Re: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3

[rongreenman .]

Does the standard define the standpipe as a post or pylon?

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:10 PM Mike B Morey  wrote:

> Where is the standpipe located?  Are we talking a typical stairwell
> install or elsewhere?  Section 307 starts off by stating that it governs
> circulation paths, and stairs aren't part of that definition in section
> 1005 based on a quick look.  The standard is available several places
> online if you google it, not sure if they're "legal" copies but for the
> sake of answering the question I'd take a look at that angle.  If its in a
> hall or something I'd imagine it could be put in a box in the wall or
> something.
>
> --
>
> *Mike Morey*
> *CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677*
> *Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group
> * Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company*
> 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
> *direct *260.487.7824* /  cell *260.417.0625* /  fax *260.487.7991
> * email *mmo...@shambaugh.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:James Litvak 
> To:"sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org" <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date:11/14/2017 02:59 PM
> Subject:ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3
> Sent by:"Sprinklerforum" <
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> --
>
>
>
> I'm working on building permit plans for a job, and the architect passed
> on an email from their accessibility consultant that the fire department
> hose valves can't protrude beyond the standpipe riser more than 4", per
> ANSI A117.1 figure 307.3. The text of that section is:
>
> 307.3 Post-Mounted Objects. Objects on posts or pylons shall be permitted
> to overhang 4 inches (100 mm) maximum where more than 27 inches (685 mm)
> and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the floor. Objects on multiple
> posts or pylons where the clear distance between the posts or pylons is
> greater than 12 inches (305 mm) shall have the lowest edge of such object
> either 27 inches (685 mm) maximum or 80 inches (2030 mm) minimum above the
> floor.
>
> What they're saying is that we will need to turn an elbow up from the
> outlet of the standpipe and install the valve vertical. I've already told
> them this won't work anyway, since the valve itself has a 5" hand wheel,
> and due to takeouts, the least amount of projection physically possible is
> about 8". According to the consultant, the way to mitigate this is to
> install cane protection, which the architect appears to want to avoid. Is
> anyone aware of this code section, and does it apply the way I'm being told
> it does? In nearly 13 years as a designer, I've never been told such a
> requirement exists.
>
>
> James
> Charlotte, NC___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=wiCt1iqr5u69Txm-iBELel0Xzd3F5uGuCJUQXBz1wqg&s=xRsf5UToNzmQSkkENHTI-JrcpESCaLYKnTi-kcXYGmg&e=
>
> This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If
> you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
> sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
> recipient.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Average cost for 13D systems

[rongreenman .]

Is the plumbing lead-in and its associated cost factored into the square
foot cost or is that included the n the site work? How about the
electricity? Seems to me that not including the costs of hooking up to the
utility as part of the square foot price of those systems, but adding them
to sprinkler square foot installation cost arguments is disingenuous.

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:34 AM Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> This is what we faced in the run-up to the vote on the 2009 IRC – our
> industry has been claiming $1-2 per s.f. for years and NAHB has been saying
> $6-10.  We’ve been crying foul when in fact, in many cases they’ve been
> right about the overall cost.
>
>
>
> SML
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Drucker
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:37 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Average cost for 13D systems
>
>
>
> EXACTLY, and the standby fees that are also being imposed.
>
>
>
> Customers are looking at the BIG picture, aka the bottom line and when a
> SEPARATE fire service is required by the water purveyor and/or RPZ BACKFLOW
> preventers it all ADDS UP.
>
>
>
> So just what is the TRUE cost, in some cases a lot more than the averages,
> means, estimates, etc etc,  Welcome to my world.
>
>
>
> John Drucker, CET
> Assistant Construction Official
> Fire and Electrical Subcode Official
> Building Inspector
> Building Department
> Borough of Red Bank, NJ
> Cell/Text 732-904-6823
> --
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> on behalf of Bruce Verhei [bver...@comcast.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:02 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Average cost for 13D systems
>
> The unresolved cost issue remains connection to water system.
>
>
>
> Best.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce Verhei
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 08:56, Steve Leyton 
> wrote:
>
> So answering my own question, NFPA Research Foundation updated the report
> in 2013.
>
>
>
> Checkioutpeople:   cost has actually dropped.
>
>
>
> Mean
>
> $1.61 (2008)
>
> $1.35 (2013)
>
>
>
>
>
> Median
>
> $1.42 (2008)
>
> $1.22 (2013)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:57 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Average cost for 13D systems
>
>
>
> NFPARF published an estimate of average cost for a residential (one/two
> family) sprinkler system in 2009 in the run-up to the IRC vote that year.
> I think the number was $1.61; does anyone know if they or HFSC have
> published an updated cost estimate recently?
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Barns & Stables

[rongreenman .]

I think you need to look at "NFPA 150 Standard on Fire and Life Safety in
Animal Housing Facilities" also.

This standard establishes life and safety requirements for both humans and
animals in all types of animal housing facilities where animals are kept
for any purpose including barns, stables, kennels, animal shelters,
veterinary facilities, zoos, laboratories, and racetracks.

I don't know if there is any further guidance regarding your question in
there but it's worth a look.

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:09 AM, James Crawford 
wrote:

> We were asked to have a look a sprinkling a horse barn and thought that
> should not be a problem, but when we got to site there was a large storage
> of hay.
>
>
>
> NFPA #13 has barns and stables as Ordinary hazard group 2, but I assume
> only a small amount of hay bales is expected.
>
>
>
> Hay bales are currently about 16’-0” high by about 30’ deep and 20’ wide.
> One pile.
>
>
>
> Anyone out there that has protected barns that could provide a little
> guidance.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>
> James Crawford
>
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
>
> Phone  604-888-0318 <(604)%20888-0318>
>
> Fax 604-888-4732 <(604)%20888-4732>
>
> Cel 604-790-0938 <(604)%20790-0938>
>
> Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
>
> Web www.phaserfire.ca
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Standpipe Pressure Question.

[rongreenman .]

I apologize to anyone I offended. Cecil first.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:33 PM Roland Huggins 
wrote:

> STOP IT
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 1, 2017, at 2:33 PM, rongreenman .  wrote:
>
> The testing has shown that yes, you are the father, er, are a bozo.
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:07 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo <
> prodesigngr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Standpipe Pressure Question.

[rongreenman .]

The testing has shown that yes, you are the father, er, are a bozo.

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:07 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo <
prodesigngr...@msn.com> wrote:

>
> Mr. Reinhardt,
>
>
> Actually, I will say that I agree the assessment presented by Mr. Leyton
> and Mr. Huggins.  Manual Wet is permitted by code and standard.  But to
> further the point, an Engine should be first to the scene.  An engine has
> hose and pump aboard so that operations can commence.  This is a very good
> reason to allow wet manual standpipes in low-rise buildings.
>
>
> This line of thinking should be considered, whether or not it is the
> opinion of the Chair that I am a bozo.  (Me thinks that should be ruled out
> of order.)
>
>
> It should be recognized that the above is DEFINITELY MY opinion as a
> member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation
> in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and
> should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official
> position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Cecil Bilbo
> Director of Training and Education
>
> Fire Protection Group
>
> Shambaugh & Son, LP
> Champaign, IL
>
> cbi...@shambaugh.com
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: lag bolts

[rongreenman .]

Don’t feel bad. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen 3½” lags in 2x
joists. “Just doin’ what it says in da book, boss.”

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:48 AM Rocci Cetani 3 
wrote:

> You know I guess after all these years I have just been reading what I
> wanted to see in table 9.1.5.3.1 , I didn’t realize that it only specifies
> length of lag …… Thanks Kyle and Mitchell
>
>
>
> *Rocci Cetani III, **CET*
>
> *Senior Designer*
>
> *Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III*
>
>
>
> *Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.*
>
> 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
>
> Morgan Hill, CA 93037
>
> P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
>
> F-(408) 776-1590
>
>
>
>
>
> roc...@norcalfire.com
>
> www.norcalfire.com
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may
> contain confidential information
>
> belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of
> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or
> the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking
> of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *
> Kyle.Montgomery
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 11:42 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: lag bolts
>
>
>
> Why would you do that instead of using a thru-bolt?
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Rocci
> Cetani 3
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 10:51 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: lag bolts
>
>
>
> I did think about that but it’s still a 6” main which requires 3” lags……
> maybe do the trap and space it at 10’ max. and use 2½” lags, only problem
> is I don’t have anything to back it up down the road in the event of an
> issue
>
>
>
> *Rocci Cetani III, **CET*
>
> *Senior Designer*
>
> *Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III*
>
>
>
> *Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.*
>
> 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
>
> Morgan Hill, CA 93037
>
> P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
>
> F-(408) 776-1590
>
>
>
>
>
> roc...@norcalfire.com
>
>
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1ALfYd3olT8Miqe1UpNuf-rTPjDgmg1WM_-ZxNzkzKGbzngx-rBdWKMfLVQorqiPMcWH-zdBJ0M9LhYe_VprYrKoTCvhYZ_Xp7zmR2V5ed7Wl-t1kp7iDxb6x3anN3cZM_EI1bDaUaEQr0FeVIfaLeyq18Z01ooXR5-YmP44sEGaMBeDtH4RVlPISt_icillHgyP9f21DNV0TCbEkdciCB63RTrZGqzp4Mbw3xzFSy4cn7yHZmqD4gUAul0PS0FikCzVO8R3MiOjwGtfiitAd8g/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.norcalfire.com
> 
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may
> contain confidential information
>
> belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of
> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or
> the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking
> of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Art
> Tiroly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 10:44 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: lag bolts
>
>
>
> Trapeze to spread the load?
>
>
>
>
>
> Art Tiroly
>
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
>
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
>
> 216-621-8899
>
> 216-570-7030 cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Rocci
> Cetani 3
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 1:33 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: lag bolts
>
>
>
> Sorry I should have clarified, this is for hangers not EQ bracing
>
>
>
> *Rocci Cetani III, **CET*
>
> *Senior Designer*
>
> *Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III*
>
>
>
> *Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.*
>
> 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
>
> Morgan Hill, CA 93037
>
> P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
>
> F-(408) 776-1590
>
>
>
>
>
> roc...@norcalfire.com
>
>
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1ALfYd3olT8Miqe1UpNuf-rTPjDgmg1WM_-ZxNzkzKGbzngx-rBdWKMfLVQorqiPMcW

Re: Small Hose Connections

[rongreenman .]

Bruce Verhei may intervene here but I recall him once telling me that they
did NOT want small hoses in his jurisdiction (Kent, WA) because they were
essentially more of an attractive nuisance. Their reasoning was that
untrained civilians might try to fight a fire, endanger themselves and the
the FD would end up fighting a fire and performing a rescue.

And my understanding is that it is always the jurisdictional call like
where the FDC goes and when and where a yard PIV is required.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:27 PM Rocci Cetani 3 
wrote:

> It’s always been my understanding that  this situation is always up to the
> AHJ.
>
>
>
> *Rocci Cetani III, **CET*
>
> *Senior Designer*
>
> *Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III*
>
>
>
> *Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.*
>
> 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
>
> Morgan Hill, CA 93037
>
> P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
>
> F-(408) 776-1590
>
>
>
>
>
> roc...@norcalfire.com
>
> www.norcalfire.com
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may
> contain confidential information
>
> belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of
> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or
> the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking
> of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *
> Kyle.Montgomery
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:23 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Small Hose Connections
>
>
>
> I’ve got an ESFR warehouse and I’m trying to determine if we should
> provide small hose connections. The relevant sections are:
>
>
>
> 8.17.5.1.1 *Where required*, small hose connections shall be installed.
>
>
>
> 12.2.1 Small hose connections shall be provided *where required by the
> authority having jurisdiction* in accordance with 8.17.5 for first-aid
> fire-fighting and overhaul operations.
>
>
>
> Is there a code section somewhere that tells me if/when the small hose
> connections are required? Or is it solely up to the AHJ to determine if he
> wants them or not?
>
>
>
> *Kyle Montgomery*
>
>  [image: cid:image001.gif@01CAA0CE.8D8066F0]
>
> *Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.*
>
> *21605 N. Central Ave.*
>
> *Phoenix, AZ 85024*
>
> *Direct: 623.580.7820*
>
> *Cell: 602.763.4736*
>
> kmontgom...@aerofire.com
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Electric unit heaters

[rongreenman .]

