic generator as a possible solution but have not been able to find and information on one. We are looking for ideas, suggestions or proven solutions if there are any. Thanks for your help. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: worried about Sprinklers leakage
Jaber, If they are really concerned, look into a double-interlock pre-action system. That would be about the best way to bring the chance of accidental discharge to a minimum. Considering you e-mail address, should I assume this is outside the United States? What do the local codes say about replacing sprinklers with a chemical agent? At 08:44 AM 6/23/2008, you wrote: Newly constructed research and development lab facility is protected by a wet type sprinkler system, one of the lab scientist is worried about the accidental release of the automatic sprinkler heads on top or in the vicinity of the high tech., expensive analytical instruments such as NMR, FTMS, autospec GC/MS and ESEM , which present a potential risk of damage to these instruments in case these sprinklers kick off during actual emergency or broken by mistake by a maintenance personnel or a lab personnel. He suggests gas suppression instead. I explained to him that accidental leakage of wet type sprinkler system is very minimal. The question is what the probability of activation and how much will it cost to replace the existing system with a gas suppression system. Your recommendations/insights are highly appreciated. Jaber Al-Haji [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: PLay areas
Greg, I did a play space about a year ago. The existing system was design to OH2 and that seemed consistent with what was going to be put in. There was plastic, but very little concentration or continuity. The standard obstruction rules apply. Your swiss cheese decks should be treated like any grated floor. If they start putting the injection moulded stuff in there, that changes everything. At 12:05 PM 6/23/2008, you wrote: OK, I have experienced the inflatable Bounce structures and read the previous post's concerning the same. However; what about the open type playground structure made out of metal with Poly netting and foam insulation around the posts to protect the kids noggins? All of the decks are steel with holes to like swiss cheese so water could penetrate the structure all the way down to the floor. I do not believe there is a roof over this structure either. I guess this is similar to what the old McDonalds playgrounds were like. I am thinking a max of OH2 would be fine and the engineer doesn't know. Any ideas? Thank you, Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