I’m not seeing a lot of fuel loading even with the squirrel nest. I’d say
no sprinkies.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM Prahl, Craig/GVL 
wrote:

> What would be the fuel source?
>
>
>
> Nice warm space = squirrel nesting material?
>
>
>
>
> *Craig L. Prahl*
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> *CH2M*
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
>
> Fax - 864.920.7129
>
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Dewayne
> Martinez
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:16 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
> *Subject:* RE: Electric unit heaters [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> You are correct Ron.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *rongreenman
> .
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:09 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Electric unit heaters
>
>
>
> If the heaters were to start a fire what would be the fuel source? What
> would actually be on fire? From the description I’m guessing the only
> combustible would be the insulation on the units’ wiring.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:51 PM Dewayne Martinez <
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> wrote:
>
> NFPA 13 07ed
>
>
>
> Noncombustible parking garage where they are adding a non-combustible
> ceiling and 3 electric unit heaters above the ceiling to keep this space
> warm for plumbing drain pipes.  Do I need sprinkler protection in the space
> above the ceiling?  My instinct tells me yes, at least local protection by
> the UH’s but I can’t find it in NFPA 13.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Dewayne Martinez
>
> Fire Protection Design Manager
>
>
>
> *TOTAL Mechanical*
>
> *Building** Integrity*
> W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
> Pewaukee, WI  53072
>
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
>
> Ph:  262-522-7110
>
> Cell: 414-406-5208
>
> *http://www.total-mechanical.com/ <http://www.total-mechanical.com/>*
>
>
>
> [image: Consecutive Honors 2012-2017]
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> --
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Electric unit heaters

[rongreenman .]

If the heaters were to start a fire what would be the fuel source? What
would actually be on fire? From the description I’m guessing the only
combustible would be the insulation on the units’ wiring.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:51 PM Dewayne Martinez <
dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> wrote:

> NFPA 13 07ed
>
>
>
> Noncombustible parking garage where they are adding a non-combustible
> ceiling and 3 electric unit heaters above the ceiling to keep this space
> warm for plumbing drain pipes.  Do I need sprinkler protection in the space
> above the ceiling?  My instinct tells me yes, at least local protection by
> the UH’s but I can’t find it in NFPA 13.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Dewayne Martinez
>
> Fire Protection Design Manager
>
>
>
> *TOTAL** Mechanical*
>
> *Building** Integrity*
> W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
> Pewaukee, WI  53072
>
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
>
> Ph:  262-522-7110
>
> Cell: 414-406-5208
>
> *http://www.total-mechanical.com/ *
>
>
>
> [image: Consecutive Honors 2012-2017]
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Car Wash Station

[rongreenman .]

It had nothing to do with the hazard. It was a block wall building with
steel trusses and metal roof. High pressure hoses with detergent to wash
tanks. Lots of non-combustibles and everything wet. OH1 because it was the
COE and the layout for light or ordinary was the same and there was enough
water for it. The decision was based on running a couple of calcs.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM  wrote:

> I'm just curious about "OH1 by the way" Ron. Was that specified? I
> like the relation mentioned to Parking Garage, and thought about the
> "Contents" being the plastics, fabrics, and other combustible stuff
> inside, and the fact that, hopefully, the windows are rolled up tight,
> one car, and thought LH would probably be Reasonable too!!
>
> Brad
>
> Quoting "rongreenman ." :
>
> > I did a tank wash station for the army and just used brass. That was
> twenty
> > years ago and there were no problems I know of. I'd use polyester now but
> > because it would just make more sense and the cost, as mentioned, is
> > negligible. OH1 by the way.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Matt Grise  wrote:
> >
> >> I did a car wash where we had to put sprinklers in the automatic wash
> >> area. The customer got out of the car and then would go inside and watch
> >> the car go through a wash tunnel.
> >>
> >> The owner wanted corrosion resistant materials and insisted on stainless
> >> steel piping and sprinklers... until I provided pricing for those
> options.
> >>
> >> It turned out in that case that corrosion resistance and cost reached a
> >> balancing point (at black s-40 pipe and standard heads). I imagine that
> it
> >> will be the same in all cases. You can certainly provide them with
> almost
> >> anything under the sun. Just bid what is in the specs, or counsel your
> >> negotiated owner. They will eventually settle on some sort of available
> >> option.
> >>
> >> Like I tell my apprentices: "I would like to have a solid gold toilet...
> >> ...something, something... get out your check book."
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler
> .
> >> org] On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:40 PM
> >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Car Wash Station
> >>
> >> Architects/engineers often ask for "corrosion resistant" heads in locker
> >> rooms with showers or in exterior locations that are exposed to ocean
> air,
> >> for example.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if there is a real, tangible corrosion concern in a car
> wash,
> >> but it's an easy safeguard to use white-poly heads.
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler
> .
> >> org] On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:27 PM
> >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Car Wash Station
> >>
> >> Corrosion at the dilution levels used for application and at the minimal
> >> direct exposure of water spray?
> >>
> >>
> >> Craig L. Prahl
> >> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> >> CH2M
> >> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> >> Greenville, SC  29607
> >> Direct - 864.920.7540
> >> Fax - 864.920.7129
> >> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> >> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler
> .
> >> org] On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:26 PM
> >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Car Wash Station [EXTERNAL]
> >>
> >> Corrosion.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if that is really an issue or not, but I would probably use
> >> white poly heads. Cost difference is basically negligible.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler
> .
> >> org] On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:17 PM
> >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Car Wash Station
> >>
> >> Based on

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Car Wash Station

[rongreenman .]

I did a tank wash station for the army and just used brass. That was twenty
years ago and there were no problems I know of. I'd use polyester now but
because it would just make more sense and the cost, as mentioned, is
negligible. OH1 by the way.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Matt Grise  wrote:

> I did a car wash where we had to put sprinklers in the automatic wash
> area. The customer got out of the car and then would go inside and watch
> the car go through a wash tunnel.
>
> The owner wanted corrosion resistant materials and insisted on stainless
> steel piping and sprinklers... until I provided pricing for those options.
>
> It turned out in that case that corrosion resistance and cost reached a
> balancing point (at black s-40 pipe and standard heads). I imagine that it
> will be the same in all cases. You can certainly provide them with almost
> anything under the sun. Just bid what is in the specs, or counsel your
> negotiated owner. They will eventually settle on some sort of available
> option.
>
> Like I tell my apprentices: "I would like to have a solid gold toilet...
> ...something, something... get out your check book."
>
> Matt
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:40 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Car Wash Station
>
> Architects/engineers often ask for "corrosion resistant" heads in locker
> rooms with showers or in exterior locations that are exposed to ocean air,
> for example.
>
> I'm not sure if there is a real, tangible corrosion concern in a car wash,
> but it's an easy safeguard to use white-poly heads.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:27 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Car Wash Station
>
> Corrosion at the dilution levels used for application and at the minimal
> direct exposure of water spray?
>
>
> Craig L. Prahl
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> CH2M
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
> Fax - 864.920.7129
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:26 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Car Wash Station [EXTERNAL]
>
> Corrosion.
>
> I'm not sure if that is really an issue or not, but I would probably use
> white poly heads. Cost difference is basically negligible.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:17 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Car Wash Station
>
> Based on what issue?
>
>
> Craig L. Prahl
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> CH2M
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
> Fax - 864.920.7129
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] On Behalf Of Rocci Cetani 3
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:11 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Car Wash Station [EXTERNAL]
>
> There isn't an AHJ around here that would let us use brass..poly white
> alll day
>
> Rocci Cetani III, CET
> Senior Designer
> Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III
>
> Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
> 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
> Morgan Hill, CA 93037
> P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
> F-(408) 776-1590
>
>
> roc...@norcalfire.com
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1oDaONJSIM5vigBbCYv5VSNlLvWCPG
> VHjLS_YvFvVVwP9x71hh6P6-h5BEFYlGELuMQpRrDDs_x4qVK1mLuD9XdzNPpwC10kIpT_
> UaNtsyRilbXz2TJ32M2PuKynPnBcvGxu6P9p5pzCt5X32CgMuAhqHpQLw21k
> MxDkZ5g18fDtqczT4xG4yHdXREcgJhYL-Ka3AyJDI8I1-U-
> GJ3Ftco1QqcZtaukE0PTO84OtmPkAUT5Y0662Tja6WwbU-Qw8e4v7A_
> ZT0zAYWW6_ZDH2yAg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.norcalfire.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may
> contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information
> is intended only for the use of individual or entity named above. If you
> are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
> deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the
> contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to
> arrange for return of the documents.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [m

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: "Slatted" Ceiling

[rongreenman .]

Also, look at the IBC for stages and prosceniums. I believe that is where
you'll find Allen's standpipe requirement, among other whats and wheres.

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Mark.Phelps  wrote:

> All good and true information Allen. I'm away from the "books" Right now
> but I believe a standpipe valve also needs to be installed at the stage
> area. Look up "Proscenium protection" in a word search in NFPA 13 and get
> the whole story.
>
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894 <(602)%20820-7894>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 6, 2017, at 9:20 PM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP  wrote:
>
> Yes, and judging by the original question, you might be totally missing
> the boat as to what is needed and what goes on in what sounds like a full
> stage situation. Its the sprinklers underneath the grid iron that do the
> heavy lifting, not the sprinklers above the grid iron. The theater sets and
> curtains get pulled up to the grid iron, so you’ll need to find out how
> high they go and you’ll have to be comfortable with  whatever sprinkler
> spacing you come up with. It may be 6 or 8 feet from stage from to back.
> They’ll need guards, be multilevel and not be ordinary temperature. Beware
> the lights. Stages often get little AC or air movement because it can make
> noise and move the curtains. So up there at the grid iron and above is
> warmer than typical. There will probably be a catwalk level below the grid
> iron on the pulley side that requires sprinklers underneath it. There would
> also be an automatic smoke vent or two at the roof level that might have to
> be manually closed, which might mean some unlucky person has to do it from
> the grid iron level. You don’t want to have a part of the deck level
> sprinkler piping in the way making that task any more difficult than what
> it might be.
>
> Allan Seidel
> St. Louis, MO
>
> On Oct 6, 2017, at 5:57 PM, Matthew J Willis 
> wrote:
>
> Negative. Check IBC for Grid Iron above stage. You need a compliment below
> it as well
> R/ in the
> Matt
>
> *Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid*
> On Oct 6, 2017 4:42 PM, "Reed A. Roisum, SET" 
> wrote:
>
> I did take a look at the archives and found some information, but
> wondering about positioning of sprinklers above and below an “slatted”
> ceiling.  Not sure if that is the correct terminology.
>
>
> It is above a stage where the rigging pulleys etc. are attached.  There
> are sprinklers at the deck which is probably 10’ above the slats.  The
> slats are between 3”-3 ½” wide (going off of photos) with approximately 1”
> – 1 /4” gap between.  They are about 1” – 1 ½” thick.  They look roughly 2
> x 4 sized, but they are metal. There are no sprinklers located underneath
> the slats.  There are a few larger gaps to avoid other structural members
> etc. and then the cross supports underneath are probably 4” wide every 5’
> or so.
>
>
> Would this be considered an Open-Grid Ceiling from NFPA 13, 2013 ed.
> 8.15.14?  A.8.15.14 says, *“The installation of open-grid egg crate,
> louver, or honeycomb ceilings beneath sprinklers restricts the sideways
> travel of the sprinkler discharge and can change the character of the
> discharge.”  *Is what I described more like a “louver” ceiling?
>
>
> I know the gap is more than a ¼”.  We will say that the thickness does not
> exceed the least dimension of the opening (its close).  It’s tough to say
> whether it is 70% open or not??  In portions definitely not.
>
>
> Question is, if I can meet all three of the above requirements then I do
> not need to install sprinklers under this slatted “ceiling”?  But if can’t
> meet one of the requirements then I do need sprinklers underneath?
>
>
> Thank you for any insight.
>
>
> Reed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET *|* *Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.* *|* Senior Fire
> Protection Designer *|* Fargo, ND *| direct: *701.552.9903
> <(701)%20552-9903>* | **mobile:* 701.388.1352 <(701)%20388-1352> *| *
> *KFIengineers.com*
> 
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1mZlXcSSesG869Y6_
> fosT8NF9PNPzazqHvuebse86flZgnjFY1U4pmH0LpUnDHYKZns9eoP_
> NPsKbaChNjJbwzzQjHzcB0ziip52oIQ8ZjfNvOaY8poYQY_3Dcb_omTHCxdHJbVV-
> WrCjBawqszktsAOogGBTl8CFphYSkGCcBejIgqENHQ_4lxt6hzMcGj7yRYuTW5-UQCq-
> vtIMc728bFotrPOR-DQdMaZWoPA_9OBLlf4-DpCdHALWc0CuGxNk/http%
> 3A%2F%2Flists.firespr

Re: [EXTERNAL] Calcs and tenant improvements

[rongreenman .]

I think maybe large metropolitan areas have the resources to higher a
higher caliber of AHJ. Read that as better trained, more experienced, more
educated in code, what have you. Smaller jurisdictions have slackness,
unhappy firefighters drafted into the FMs office, or guys furiously trying
to learn who will Be subsequently courted by those jurisdictions with
deeper pockets. In the immediate Seattle area most AHJs are knowledgeable,
fair and use good judgement. Some are little Napoleons and others not
really into their jobs but these are rarer than in the areas further
afield. A huge generalization but I think for the most part true.

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM Kyle.Montgomery 
wrote:

> Travis,
>
>
>
> Are you seeing this in AZ, or are you doing a lot of work in other states?
> It seems like the AHJs we deal with in the valley are usually pretty lax on
> requiring calcs for T.I.s.
>
>
>
> -Kyle M
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis Mack
> *Sent:* Friday, October 06, 2017 6:16 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Calcs and tenant improvements
>
>
>
> How many of you are being required to calculate systems when you do a
> tenant improvement? Just your run of the mill add/relocate.
>
>
>
> I am seeing it come up more and more. I am seeing it in situations where
> it is mostly relocates and no additions anywhere near the design areas. I
> have one now where the AHJ rejected for no calculations where the shell was
> OH2 and the new space is residential lofts. This particular AHJ wants us to
> show all piping on portions of the floor where no work is being done. They
> are also requiring us to submit plans for the two floors below our space
> that have no work being done.
>
>
>
> Is anyone else seeing stuff like this?
>
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> "Follow" us on Facebook:
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Pipe Schedule System

[rongreenman .]

The minimum standard of care is to meet the requirements of the applicable
version of NFPA 13 (and maybe 20). The SET after your name limits you to
that. If it were a PE you'd have more flexibility but still need to prove
your assessment was equal to or better than the minimum standard. You're
just in a crappy place with this one. We are assuming occupancy hasn't
changed? Yes? You say your issue is elevation and the problem is residual
pressure. Can you play around with orifice size?

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Reed A. Roisum, SET 
wrote:

> I’m not a contractor so I’m not worried about losing work.  I am trying to
> help the owner and making sure I am exploring all options available so they
> can make the decision with all of the pertinent information.  Like I said,
> I will recommend installing the fire pump and fully sprinklering the
> building, but just wondering if that is the only option, or if there are
> other, not as good, options.
>
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET *|* *Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.* *|* Senior Fire
> Protection Designer *|* Fargo, ND *| direct: *701.552.9903
> <(701)%20552-9903>* | **mobile:* 701.388.1352 <(701)%20388-1352> *| *
> *KFIengineers.com* <http://www.kfiengineers.com>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Matthew J Willis
> *Sent:* Friday, October 6, 2017 1:51 PM
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Pipe Schedule System
>
>
>
> I understand. I truly do. But to answer if it changes my thoughts, the
> answer is no. Not only that, it makes my position more steadfast.
>
>
>
> I could use that same thought process of perceived life safety
> improvement, and just place one sprinkler in each large storage room, and
> come back and add the rest at a later date, when it is more
> convenient/affordable.
>
>
>
> As Ron stated, give the life safety assessment. I have lost customers
> before, and walked on others. But I never worried about anything I
> recommended or provided.
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis*
>
> *Project Manager*
>
> *Rapid Fire Protection Inc.* <http://rapidfireinc.com/>
>
> *1530 Samco Road*
>
> *Rapid City, SD 57702*
>
> *Office-605.348.2342 <(605)%20348-2342>*
>
> *Direct Line-605.593.5063 <(605)%20593-5063>*
>
> *Cell-605.391.2733 <(605)%20391-2733>*
>
> *Fax:-605.348.0108 <(605)%20348-0108>*
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Reed
> A. Roisum, SET
> *Sent:* Friday, October 6, 2017 12:33 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Pipe Schedule System
>
>
>
> Ron, Todd, Scott, Matt:
>
>
>
> I agree with your statements and I’m not trying to be argumentative, but
> the system in place currently, does not “work”.  We all know that even if
> the system doesn’t hydraulically work it still provides a degree of life
> safety and could actually “work” to control a fire….whatever…it has been
> assumed that it will do that job for the last 50 years.  If the owner
> decides they don’t want the expense and hassle of a fire pump and decides
> to scrap the whole fire sprinkler upgrade because of it, then life safety
> has not improved at all.  However, if the entire rest of the building is
> retrofitted with sprinklers, life safety does improve, and maybe down the
> road they can install a fire pump so the entire system will calc.
>
>
>
> I know it is the owner’s decision, but I am looking at it in a practical
> way, how I have often witnessed the fire official look at it.  That is, we
> would be improving the life safety of the building dramatically and leaving
> an “inadequate” system in place.  I know liability is a big part of a
> discussion like this, but if we leave that out for now, does that change
> your thoughts at all?
>
>
>
> I am thinking of it this way because the owner’s rep said, “This could be
> a game changer for us”, when I told them the existing system would not
> “work” without a fire pump.  I know what is best and that is what I will
> recommend, but because I haven’t dealt with pipe schedule systems (other
> than replacing them), I was wondering in what instances, if any, you can
> leave a pipe schedule system in place when doing an upgrade?  I also
> thought of discussing with the AHJ the option of retrofitting sprinklers
> throughout the building now, and installing a fire pump later.
>
>
>
> Just looking for options beyond what would be ideal.
>
>

Re: Pipe Schedule System

[rongreenman .]

If the system isn't required by code and you are doing a life safety
analysis then your job is to give the client advice regarding life safety.

1. The client wants good life safety demonstrated by have the analysis done
at all.
2. The system is not required.
3. Better life safety is obtained with a system.
4. The system can't work without a pump, thus a pump is required for the
desired degree of life safety.
5. Analysis of cost versus benefit of the system.
6. Owner's decision.

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM,  wrote:

> Everything you install or modify has to “work”. Anything that you know
> doesn’t is bad ethics and a huge liability issue. Give the owner the
> options for fully adequate systems and let him make the decision.
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080> (ofc)
> 860-553-3553 <(860)%20553-3553> (fax)
> 860-608-4559 <(860)%20608-4559> (cell)
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2017 at 12:41 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> I have an existing pipe schedule system in a partially sprinklered
> building…installed in 1969.  I am doing a life safety analysis that
> includes budget estimating to provide new fire alarm and sprinklers.  The
> existing pipe schedule portion of the system is considerably higher in
> elevation and remote.  It doesn’t work hydraulically with the city supply.
> Even when I replace the system with larger pipe I can’t get the calc to
> work.
>
>
>
> In order to install a new system or keep the existing system in place and
> have it hydraulically “work” we will need to install a fire pump.  My
> problem is, the owner may decide to just upgrade the fire alarm system and
> not sprinkler the building if we need a fire pump as the sprinkler retrofit
> is voluntary.
>
>
>
> My question for the Forum is, can an existing pipe schedule system be left
> in place even if we retrofit the rest of the building and hydraulically
> prove the rest of the building?
>
>
>
> *NFPA 13, 2013 edition… *
>
> *23.5 Pipe Schedules  **Pipe schedules shall not be used, except in
> existing systems and in new systems or extensions to existing systems
> described in Chapter 11.  Water supplies shall conform to 11.2.2.*
>
>
>
> If I can meet the water supply requirements of Table 11.2.2.1 for Ordinary
> Hazard, which is a minimum pressure of 20 psi flowing 850 gpm then is the
> pipe schedule permitted?
>
>
>
> It appears as though I am out of luck because of 11.2.2.6.1 Residual
> Pressure… The residual pressure requirement of Table 11.2.2.1 shall be met
> at the elevation of the highest sprinkler.
>
>
>
> The main reason I can’t get the calc to work is because of elevation.
>
>
>
> I would assume the AHJ would be willing to work with us if the choices
> are… 1. No upgrade to the sprinkler system, or 2. A fully sprinklered
> building with 2000 sq ft that is pipe schedule and doesn’t work
> hydraulically.
>
>
>
> Any insight or ideas will be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Reed
>
>
>
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET *|* *Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.* *|* Senior Fire
> Protection Designer *|* Fargo, ND *| direct: *701.552.9903
> <(701)%20552-9903>* | **mobile:* 701.388.1352 <(701)%20388-1352> *| *
> *KFIengineers.com* 
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing
> list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.
> org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: One Last AFSA plug

[rongreenman .]

I have extras. I have many effigies that need burning but I can do one less
if the photo is put to good use like you want to do.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> Has the current Sprinkler Age been mailed out?   I left my conference
> issue in my room and didn’t sweat it because I assumed our regular issue
> would be in the office, but apparently it’s not.  I’m wondering if we
> discarded it or it’s simply not arrive yet.
>
>
>
> I need the Bob Caputo cover photo for our rec’ room dart board.
>
>
>
> SML
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *MFP Design, LLC
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2017 3:55 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* One Last AFSA plug
>
>
>
> For anyone that has not been able to make it to one of the conventions, I
> would suggest you try to make one of the upcoming ones.  As designers, we
> can get most of our NICET credits done in 3 days for the 3 year period.
> You get something like 72 from working, then a couple for being an AFSA
> member, then get at least another 9 at the convention.  So you are all
> practically done with your CPD requirements for the 3 year period.
>
>
>
> But, the opportunity to get to put a face (as scary as that can be) to the
> people we communicate with on the forums is always good.  There are some
> people I have communicated with for more than a decade and finally got to
> meet at a convention.  Plus, if you happen to be in the market for a new
> position, there is lots of networking to be done at the conventions should
> you desire.
>
>
>
> Even if you have to put up with guys like Huggins, Leyton, Wagoner or
> Schwab teaching classes, it is still worth it.
>
>
>
> [image: MFP_logo_F]
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
>
> fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> 
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> 
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: One Last AFSA plug

[rongreenman .]

And dammit TMac. I meant to hunt you down in Vegas and too much was going
on to find the time.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:54 PM, MFP Design, LLC  wrote:

> For anyone that has not been able to make it to one of the conventions, I
> would suggest you try to make one of the upcoming ones.  As designers, we
> can get most of our NICET credits done in 3 days for the 3 year period.
> You get something like 72 from working, then a couple for being an AFSA
> member, then get at least another 9 at the convention.  So you are all
> practically done with your CPD requirements for the 3 year period.
>
>
>
> But, the opportunity to get to put a face (as scary as that can be) to the
> people we communicate with on the forums is always good.  There are some
> people I have communicated with for more than a decade and finally got to
> meet at a convention.  Plus, if you happen to be in the market for a new
> position, there is lots of networking to be done at the conventions should
> you desire.
>
>
>
> Even if you have to put up with guys like Huggins, Leyton, Wagoner or
> Schwab teaching classes, it is still worth it.
>
>
>
> [image: MFP_logo_F]
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
>
> fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> 
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> 
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe

[rongreenman .]

Not a shot at anyone at all except those that find value here and are not
members. AFSA membership is the best value any sprinkler guy can get for
the money it costs.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:19 PM, MFP Design, LLC  wrote:

> Ok.  Last thing.  Speaking of George, he at one time had NICET accept time
> spent on the forum as accounting for NICET credits for informal education
> and advancing the profession.  I think we could account for up to 3 CPD in
> the 3 year period.  I have never needed it, but some may find that very
> beneficial.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *John Paulsen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:16 PM
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe
>
>
>
> Can’t agree more! The forum alone makes it a value. The rest of the stuff
> is just icing on the cake.
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Crown Fire System Design
>
> 6282 Seeds Rd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P – 614-782-2438 <(614)%20782-2438>
>
> F – 614-782-2374 <(614)%20782-2374>
>
> C – 614-348-8206 <(614)%20348-8206>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *MFP
> Design, LLC
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:15 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe
>
>
>
> No…not a shot at anyone.  Lol!!  Just the usual plug for membership.  I’m
> sure you realize the crazy value we get as design members.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *John
> Paulsen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:14 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe
>
>
>
> Don’t know if that was a shot at me or not, but my AFSA membership status
> is active for both national and state #30458.
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Crown Fire System Design
>
> 6282 Seeds Rd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P – 614-782-2438 <(614)%20782-2438>
>
> F – 614-782-2374 <(614)%20782-2374>
>
> C – 614-348-8206 <(614)%20348-8206>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of 
> *rongreenman
> .
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 5:58 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe
>
>
>
> Dave brought up George, George was a huge proponent of AFSA and this
> forum. Since we just ended the most recent AFSA convention (the most
> successful ever I've been led to understand) (and fortunately before the
> tragic shootings just down the street from where we were) I thought it
> might be appropriate to go through the archives and find George's words
> just after a previous AFSA convention.
>
>
>
> "George Church
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org&q=from:%22George+Church%22>
>  Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:17:46 -0700
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org&q=date:20100916>
>
> And let me stick in one last plug for attending the AFSA Convention, and
>
> remind all on here that the Association needs a membership check or a
>
> donation if you can't afford to pay in full for the services you use.
>
> If you don't pay your own way, the rest of us carry you.
>
> PARASITE would be the applicable word for those in that category."
>
>
>
> George was not one to pull punches. I know there are lurkers out there that 
> aren't memebers. Join today. Don't be a parasite.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:27 AM, David Sornsin  wrote:
>
> Ok. I’ll bite.   This is all anecdotal, but I’ve seen the inside of pipe
> in several nearly 20 year old, -10 deg. F.  freezer systems.  The reason we
> were tearing into these systems was because of ice plugs.  Pics from some
> of our systems were flying around FM as they were coming up with ways to
> solve the problem.  Those methods eventually made it into NFPA 13 (2013)
> 7.9.2.7.   I’ve also seen the inside of way too many plugged dry systems as
> you describe.  I don’t remember corrosion ever being an issue in the
> freezers.  Most of these systems were sched 10.
>
>
>
> When we pulled the supply air from the cold area, and added isolation
> valves above the preaction valves for the trip tests, we solved most of the
> problem.  Som

Re: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe

[rongreenman .]

Dave brought up George, George was a huge proponent of AFSA and this forum.
Since we just ended the most recent AFSA convention (the most successful
ever I've been led to understand) (and fortunately before the tragic
shootings just down the street from where we were) I thought it might be
appropriate to go through the archives and find George's words just after a
previous AFSA convention.

"George Church

 Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:17:46 -0700


And let me stick in one last plug for attending the AFSA Convention, and
remind all on here that the Association needs a membership check or a
donation if you can't afford to pay in full for the services you use.

If you don't pay your own way, the rest of us carry you.
PARASITE would be the applicable word for those in that category."


George was not one to pull punches. I know there are lurkers out there
that aren't memebers. Join today. Don't be a parasite.




On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:27 AM, David Sornsin  wrote:

> Ok. I’ll bite.   This is all anecdotal, but I’ve seen the inside of pipe
> in several nearly 20 year old, -10 deg. F.  freezer systems.  The reason we
> were tearing into these systems was because of ice plugs.  Pics from some
> of our systems were flying around FM as they were coming up with ways to
> solve the problem.  Those methods eventually made it into NFPA 13 (2013)
> 7.9.2.7.   I’ve also seen the inside of way too many plugged dry systems as
> you describe.  I don’t remember corrosion ever being an issue in the
> freezers.  Most of these systems were sched 10.
>
>
>
> When we pulled the supply air from the cold area, and added isolation
> valves above the preaction valves for the trip tests, we solved most of the
> problem.  Some customers went further and had us add regenerative desiccant
> dryers.  While I have no experience with nitrogen systems, I suspect
> they’re the best solution for the dew point reasons previously stated.
> However, I’ve wondered how expensive they are to maintain when supplying
> large, loose systems.  Most of the systems we dealt with also had in-rack
> sprinklers with pipe that was abused by forklifts.  We believed that this
> abuse led to leaks – especially at the grooved couplings.  We thought we
> solved that problem by replacing ‘older’ couplings with couplings with gap
> seal type gaskets rated for the cold.  I’m guessing the ‘rated for cold’
> was more important than the ‘gap seal’ part in these areas that never see
> above -10F.
>
>
>
> Based on my experience, corrosion wasn’t an issue and believe me, I’ve
> seen it all as far as mini-dammed sched 10 dry systems becoming plugged and
> ‘porous’.  Many years ago on this forum,  after preaching about the horrors
> of roll grooved mini-dams in dry systems, I received the nickname “Mini Dam
> Dave” from a frequent poster (miss you George!).   For a ceiling only
> freezer system, even the big ones,  I’d be comfortable with sched 10,
> proper gaskets in grooved coups, tank mounted air compressor,  with
> sprinkler and air supply pipes per the diagrams in NFPA13.  Should one
> become necessary, I’d spec provisions/room for the addition of a dryer or
> nitrogen generator. For a large system with IRAS, I’d spec the
> dryer/nitrogen up front.
>
>
>
> Dave Sornsin
>
> Formerly Fargo, ND
>
> Currently Kent, WA
>
> 701.371.0643 <(701)%20371-0643>
>
>
>
> Sornsin Fire Protection
>
> FPS, LLC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *John Paulsen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2017 7:13 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe
>
>
>
> Thanks guys, I DO find all of this helpful, but I was hoping to hear from
> someone that had experience with the “environmental” conditions of this
> freezer project and if they had noticed that the constant freezing
> conditions had inhibited corrosion in the pipes.
>
>
>
> I agree that under normal freeze thaw cycles, periodic trip testing and
> condensate water held in the pipe by roll grooves would best be controlled
> by all of the points mentioned in the thread. I have seen SO many horror
> stories in attics over the years with plugged lines from fine scale being
> compacted more at every trip test. I have no trouble explaining to clients
> why the internal inspection of their system is a critical “must do”
> maintenance item. But I would like to keep the pipe sizes on this project
> as small as possible in order to meet the trip times required by the CMSA
> head that we are using. If we spec schedule 40, it essentially increases
> the pipe size a diameter.
>
>
>
> If it’s justified I will do so. But I have this nagging doubt that the
> freezing temps will preserve the schedule 10… if the seams are fabbed on
> top 

Re: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe

[rongreenman .]

I think their are too many variables for any definitive answer. Chemistry
of the pipe. Chemistry of the water. How they react to each other. And the
nature of and how the biologicals interact with their environment.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 7:13 AM John Paulsen  wrote:

> Thanks guys, I DO find all of this helpful, but I was hoping to hear from
> someone that had experience with the “environmental” conditions of this
> freezer project and if they had noticed that the constant freezing
> conditions had inhibited corrosion in the pipes.
>
>
>
> I agree that under normal freeze thaw cycles, periodic trip testing and
> condensate water held in the pipe by roll grooves would best be controlled
> by all of the points mentioned in the thread. I have seen SO many horror
> stories in attics over the years with plugged lines from fine scale being
> compacted more at every trip test. I have no trouble explaining to clients
> why the internal inspection of their system is a critical “must do”
> maintenance item. But I would like to keep the pipe sizes on this project
> as small as possible in order to meet the trip times required by the CMSA
> head that we are using. If we spec schedule 40, it essentially increases
> the pipe size a diameter.
>
>
>
> If it’s justified I will do so. But I have this nagging doubt that the
> freezing temps will preserve the schedule 10… if the seams are fabbed on
> top of course…
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Andy
> Kaempfer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:36 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> The most effective measure would be cut grooved sch. 40 black steel using
> Nitrogen as your supervisory gas instead of shop air. This will eliminate
> the dam effect at the joint. However, the biggest value for your customer
> will likely be roll grooved sch. 10 black steel and still using Nitrogen as
> your supervisory gas.
>
>
>
> Many arguments can be made about the CRR value which is nothing more than
> a comparison of the thickness of schedule 40 pipe under the first exposed
> thread. The “first exposed thread” is the minimum pipe thickness exposed to
> both interior and exterior corrosion. It occurs at the threaded joint at a
> line defined by the thread width just before the pipe engages the fitting.
> There are too many factors to consider when identifying corrosion rates and
> this ratio is very subjective. Strictly a comparison.
>
>
>
> As for using Nitrogen as a supervisory gas I think this is definitely the
> biggest “bang for your buck”. In your particular instance Nitrogen provides
> you with more than just a corrosion mitigation solution. In particular the
> low dewpoint of 98%+ N2. A typical refrigerated dryer will only get you
> somewhere around -40°F dew point and 98% Nitrogen will be somewhere around
> -60°F dew point (that’s a 50% increase in humidity reduction).
>
>
>
> Hope you find this helpful.
>
>
>
> Andy L. Kaempfer
>
> Senior Application Engineer – Fire Protection Systems
>
> Bull Moose Tube Company
>
> 1819 Clarkson Road
>
> Chesterfield, MO  63017
>
> O: 636-812-9276
>
> F:  636-530-5880
>
> M: 314-306-2471
>
> [image: BullMooseCorporateTagline-black]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *John
> Paulsen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 3, 2017 12:34 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Schedule 10 vs Schedule 40 pipe
>
>
>
> Hello Forumites:
>
>
>
> We are working to develop a bid package for a pair of large freezers and
> coolers used for food stuffs storage on racks to 35’. The freezers are to
> be -10 degrees and the coolers will be 31 degrees. The sprinklers systems
> will be double interlock pre-action with Protecto-wire detection and CMSA
> sprinklers.
>
>
>
> My question: The owner is asking for a recommendation on whether to
> spec schedule 10 or schedule 40 piping. The concern is long term
> serviceability of the piping system. My initial thought is that due to the
> constant low ambient temperatures corrosion would be seriously inhibited
> for two reasons; any condensate in the pipe would be in frozen form and the
> low temps would inhibit microbial growth. So my thought is that schedule 10
> pipe would last the 20 year expected service life of the system. However, I
> would like to get the thoughts of the forum participants, is the cost of
> schedule 40 warranted or would schedule 10 service just as well in this
> application?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your responses.
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Crown Fire System Design
>
> 6282 Seeds Rd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P – 614-782-2438
>
> F – 614-782-2374
>
> C – 614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Disclaimer*
>
> The information contained in this communication from the sender is
> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient an

Re: Flight Simulator Bldg

[rongreenman .]

Might be something in here.

https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/UFC/ufc_4_171_01n_2004.pdf

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:33 AM, TIM STONE  wrote:

> By the way the Engineer of Record has called for Light Hazard Occupancy
> for the Flight Simulator area Roof Line Coverage.
>
> I am going to question that provided I can get information about the
> simulator equipment. In reviewing NFPA 13 & FM Data Sheet 7-3 sprinkler
> protection under the Cabs will also be required.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *G. Tim Stone*
>
> *G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC*
>
> *117 Old Stage Rd.
> *
>
> *Essex Junction, VT. 05452
> *
>
> Cell: *(802) 373-0638 <(802)%20373-0638>*
>
> tston...@comcast.net
>
> On September 20, 2017 at 10:21 AM fpdcdes...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> If this is a military project, do they have a spec on flight simulators?
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2017 at 9:59 AM, > wrote:
>
> US Air force project. F35 fight simulators, 4 of them inside one building.
>
>
>  Regards,
>
> *G. Tim Stone*
>
> *G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC*
>
> *117 Old Stage Rd.
> *
>
> *Essex Junction, VT. 05452
> *
>
> Cell: *(802) 373-0638 <(802)%20373-0638>*
>
> tston...@comcast.net
>
> On September 20, 2017 at 9:29 AM Matt Grise  wrote:
>
> What is in the simulators? Could there be a shielded fire in there?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Prahl, Craig/GVL
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:27 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Flight Simulator Bldg
>
>
>
> Are these servo motor articulated or use hydraulic fluids?
>
>
>
> If there are no hydraulic fluids or other contributing hazards, the
> building may be able to classified as an F-2 occupancy and no sprinklers
> required.
>
>
>
> You might also investigate the possibility of a water mist or hybrid water
> mist system in lieu of sprinklers for such an occupancy but that will take
> some analysis and engineering work to determine suitability or viability of
> the option.
>
>
>
>
> *Craig L. Prahl*
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> *CH2M*
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> 
> Greenville, SC
> 
> 29607
> 
> Direct - 864.920.7540 <(864)%20920-7540>
>
> Fax - 864.920.7129 <(864)%20920-7129>
>
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *TIM
> STONE
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:23 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Fwd: Flight Simulator Bldg [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> What occupancy should be considered?
>
> Steel building, 25' high with Flight Simulators inside. Engineer has asked
> that no sprinklers be installed directly over simulators which are about
> 22' in diameter. I need to use extended coverage. Occupancy not specified.
> I am leaning toward Ordinary Hazard 1 as minimum.
>
> Am I on the right track or could I consider Light Hazard?
>
> Cheers,
>
> *G. Tim Stone*
>
> *G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC*
>
> *117 Old Stage Rd.
> *
>
> *Essex Junction, VT. 05452
> *
>
> Cell: *(802) 373-0638 <(802)%20373-0638>*
>
> tston...@comcast.net
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing
> list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.
> org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

Re: Flight Simulator Bldg

[rongreenman .]

The facility I was describing has apparently been more recently expanded
and updated. Here's a link.

https://www.woodharbinger.com/projects/c17-flight-simulator-facility-addition/


On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:26 AM rongreenman .  wrote:

> I was involved with the C17 building at McChord. It was a mirror of the
> adjoining C141 building. The buildings consisted of the simulator bays, the
> control rooms, offices, corridors, and a small miscellaneous storage room.
> If My memory serves me the Corps specified them as ordinary one in the bays
> and light in the other space. The simulators had hydraulic actuators. They
> were big two man units and shielding was not a consideration. The spe'd
> precaution in the simulator bay and the one big issue was wanting a nine
> zone releasing panel which at the time was unavailable. This was all
> nearing twenty years ago so it's possible I may be describing how to
> protect large stone pyramids.
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:07 AM Dick Culver  wrote:
>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I assume the simulator would or might have pressurized
>> hydraulic lines to move the cabin.  This would keep you in Ordinary Hazard
>> for design.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *TIM STONE
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:23 AM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> *Subject:* Fwd: Flight Simulator Bldg
>>
>>
>>
>> What occupancy should be considered?
>>
>> Steel building, 25' high with Flight Simulators inside. Engineer has
>> asked that no sprinklers be installed directly over simulators which are
>> about 22' in diameter. I need to use extended coverage. Occupancy not
>> specified. I am leaning toward Ordinary Hazard 1 as minimum.
>>
>> Am I on the right track or could I consider Light Hazard?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> *G. Tim Stone*
>>
>> *G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC*
>>
>> *117 Old Stage Rd.*
>>
>> *Essex Junction, VT. 05452*
>>
>> Cell: *(802) 373-0638*
>>
>> tston...@comcast.net
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Flight Simulator Bldg

[rongreenman .]

I was involved with the C17 building at McChord. It was a mirror of the
adjoining C141 building. The buildings consisted of the simulator bays, the
control rooms, offices, corridors, and a small miscellaneous storage room.
If My memory serves me the Corps specified them as ordinary one in the bays
and light in the other space. The simulators had hydraulic actuators. They
were big two man units and shielding was not a consideration. The spe'd
precaution in the simulator bay and the one big issue was wanting a nine
zone releasing panel which at the time was unavailable. This was all
nearing twenty years ago so it's possible I may be describing how to
protect large stone pyramids.

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:07 AM Dick Culver  wrote:

> Tim,
>
> I assume the simulator would or might have pressurized
> hydraulic lines to move the cabin.  This would keep you in Ordinary Hazard
> for design.
>
>
>
> Dick
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *TIM STONE
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:23 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Fwd: Flight Simulator Bldg
>
>
>
> What occupancy should be considered?
>
> Steel building, 25' high with Flight Simulators inside. Engineer has asked
> that no sprinklers be installed directly over simulators which are about
> 22' in diameter. I need to use extended coverage. Occupancy not specified.
> I am leaning toward Ordinary Hazard 1 as minimum.
>
> Am I on the right track or could I consider Light Hazard?
>
> Cheers,
>
> *G. Tim Stone*
>
> *G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC*
>
> *117 Old Stage Rd.*
>
> *Essex Junction, VT. 05452*
>
> Cell: *(802) 373-0638*
>
> tston...@comcast.net
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

[rongreenman .]

I think why you're cobfused is that like many you think the calculations
model the operation of the system. They don't. They are a mathematical
construct that demonstrates the system will operate as desired within the
design parameters chosen. The inside hose allowance for the SPRINKLER
SYSTEM is independent of the "inside" hoses the FD uses attached to the
STANDPIPE SYSTEM. The hose stream allowance for sprinkler system is assumed
to be an additional amount of water added to the model if the small
diameter hose could be used.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM Kyle.Montgomery 
wrote:

> The figures that are shown for this section [A.8.17.5.2.2(a) and (b)] show
> your classic combination standpipe, though. That’s what is confusing me.
> I’ve always thought of “inside hose” or “hose connections supplied by a
> sprinkler system” as being differentiated from standpipe connections
> because they are DOWNSTREAM of the system control valve (is that correct?).
> It seems like the handbook is saying you need to add a hose allowance (like
> 50 or 100 GPM) at the hose valve connection for this scenario (classic
> combo standpipe shown in figure) as well as for small “inside” hose
> connections.
>
>
>
> What am I missing?
>
>
>
> -Kyle M
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:22 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)
>
>
>
> Yes, for hose connections that are supplied by a sprinkler system. Adding
> the flow at the available pressure makes get an allowance as opposed to
> having to balance the flows and pressures the way you would for added rack
> demand.  However, hose connections supplied by a sprinkler system are most
> assuredly not standpipes.
>
>
>
> My opinion only ...
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>  Original message 
>
> From: "Kyle.Montgomery" 
>
> Date: 8/31/17 8:21 AM (GMT-08:00)
>
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> Subject: RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)
>
>
>
> I read the handbook commentary for 8.17.5.2, and now I’m confused again:
>
>
>
> “When either one of the hose connections described in 8.17.5 is provided,
> the flow rates need only be added to the sprinkler system at the design
> pressure available at the point of connection to the sprinkler system pipe.”
>
>
>
> Is this not referring to a hose stream allowance?
>
>
>
> Also, can anyone comment on Colin’s original question? (Sorry for
> hi-jacking your thread)
>
>
>
> -Kyle M
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *
> Kyle.Montgomery
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:19 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)
>
>
>
> This has been my understanding as well. I wonder why more people don’t do
> it this way?
>
>
>
> I’ve done it myself one time. But usually am met with a lot of skepticism
> in the form of “well, if this is acceptable, why doesn’t everyone do it
> that way?”
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:01 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)
>
>
>
> Right.  Basically, if you’re flowing an attack stream from the SP, you
> don’t need the sprinklers.  If the sprinklers are working, you don’t need
> attack stream from the SP.   Inside hose allowance is for hose connections
> to sprinkler systems, which by definition are not standpipes.  Where you
> need to add the HSA is if you have a common water supply to hydrants and
> the system in question, i.e. outside hose.   This is all pretty well
> spelled out in NFPA 13, 2016 ed., §11.1.6.3.1 and §11.1.6.4.
>
>
>
> SML
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:54 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)
>
>
>
> Aren’t they treated as separate calculations.  Just as site fire flow is
> not added to the fire sprinkler system.  That is how I was taught.
> Actually, I think it was Steve L that beat that into my head long ago.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:52 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)
>
>
>
> Roland?   Ray Lambert are you out there?
>
> This is a LONG-simmering topic of discussion the AFSA tech dept. and also
> the NFPA community.   Short answer is NO, you do not have to include any
> HSA for standpipe connections.
>
>
>
> My opinion only (after Roland branded it on my a**).
>
>
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:

Re: Paint Spray Operations

[rongreenman .]

Flow switches at the booth are often there to shut down a solenoid valve
supplying the paint, or turn off high temp devices within the booth, turn
off fans, close dampers, etc. rather than just initiate alarms

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL 
wrote:

> From past design discussions, this section assumes the area in which the
> booths are installed is protected by an automatic sprinkler system and that
> sublevel sprinklers are provided within the spray booths.  The sublevel
> sprinkler array in the booth(s) being provided with a control valve of the
> indicating type to help facilitate repairs and replacement of sprinklers
> within the booths often due to deposits accumulating on the sprinklers.  By
> providing a separate control valve accessible from floor level, the system
> can be closed off for repairs without impairing the overhead sprinkler
> system.
>
> I haven't found any requirement to have a separate flow switch since the
> booths are typically fed from the same riser as the overhead system.   Now
> there may be unique installations where it is desirable to have a second
> flow switch local to the booth(s) to indicate flow within the booth(s).
> This would only be beneficial where you can differentiate between specific
> alarm devices.
>
>
> Craig L. Prahl
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> CH2M
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
> Fax - 864.920.7129
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Blocker
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:49 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Paint Spray Operations [EXTERNAL]
>
> In Denver this came up and the FPE stated 1 valve can operate multiple
> booths but the flow switch depended on the direction of flow.  If the
> piping allowed flow in opposite directions we would have to use 1 flow for
> each direction.
>
> Jeremy Blocker
> Sent from my iPhone 6
>
> > On Aug 30, 2017, at 1:10 PM, JD Gamble 
> wrote:
> >
> > Based on NFPA 13 22.4.1.5 (16 ed) (requiring a control valve for the
> > paint spray application area), would this suggest a separate control
> > valve for each type of booth within the spray area or is it intending
> > to suggest a separate control valve for the area only?
> >
> > Is each booth its own system?
> > Can you use a single control valve with multiple flow switches for
> > shunt trips?
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan
> >
> > JD Gamble
> > jgam...@lssofsheridan.com
> > (307) 763-3361
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> > er.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>



-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Parking under 13R system

[rongreenman .]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJfJTmfq2Q4

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:49 AM,  wrote:

> Of course not.
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2017 at 10:40 AM, > wrote:
>
> Todd,
>
> Didn't the Architect provide a Code Review for the Project?
>
>
>  Regards,
>
> *G. Tim Stone*
>
> *G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC*
>
> *117 Old Stage Rd.*
>
> *Essex Junction, VT. 05452*
>
> Cell: *(802) 373-0638 <(802)%20373-0638>*
>
> tston...@comcast.net
>
> On August 25, 2017 at 9:35 AM fpdcdes...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> Not sure. I don't have complete information on this project at this point.
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2017 at 8:13 AM, > wrote:
>
> Todd, being built in accordance with the special provisions section, i.e.
> podium, pedestal buildings ?
>
> John Drucker
> Assistant Construction Official
> Fire & Electrical Subcode Official
> Building Inspector
> Borough of Red Bank, NJ
> Cell/Text 732-904-6823 <(732)%20904-6823>
> On Aug 25, 2017 8:03 AM, fpdcdes...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> IBC/IFC 2012
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080> (ofc)
> 860-553-3553 <(860)%20553-3553> (fax)
> 860-608-4559 <(860)%20608-4559> (cell)
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2017 at 7:00 AM, > wrote:
>
> Which Building Code are you using ?
>
> John Drucker
> Assistant Construction Official
> Fire & Electrical Subcode Official
> Building Inspector
> Borough of Red Bank, NJ
> Cell/Text 732-904-6823 <(732)%20904-6823>
> On Aug 25, 2017 6:29 AM, fpdcdes...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I am looking at a 3 story apartment building that is going to be protected
> by a 13R system. Under one wing, the main level will be open for parking
> with 2 floors of apartments above. 13R addresses garages but not open (on 2
> sides) parking areas. A number of years ago, I did a similar arrangement,
> but it was a 13 system and the space was protected by a dry system. Thought
> on if sprinklers are required?
>
> I know there was a thread or 2 about this, but only found the one about
> sprinklers under train tracks.
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing
> list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.
> org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing
> list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.
> org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing
> list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.
> org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Domestic Supply

[rongreenman .]

Cliff. Synonyms for old: Pick your favorite.


   - agedstar 
   - ancientstar 
   - decrepitstar 
   - elderlystar 
   - graystar 
   - maturestar 
   - tiredstar 
   - venerablestar 
   - fossilstar 
   - seniorstar 


   - versedstar 
   - veteranstar 
   - along in yearsstar 
   - broken downstar 
   - debilitatedstar 
   - enfeebledstar 
   - exhaustedstar 
   - experiencedstar 
   - geriatricstar 
   - getting onstar 


   - gray-hairedstar 
   - grizzledstar 
   - hoarystar 
   - impairedstar 
   - inactivestar 
   - infirmstar 
   - maturedstar 
   - not youngstar 
   - oldenstar 
   - oldishstar 


   - over the hillstar 
   - past one's primestar
   
   - seasonedstar 
   - senilestar 
   - skilledstar 
   - superannuatedstar 
   - wastedstar 























-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700 <(253)%20576-9700>

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Sprinkler Accessibility

[rongreenman .]

Everything is ultimately accessible just like everything is doable. The
question is how much do you want to spend (or have to spend).

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:50 AM Matthew J Willis 
wrote:

> I see your catch 44,
>
>
>
> However, they are subject to the Maintenance aspect of 25.
>
>
>
> Just a little D.A…
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis*
>
> *Project Manager*
>
> *Rapid Fire Protection Inc.* 
>
> *1530 Samco Road*
>
> *Rapid City, SD 57702*
>
> *Office-605.348.2342*
>
> *Direct Line-605.593.5063*
>
> *Cell-605.391.2733*
>
> *Fax:-605.348.0108*
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Scott
> Futrell
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 11:23 AM
>
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sprinkler Accessibility
>
>
>
> Another question. Because they aren’t visible, they aren’t subject to an
> NFPA 25 inspection, so does it really matter?
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
>
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Matthew
> J Willis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:09 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sprinkler Accessibility
>
>
>
> Another question, if it is a concealed space, how do you know they are
> there and what age? Head box is one way, but very unpredictable..
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis*
>
> *Project Manager*
>
> *Rapid Fire Protection Inc.* 
>
> *1530 Samco Road*
>
> *Rapid City, SD 57702*
>
> *Office-605.348.2342*
>
> *Direct Line-605.593.5063*
>
> *Cell-605.391.2733*
>
> *Fax:-605.348.0108*
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Matt
> Grise
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 11:06 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sprinkler Accessibility
>
>
>
> A good point. I guess that would be a pretty costly inspection?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Scott
> Futrell
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:01 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sprinkler Accessibility
>
>
>
> Agreed, Matt, but how do you perform the required twenty year testing of
> QR sprinklers in a combustible concealed space? Just a question for debate…
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
>
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Matt
> Grise
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 11:53 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sprinkler Accessibility
>
>
>
> I would say “no”. I have installed many combustible concealed space heads
> that are hard to reach.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Reed A.
> Roisum, SET
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 11:48 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Sprinkler Accessibility
>
>
>
> Do all sprinklers have to be accessible?  If so, does anyone have
> reference?
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET *|* *Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.* *|* Senior Fire
> Protection Designer *|* Fargo, ND *|** direct: *701.552.9903* | **mobile:*
> 701.388.1352 *|* *KFIengineers.com* 
>
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Dubai Torch Tower

[rongreenman .]

It's why it's called the torch tower.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:49 PM Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> Is burning now.   Again.
>
>
>
> Steve L.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Galvanized pipe before backflow

[rongreenman .]

I think if you look in the Yellow Manual (no longer yellow) you will find
galvanized is not allowed before the backflip preventer.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:46 AM Dewayne Martinez <
dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> wrote:

> Wisconsin requires when using steel pipe on the potable water side of the
> backflow preventer that it be ASTM A53 galvanized.  Does ASTM A53 only come
> in Sch 40?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Dewayne
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question

[rongreenman .]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:09 PM Clifford Whitfield 
wrote:

> 👍
>


In agreement with what Travis just said.  It’s times like this that we need
> a ‘like’ button on the forum 😊
>
>
>
> Cliff Whitfield, SET
>
> President
>
>
>
> Fire Design, Inc.
>
> 184 Comfort Place
>
> Burnsville, NC 28714
>
> Ph: 828-284-4772
>
>
>
> [image: Description: New FDI Logo-4.jpg]
>
>
>
> cl...@fire-design.com
>
> www.fire-design.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack; MFP Design, LLC
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 3:58 PM
>
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Longitudinal Bracing Question
>
>
>
> And guys (and ladies), this kind of information is exactly why AFSA
> membership is invaluable.  So, time for the regular plug for any of you
> participating in this forum and not AFSA members to figure out a way to
> join.
>
>
>
> I am 100% certain that my annual dues (while very reasonable as a design
> member) are typically paid back in the first few days of the year with the
> knowledge, friends, colleagues and customers I gain from this forum.
>
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
>
>
> ***PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS***
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Parsley
> Consulting
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 12:53 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question
>
>
>
> Forumites,
>
> Let's clarify a couple of items here. [All references to the 2016 edition,
> and all emphasis is mine]
>
>- Longitudinal bracing on mains must be spaced no more than 80' apart,
>per 9.3.5.6.1
>
>- The distance from the end of the line and the last (or first)
>longitudinal brace must no exceed 40', per 9.3.5.6.
>   - Your first longitudinal brace could be as much as 40' from the
>   end of the pipe run.
>- The structural components of the building must be able to resist the
>added seismic loads, per 9.3.5.1.2
>   -  This is something the building structural would have to provide,
>   as it's not something a sprinkler contractor should attempt without some
>   training and experience in structural engineering.
>- A trapeze installed per NFPA 13 guidelines is *not intended to
>address loads other than gravity* in the vertical orientation, and any
>resistance to horizontal movement would have to be designed by a structural
>engineer.
>
>- As long as the brace member (pipe, rod, flat, etc) does not exceed
>the limits on the length imposed by tables 9.3.5.11.8(a)-(c) having it be
>four feet to the nearest bar joist should be no problem.
>
>- The only "angle" which really applies in providing longitudinal
>bracing is the measurement *from vertical*.  That angle must be at
>least 30° and have a maximum of 90° from vertical (which is perfectly
>horizontal, *and* would make the brace parallel to the pipe.
>
> The addition of another flexible coupling on the main could create a
> further requirement for additional lateral bracing within 24" of the
> flexible coupling per 9.3.5.5.9.
>
> I hope that provides some guidance.
>
> As I am a member of the hanging and bracing committee of NFPA 13, please
> see the disclaimer below.
>
> sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> * Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> Escondido, California 92025 Phone 760-745-6181 Visit our website
> *
>
>
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation
> issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal
> opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the official
> position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this
> correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, to
> provide professional consultation or services It should be noted that the
> above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA Automatic Sprinkler System
> Hanging and Bracing Committee in accordance with the NFPA Regulations
> Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor
> relied upon, as the official position of the NFPA or its Committees*
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.or

Re: Obsolete Central A-1 Adjustable Dry Pendent Sprinklers

[rongreenman .]

There is nothing "right" in this. The Central fitting is part of a listed
assembly so only listed with all it's parts. It's not a standard pipe
fitting so it would need to be listed separately. The assembly itself was
recalled so You can't use a bushing in a standard Tee when installing a
dry pendant because the end of the dry head assembly must extend into the
waterway. The compatibility of threads, even if NPT, is the least thing
wrong.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Wyse, Chuck  wrote:

> I take it the original A-1 adjustable had been replaced with a suitable
> DS-1 replacement?
>  The thread on the bottom of the original A-1 cast bell housings are not
> NPT.  I believe they are fine machine thread.  It should also be noted that
> the bushing should not be installed in the housing, if it is NPT x NPT as
> Central supplied specific replacement parts for the A-1 adjustable.
>
> *Chuck Wyse  CFI -1*
>
> Field Investigator
>
> *Tyco Fire Protection Products*
>
> Mobile: +1 302 559 0387 <+1%20302%20559%200387>
>
> Fax: 410 398 8477 <410%20398%208477>
>
> 1400 Pennbrook Parkway
>
> Lansdale PA  19446  USA
>
> chuck.w...@tycofp.com  *www.tycofsbp.com *
>
>
>
> [image: TFPP blue_rgb.png]
>
>
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies
> of the original message. Any applicable rights to privilege have not been
> waived.
>
>
>
> *Tyco's vision is Zero Harm to people and the environment. Please consider
> the environment before printing this message.*
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 8:27 AM, Bobby McCullough 
> wrote:
>
> Had a service call to repair leaks on dry system and found part of obsolete
> Central A-1 Adjustable Dry Pendent sprinkler recently modified.  The
> original "special cast iron fitting" was in place and a new dry pendent
> installed into this cast fitting.  1" male NPT from the side of the cast
> fitting threaded into branch line fitting then 1.25" x 1" bushing into the
> bottom of the cast fitting (with a lot of Teflon tape) and new dry pendent
> into bushing.  Tyco researched but could not tell me if the female threads
> on the bottom were 1.25" NPT.  I feel rather certain this "special cast
> fitting" is not listed or intended to be used in the manner.  Anyone have
> experience with this?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bobby McCullough, Atlanta Sprinkler
> mailto:bo...@atlantasprinkler.com 
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.
> firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-
> 2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=0YGvTs3tT-VMy8_v51yLDw&r=
> vnczw2fNyMAqdaKUw5vFyOaCoZh4rHSDnL0zFGJkbHE&m=
> R2NPwFSIYur6c2xTfXrNs2YNVZp2YtVChEtGX5a65zM&s=
> 6ZOW5klSM3LPZYdNLflaY4BoRI17NeTunjE_g3wv0Qs&e=
>
>
> --
>
> This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for
> the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not
> disseminate, copy or take any action in respect of any information
> contained in it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately by e-mail and immediately destroy this e-mail and
> its attachments.
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Lithium Batteries

[rongreenman .]

I don't believe any wonder gas will extinguish or control lithium. I do
know the navy uses a copper based agent. Talk to a  extinguisher
manufacturer. They deal with combustible metals. Of course lithium ion is a
completely different animal than pure lithium, block or powdered. In short,
you should determine the chemistry of your fuel when its an exotic and not
rely on apocrypha from a forum if sprinkler guys. Lithium is highly water
reactive and though I can't comment on lithium ion or lithium ion batteries
you should insure your AHJ knows what he's taking about before you start
putting water on this stuff, or coming up with alternatives based on how
other agents work relative to other hazards.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:41 PM Wayne Cordiner  wrote:

> James,
>
> For a space with such a small volume as 1280 cubic feet I think the
> simplest and most effective would be a stand alone clean agent suppression
> system (FM-200/Novec 1230). Besides superior extinguishing capabilities, it
> will have no negative effects on the equipment being stored/tested there,
> should the system deploy. You would need a small fire alarm panel, a couple
> detectors/pull station, and a small area to house the tank.
> Hope this helps, but feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
>
> Regards,
> Wayne T. Cordiner Jr.
> 917-426-5844
> fpdrawi...@gmail.com
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:23 PM, James Crawford 
> wrote:
>
>> We have someone that has a 20’ x 8’ x8’ metal shipping container in their
>> warehouse that they use to test lithium batteries, the AHJ want them to
>> sprinkler this space, but the application of water to the batteries is not
>> the best solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any ideas out there?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> James Crawford
>>
>> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
>>
>> Phone  604-888-0318 <(604)%20888-0318>
>>
>> Fax 604-888-4732 <(604)%20888-4732>
>>
>> Cel 604-790-0938 <(604)%20790-0938>
>>
>> Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
>>
>> Web www.phaserfire.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: 3d Blocks

[rongreenman .]

https://grabcad.com/library/flow-switch-150mm

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:29 PM Bob  wrote:

> Does anyone have a 3D block of a flow switch, or know where I can find one?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> 208-318-3057
>
> [image: FBK-LOGO-SMALL]
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Looking For Opinions

[rongreenman .]

That would be a combustible concealed space everywhere around here.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Anthony Carrizosa <
anth...@archerconstruction.com> wrote:

> Looking at NFPA 13, see section 8.15.1.5
>
> *8.15.1.5 Localized Protection of Exposed Combustible Construction or
> Exposed Combustibles. When otherwise noncombustible or limited-combustible
> concealed spaces that would not require sprinkler protection have localized
> exposed combustible construction, or contain localized areas of exposed
> combustibles, the combustibles shall be permitted to be protected as
> follows:(1) If the exposed combustibles are in the vertical partitions or
> walls around all or a portion of the enclosure, a single row of sprinklers
> spaced not over 12 ft (3.7 m) apart nor more than 6 ft (1.8 m) from the
> inside of the partition shall be permitted to protect the surface. The
> first and last sprinklers in such a row shall not be over 5 ft (1.5 m) from
> the ends of the partitions.(2) If the exposed combustibles are in the
> horizontal plane, the area of the combustibles shall be permitted to be
> protected with sprinklers on a light hazard spacing. Additional sprinklers
> shall be installed no more than 6 ft(1.8 m) outside the outline of the area
> and not more than12 ft (3.7 m) on center along the outline. When the
> outline returns to a wall or other obstruction, the last sprinkler shall
> not be more than 6 ft (1.8 m) from the wall or obstruction.*
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> *Anthony Carrizosa *
>
> *Fire Protection Division *
>
> *OFFICE: 253-872-7222 <253-872-7222> *
>
> *Cell: **206-679-5283 <(206)%20679-5283>*
>
> *[image: cid:703393518@19082013-11F7]*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Harris [mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 07, 2017 7:29 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Looking For Opinions
>
>
>
> Working on a wood building per NFPA-13. Contract drawings show drywall
> above ceiling running to deck, GC stopped drywall 8” above ceiling leaving
> exposed wood & insulation. Any way this area won’t need sprinklers? See
> link for pictures.
>
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7mwoppgmu5aq27e/AADOdqgkge40MHXeUsex9RHSa?dl=0
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> Design Manager
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989 <(704)%20896-9989>
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935 <(704)%20896-1935>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

[rongreenman .]

When you guys are using "PRV" without further clarification, how do I
determine when "R" is reducing, relief or regulating?

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> In USA, listings stop at 350 for now; in Canada, 400 PSI.   These metrics
> the latest that I am aware of but if anyone out there knows of newer and
> higher ratings, chime in.
>
>
>
> SL
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Roland Huggins
> *Sent:* Friday, July 07, 2017 7:59 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording
>
>
>
> What he said.  Thank goodness for the master PRV in NFPA 14 so we can say
> if not allowed why’s it there?
>
>
>
> I’ve never gone looking so what’s the maximum rating available for PRV’s?
>
>
>
> Roland
>
>
>
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2017, at 6:50 PM, Travis Mack  wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes. That is what we do with standpipes all the time. You can design for
> 300 psi, your components on the discharge side of the pump just have to be
> 300 psi rated.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Help

[rongreenman .]

And remember to join AFSA  and your local chapter if you haven't and find
that this AFSA sponsored forum has helped you. Membership has many, many
more resources and benefits you can access.

Channeling or lost but never forgotten friend and for unite extraordinaire,
George Church.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:42 PM Roland Huggins 
wrote:

> AS indicated we do go off tangent at times but we TRY to limit it from
> going too far or too long.   Yea I’m sprinkling a lot of too’s around. With
> that said, back to the technical focus.
>
> Welcome aboard Rob
>
> Roland
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:00 PM, rongreenman .  wrote:
>
> We also argue, admonish, go off on tangents, etc.
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:48 PM Richard Carr  wrote:
>
> Usually we get more challenging questions but we're not picky.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Steve Leyton 
>> Date: 6/21/17 4:45 PM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: Help
>>
>> You put your right foot in, you take your right foot out …
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob
>> Henderson
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 21, 2017 1:30 PM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> *Subject:* Help
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> How do I participate in the forum?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> *Rob Henderson*
>>
>> *RWP Engineering  *
>>
>> *31 W. Congress St., Suite 305*
>>
>> *Savannah, Georgia 31401*
>>
>> *Phone: (912) 231-9212*
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
> ___
>
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Help

[rongreenman .]

We also argue, admonish, go off on tangents, etc.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:48 PM Richard Carr  wrote:

> Usually we get more challenging questions but we're not picky.
>
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Steve Leyton 
> Date: 6/21/17 4:45 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Help
>
> You put your right foot in, you take your right foot out …
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob
> Henderson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 21, 2017 1:30 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Help
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> How do I participate in the forum?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Rob Henderson*
>
> *RWP Engineering  *
>
> *31 W. Congress St., Suite 305*
>
> *Savannah, Georgia 31401*
>
> *Phone: (912) 231-9212*
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D2CB1C.1A48FF00]
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Potter WLS

[rongreenman .]

So you don't feel alone Richard I've always preferred and recommended end
seal couplings on dry systems too.

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Richard Mote 
wrote:

> Thanks Steve,
>
>
>
> Glad to know I’m not going crazy. I’ve put a low water level switch on
> every tank I’ve done for the last 39 years. Then the vendor tells me, I’m
> the only one buying them. Same as end seal couplings in dry systems, vendor
> told us we were the only contractor that ever bought them, but that’s a
> different problem.
>
>
>
> *Richard Mote*
>
> Design Manager
>
> [image: http://www.rowesprinkler.com/emailsig/Email_Sig_Logo.jpg]
>
> *P:* 570.837.7647 <(570)%20837-7647>  ·  *W:* 877.324.ROWE  ·  *F:*
> 570.837.6335 <(570)%20837-6335>
>
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> *RoweSprinkler.com  *·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
>
>
>
> *** Confidentiality Notice ***
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an
> authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by e-mail at *rich...@rowesprinkler.com
> * or by telephone at *570-837-7647
> <(570)%20837-7647>* and delete the message and any attachments
> permanently from your system.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Leyton
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2017 10:41 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Potter WLS
>
>
>
> I think you'll find that it's not required Richard, but we design for a
> low water alarm on every tank project because it's incredibly important to
> supervise the water supply.
>
>
>
> Go online and find a company called Warrick Controls. They make liquid
> level systems using rigid electrodes and wire suspended ones, and you can
> custom arrange two or three or four or even five electrodes in a single
> housing to control pump up pump down and signaling for tanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>  Original message 
>
> From: Richard Mote 
>
> Date: 6/15/17 7:18 AM (GMT-08:00)
>
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> Subject: RE: Potter WLS
>
>
>
> We are using the switch as a low water level alarm.
>
> I’m starting to wonder if it is really even required. I’ve been told by
> several vendors that we are the only ones that ever buy them. Looked
> through the last 2 editions of NFPA 22 and can’t find any reference to a
> water level switch. Checking the FM guides now.
>
>
>
> *Richard Mote*
>
> Design Manager
>
> [image: http://www.rowesprinkler.com/emailsig/Email_Sig_Logo.jpg]
>
> *P:* 570.837.7647 <(570)%20837-7647>  ·  *W:* 877.324.ROWE  ·  *F:*
> 570.837.6335 <(570)%20837-6335>
>
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> *RoweSprinkler.com  *·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
>
>
>
> *** Confidentiality Notice ***
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an
> authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by e-mail at *rich...@rowesprinkler.com
> * or by telephone at *570-837-7647
> <(570)%20837-7647>* and delete the message and any attachments
> permanently from your system.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Matt
> Grise
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2017 9:36 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Potter WLS
>
>
>
> How about a cla-val fill valve?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Mote
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:25 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Potter WLS
>
>
>
> This is going on a bolted steel 200,000 gallon tank.
>
>
>
> *Richard Mote*
>
> Design Manager
>
> [image: http://www.rowesprinkler.com/emailsig/Email_Sig_Logo.jpg]
>
> *P:* 570.837.7647 <(570)%20837-7647>  ·  *W:* 877.324.ROWE  ·  *F:*
> 570.837.6335 <(570)%20837-6335>
>
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> *RoweSprinkler.com  *·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
>
>
>
> *** Confidentiality Notice ***
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an
> authorized representative of 

Re: Heating cable and 1" wrap.

[rongreenman .]

Getting serious and agreeing with Craig. There was a large warehouse on
Harbor I sland, Seattle with a pair of 8" wet systems. The owners wanted to
turn off the heat so the 8" AVs were replaced by 6" pre-actions using
pneumatic dry pilot detection that mirrored the branch lines but all on ½"
galvanized piping. The system heads were 256 degree and the detection line
had 135s. Lots of low point drains added and re-sloping pipe but the heat
was turned off, there was never a problem I heard of, and the owners were
happy.

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:45 PM Art Tiroly  wrote:

> Thank you for all your comments.
>
> I want to get this building heated and not do a heat trace system.
>
>
>
> I will keep fighting to keep them from making this mistake.
>
> I have offered them an HVAC PE to do a work up but they don’t want to
> spend the money.
>
> They don’t like engineers or construction managers.
>
>
>
>
>
> Art Tiroly
>
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
>
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
>
> 216-621-8899
>
> 216-570-7030 cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack, SET
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:25 PM
>
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Heating cable and 1" wrap.
>
>
>
> Yeah...I had some one tell me it was like $5/ft for the materials.  Now,
> using Professor Greenman's qualitative formula, it would be about $10/ft +
> all the extras :-) I don't know how accurate or not, but that sure would
> keep me from doing an entire system in it.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> On 6/13/2017 3:08 PM, rongreenman . wrote:
>
> Just figure a lot per foot, double it, and then add on the extras.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Art Tiroly 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks.
>
> How do you determine the cost of operating a heat trace system?
>
> That is important to convey
>
>
>
> Ary
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff
> Normand
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:27 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Heating cable and 1" wrap.
>
>
>
> If ceiling is too costly wait until you see the price of heat tracing an
> entire system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Art Tiroly 
> wrote:
>
> They need store packaging material, idle pallets.
>
>
>
> Ceiling is also too costly.
>
>
>
> Art
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Matt Grise
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:16 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Heating cable and 1" wrap.
>
>
>
> What are they storing?
>
>
>
> Could they put in a false ceiling?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Art
> Tiroly
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:58 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Heating cable and 1" wrap.
>
>
>
> I have a client that is renovating an uninsulated 30,000 SF shed warehouse.
>
> He does not want to heat the building.
>
>
>
> Dry system requirements for solid piled storage over 25Ft high in 35 Ft.
> high building are not available.
>
>
>
> I am pushing for an ESFR wet system in a heated building.
>
> Rather than heating an uninsulated building owner suggests we heat the
> sprinkler pipe with heat cable and 1” insulation.
>
> This method is in 13. Tyco has a system to apply heating cable to branch
> lines and cross mains.
>
>
>
> In over 50 years I have never seen or heard of heat tracing being done. I
> think it is a mistake due to reliability and cost
>
> There must be reasons this heating method is not being installed on a
> sprinkler system.
>
>
>
> What arguments can I use to avoid this method of keeping a wet grid system
> from freezing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Art Tiroly
>
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
>
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
>
>

Re: Heating cable and 1" wrap.

[rongreenman .]

Just figure a lot per foot, double it, and then add on the extras.

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Art Tiroly  wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> How do you determine the cost of operating a heat trace system?
>
> That is important to convey
>
>
>
> Ary
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Normand
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:27 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Heating cable and 1" wrap.
>
>
>
> If ceiling is too costly wait until you see the price of heat tracing an
> entire system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Art Tiroly 
> wrote:
>
> They need store packaging material, idle pallets.
>
>
>
> Ceiling is also too costly.
>
>
>
> Art
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Matt Grise
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:16 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Heating cable and 1" wrap.
>
>
>
> What are they storing?
>
>
>
> Could they put in a false ceiling?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Art
> Tiroly
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:58 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Heating cable and 1" wrap.
>
>
>
> I have a client that is renovating an uninsulated 30,000 SF shed warehouse.
>
> He does not want to heat the building.
>
>
>
> Dry system requirements for solid piled storage over 25Ft high in 35 Ft.
> high building are not available.
>
>
>
> I am pushing for an ESFR wet system in a heated building.
>
> Rather than heating an uninsulated building owner suggests we heat the
> sprinkler pipe with heat cable and 1” insulation.
>
> This method is in 13. Tyco has a system to apply heating cable to branch
> lines and cross mains.
>
>
>
> In over 50 years I have never seen or heard of heat tracing being done. I
> think it is a mistake due to reliability and cost
>
> There must be reasons this heating method is not being installed on a
> sprinkler system.
>
>
>
> What arguments can I use to avoid this method of keeping a wet grid system
> from freezing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Art Tiroly
>
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
>
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
>
> 216-621-8899 <(216)%20621-8899>
>
> 216-570-7030 <(216)%20570-7030> cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: FW: Do they need sprinklers?

[rongreenman .]

Ultimately I think, because it's an existing building, it would be the call
of the Building Official or the Fire Marshal (they'd need to sort that
out). I think in most jurisdictions here, because of the partial change of
use, the basement would be required to be sprinklered and maybe a separate,
protected egress devised if the remainder of the building isn't, but that's
just my speculation based on seeing what is typical in change of use that
sparks (pardon the pun) retrofitting sprinklers. I'd even bet that if rooms
on the ground floor were being used instead of the basement no retrofitting
would be required in most local jurisdictions.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Reinhardt <
thomas.reinha...@skokie.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Thomas Reinhardt
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 10:53 AM
> *To:* 'sprinklerforum-requ...@lists.firesprinkler.org'
> *Subject:* Do they need sprinklers?
>
>
>
> I have a place of religious worship(A3) not sprinklered. They want to open
> up an elementary school in the basement(below grade) which has currently
> multiple rooms. Ages of children five through thirteen. We use IFC and IBC
> 2012 edition. The occupancy for the school I believe would be Education,
> thus Accessory to place of worship as defined in the IFC. If occupant load
> is less than 100 it shall be classified as an A3. Chapter 9 section
> 903.2.1.3(Fire Protection) relates that the fire area is located on a floor
> other than level of exit discharge it must be sprinklered. Also group E
> (903.2.3) say the same. I contend that they must not only sprinkler the
> basement, but also the entire building as interpreted in NFPA(2010 edition)
> chapter 4 section 4.1. Sorry so long . Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> *Tom Reinhardt*
>
> Fire Inspector/Plan Reviewer
>
> *Skokie Fire Department *
>
> 7424 Niles Center Road
>
> Skokie, IL 60077
>
> Office: 847-982-5342 <(847)%20982-5342>
>
> thomas.reinha...@skokie.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Golf simulator

[rongreenman .]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv3v7c_OHOw

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Charles Thurston  wrote:

> Hello Dewayne,
>
> We have several in this area. What is the ceiling of the simulator made
> of? We have some that are nothing but net material where the ceiling
> sprinklers protect them. Others have a canvas type ceiling stretched tight,
> Those get a extended coverage sidewall head centered in the opening (9'6"
> side) pointed in. They vary below the ceiling of inches to a couple of
> feet. This is what the AHJs in both jurisdictions have accepted. I can say
> you do not want a head in the booth anywhere as it will get hit and damaged.
>
> Thursday, June 8, 2017, 9:53:26 AM, you wrote:
>
>
> I have a room with a 10’2” ceiling where a self-contained golf simulator
> is to be place in.  The simulator is 10’0” high which will leave 2in
> clearance between it and the ceiling.  The simulator will be situated so
> that there will be 18” of clearance between itself and the 3 walls
> surrounding it.  The footprint of the simulator is 9’6”x16’6”.
> 1)  Do I need  sprinklers in the simulator?
> 2)  Since there is only two inches of space above the simulator do I
> even need sprinklers in the ceiling above it?
>
> My thought was to provide ceiling protection for the pockets created on
> the sides of the simulator and put sprinklers in the simulator itself.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dewayne Martinez
> Fire Protection Design Manager
>
>
>
> *TOTAL Mechanical Building Integrity *W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
> Pewaukee, WI  53072
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
> Ph:  262-522-7110 <(262)%20522-7110>
> Cell: 414-406-5208 <(414)%20406-5208>
> http://www.total-mechanical.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *-- Best regards, Charles Thurston  *
> thurst...@pyebarkerfire.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *MYRTLE BEACH FIRE SAFETY GROUP A Division of Pye-Barker Fire Safety 1445
> Cannon Road Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 (843) 916 - 8787 <(843)%20916-8787>
> (843) 839 - 3473 <(843)%20839-3473> facsimile *
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Grow Facilities

[rongreenman .]

In my mind this goes back to whoever wrote the scope, well defined or not.
Especially when the hazard is defined. Whoever wrote the scope took the
responsibility of defining it as OH2 (good for him or her not laying that
on you) but failed to find out if the jurisdiction had another way to look
at it. I'm the Puget Sound there are jurisdictions that don't recognize
light hazard at all. If someone gave me plans and specs specifying light
hazard in one of these I'd point it out as a courtesy (documented) just
because it's something I know but if they blew me off and stuck with the LH
I'd design to that and the rejection would be on them. But even if I didn't
know and so didn't say anything the rejection would be theirs. They'd
certainly hold my feet to the fire if they said OH2 and I designed to OH1
and got rejected.


On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:52 PM Travis Mack, SET 
wrote:

> That note comes from the plan reviewer.  My firm was hired to design to
> OH2.  But it got rejected by the AHJ and had that note on the rejection.
> My scope was well defined and this is way out of the scope.  So I was just
> wondering what others have encountered in these facilities.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
> http://www.mfpdesign.comhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> On 5/31/2017 12:49 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL wrote:
>
> Where does that note come from?  The AHJ or owner or Engineer of Record?
>
>
>
> Either way that info should be provided by the Engineer of Record to the
> installing contractor to be included in submittals to the AHJ.  I would
> certainly hope an Engineer is not dumping this off on the installing
> contractor.
>
>
>
>
> *Craig L. Prahl*
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> *CH2M*
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
>
> Fax - 864.920.7129
>
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack, SET
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 2:34 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Grow Facilities [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> This is obviously outside of our scope and I am punting this back up the
> chain.  But, has anyone that is sprinklering these MJ facilties run into
> this:
>
> "Provide a letter from a state licensed PE or Consulting Firm approved by
> the City of XXX, that supports the fire sprinkler design assumptions.
> The letter shall be signed (wet) and address the design assumptions that
> includes the use of CO2 enrichment, flammable liquids/gasses, and hazardous
> waste and the impact that includes the overall Heat Release Rate (HRR) and
> the ability of the fire sprinkler system to suppress a fire. Reference 2016
> state fire code section xxx.x.x"
>
> I used xxx to block out any reference to the particular project.
>
> Any ideas on this stuff.  We were hired to just design the system per
> OH2.  This is going to get interesting.
>
> --
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing 
> listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: sprinklers in deactivated buildings with freeze potential

[rongreenman .]

One simple answer is that under no circumstances may you use ethylene
glycol.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:12 AM,  wrote:

> I would recommend you hire a Fire Protection Engineer as part of your
> team. They can guide you through the process. Any answer here would
> probably be too simplistic for what you are actuallly looking for.
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080> (ofc)
> 860-553-3553 <(860)%20553-3553> (fax)
> 860-608-4559 <(860)%20608-4559> (cell)
>
>
> On May 25, 2017 at 9:59 AM,  > wrote:
>
>
> An owner is deactivating a group of buildings and wants to preserve them for 
> future use. My group has been asked to make recommendations and model the 
> economic impacts. Because these recommendation may be used in nearly any 
> climate, we would like to recommend complete shutoff of all water but are 
> concerned about fire sprinklers. We are not sprinkler experts but are aware 
> of NFPA standard 13. I'm wondering if you can direct me to any good resources 
> on these or other options:
>
>  - Drain system and go without
>   We are concerned about having no fire protection even if all 
> furnishings are removed.
>  - Add ethylene glycol or glycerin
>   Creates some risk if a fire should occur with a person nearby when the 
> sprinkler activates.
>  - Convert to a dry system
>   May not meet code unless modified. May require nearly complete 
> replacement of system. Is conversion without meeting code a reasonable 
> approach if all furnishings are removed?
>  - Install heat tape on the lines.
>   Significant effort and operational expense. Introduces multiple failure 
> possibilities.
>
> Thoughts on the relative merits of the alternatives and the relative costs 
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thx
> SF
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: professional plans reviewer?

[rongreenman .]

Here's some starting points.

Minnesota uses NFPA 1031 for certification of their plans examiners:

http://www.mfscb.org/pdfs/CertPDF/Plan%20Examiner%20I.pdf

And from IFSTA.

https://www.ifsta.org

Most of the jurisdictions I'm used to dealing with use t=IFSTA if anything
at all.

ICC:

https://www.iccsafe.org/education-certification/certifications-and-testing/fire-sprinkler-and-fire-alarm-certification-exams/

NFPA:

http://www.nfpa.org/training-and-events/by-type/certifications/certified-fire-plan-examiner-i

USFA:

https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/nfacourses/catalog/details/642


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:37 AM, Matt Grise  wrote:

> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Ben Young
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 6:25 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: professional plans reviewer?
>
>
>
> Matt,
>
>
> NFPA has a 'Certified Fire Plans Examiner' certification
> http://www.nfpa.org/training-and-events/by-type/
> certifications/certified-fire-plan-examiner-i
>
> I briefly thought about getting something like this as well, but it
> involves a practicum portion which I didn't think I could do at the time,
> so I never went for it.
>
> Let us know if you do, or what else you find out though, please.
>
> You have NICET as well, correct?  You can go higher in that as levels 3 &
> 4 also cover supervisor/manager level responsibilities.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> Benjamin Young
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Matt Grise  wrote:
>
> I find myself reviewing a lot of fire sprinkler plans.
>
>
>
> Is there a certification that I can get that to indicate that I know what
> I am doing?
>
>
>
> I feel like I do a really good job, but “you can totally trust me” is a
> little wordy for my business card.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Kitchen hood system and fire sprinkler

[rongreenman .]

Travis,

What are "these?" Ansul Piranhas?

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Travis Mack  wrote:

>
> I've run into these on a few projects. We have convinced the GC to connect
> to domestic system in the past.
>
> In this particular project, the GC is forcing the issue to connect to the
> fire sprinkler system. My question is:
>
> Do we need to flow these and a design area for sprinklers in the kitchen
> at the same time? Or can they be sized independently?
>
> These things require as much as 70 psi. The data sheet provides a k factor
> and a pressure range of 40-70 psi. The pressure range is dependent on the
> length of the hood. However I can't get the vendor to provide the exact psi
> for it at this time.
>
> My thought is to use the k-factor and hit it with 70 psi. If I have to
> flow the kitchen sprinklers (900 sq ft) it will cause quite the over
> discharge and likely not work.
>
> So, any ideas if I should flow them simultaneously like a rack system, or
> just prove each other independently?
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-
> LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Water curtain for wall opening

[rongreenman .]

Keeps rolling back to the question of do the fire areas on each side of the
wall require a rated partition


On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Larry Keeping  wrote:

> You might want to look at FM Data Sheet 1-23. They have scheme for
> protection of wall openings via water spray nozzles protecting both sides
> of the wall, using separate deluge systems.
>
>
>
> Larry Keeping
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Micah Davis, SET
> *Sent:* May-18-17 8:25 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Water curtain for wall opening
>
>
>
> Todd
>
> I ran into a similar situation at a large food packaging plant.  The
> protection we finally decided on was a small deluge system with heat
> detectors on both sides of the wall.  The heat detectors could be mounted
> at the ceiling where the heat would gather.
>
>
>
> Micah Davis
>
> www.dynamicfiredesigns.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum 
> on behalf of fpdcdes...@gmail.com 
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:53 AM
> *To:* Sprinkler Forum
> *Subject:* Water curtain for wall opening
>
>
>
> I have been asked to look at a situation in an industrial occupancy where
> there are two garage -door size horizontal openings in a wall. The openings
> cannot realistically be closed, so they are asking about a water curtain. I
> have a couple of questions: First, NFPA 13 discusses water curtains around
> vertical openings but not horizontal, from what i found. Am i missing
> something?
>
> Second, the ceiling is approximately 12 ft above the top of the openings.
> The sprinklers need to be 12" from the deck max. Will that vertical
> distance create an issue with the water curtain performance.
>
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Circulating Fire Main Calculations

[rongreenman .]

Which suggests that some adjustment for elevation might be necessary when
the test point and the connection point are different.

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Taylor Schumacher 
wrote:

> The characteristics of the water supply would be the same at the point of
> connection as the test hydrant assuming elevation is the same, right? The
> AHJ quoted the same section and is stating that the characteristics are not
> the same at the point of connection.
>
>
>
> I did order the book Steve has suggested. We’ll see if that sways either
> of our interpretations.
>
>
>
> NFPA 13 (2010) - *22.4.1.5 *Hydraulic calculations shall extend to the
> effective point of the water supply where the characteristics of the water
> supply are known.
>
>
>
> *TAYLOR SCHUMACHER, CET*
>
> Security Fire Sprinkler
>
> *P*  320.656.0847 <(320)%20656-0847>  |  *F*  320.656.0312
> <(320)%20656-0312>  |  *E*  tay...@sfsprinkler.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Eric V. Tysinger
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:31 AM
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Circulating Fire Main Calculations
>
>
>
> NFPA 13, 2010, section 22.4.1.5 also states hydraulic calcs  shall extend
> to the effective point of the water supply….
>
>
>
> It doesn’t really address where that “effective point” is or should be,
> but it backs up what Steve and Travis said.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Eric V. Tysinger *
> Designer
> Wiginton Fire Systems - Miami, FL
>
> Email: e...@wiginton.net
> Main: 305-888-2402 <(305)%20888-2402>
> Direct: 305-830-0490 <(305)%20830-0490>
> Fax: 305-888-3804 <(305)%20888-3804>
> Mobile: 239-633-9703 <(239)%20633-9703>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
> intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:46 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Circulating Fire Main Calculations
>
>
>
> And to drive that home, I would refer interested users of the standards to
> the book, “Sprinkler Hydraulics” by Harold Waas, Jr.   In the chapter
> titled, “Relating Hydraulic Calculations to the Water Supply”, Waas
> discusses and offers diagrams on the “effective point of a hydrant flow
> test”.  There’s a very helpful figure on Page 61 of the first edition.
>
>
>
> Steve L.
>
> Geekin’ Like Cecil
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack, SET
> *Sent:* Monday, May 15, 2017 6:38 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Circulating Fire Main Calculations
>
>
>
> As long as you have a circulating main, I just always use the point of
> connection to the circulating main as the source point.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
>
> fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> On 5/15/2017 3:17 PM, Taylor Schumacher wrote:
>
> When calculating through the fire main supply line to the city water main
> in the street. Is it necessary to calculate back to the test hydrant if the
> city water main is a circulating main? Or, does NFPA allow calculating to
> the point where the fire line connects to the city water main?
>
>
>
> *TAYLOR SCHUMACHER, CET*
>
> Security Fire Sprinkler
>
> *P  *320.656.0847 <(320)%20656-0847>  |  *F * 320.656.0312
> <(320)%20656-0312>  |  * E  *tay...@sfsprinkler.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: AVG logo] 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com 
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
__

Re: mounting to brick walls

[rongreenman .]

Chemical anchors as Travis said. There are actually designed actor/chemical
pack fasteners that don't rely on you to mix and properly apply apply
epoxy. And they have UL/FM listed chemical fasteners out there.

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Travis Mack, SET 
wrote:

> I ran into this on a project many years ago.  According to the structural
> engineer we had to hire to engineer hangers for us, you can not use
> expansion hangers in brick walls.  Apparently they were not designed to
> takes stresses in that manner.  We had to drill a hole, fill with exopy,
> set an all thread stud, then wait for the epoxy to cure.  After that
> happened, we could then fasten our bracket to the stud.  It was like an 8
> hour cure period or something like that.
>
> These were masonry block walls now that I think about it.  Not sure what
> type of wall you have.  It may be something to consider.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
> fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
> http://www.mfpdesign.comhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> On 5/16/2017 1:42 PM, JD Gamble wrote:
>
> Thank you sir.  That'll do.  Now if the brick will hold.  :)
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Mark Phillips 
> 
> Date: 05/16/2017 2:18 PM (GMT-07:00)
> To: "'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'"
> <'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'>  firesprinkler.org> 
> Subject: RE: mounting to brick walls
>
> Anvil makes angle brackets
>
> Glue it and screw it
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] On Behalf Of JD
> Gamble
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:05 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: mounting to brick walls
>
> Anyone have any insight on listed brackets mounted to walls for suspending
> sprinkler mains.  We need to suspend from a brick wall approx. 2'-0" of
> horizontal distance from an exterior brick wall with a 2.5" Sch 10 Main.
> (non-seismic)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan
>
> JD Gamble
> jgam...@lssofsheridan.com
> (307) 763-3361
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing 
> listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: AVG logo] 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com 
>
> <#m_-4516020528742542851_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: special inspections

[rongreenman .]

So it seems that once again because we aren't part of the initial design
process, experts on the interealtion of building/life safety systems at a
detail level far above the that of most architects and engineers are not
consulted until a plan is finalized. Sad.
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> One of our local AHJ’s observed that there are UL listed assemblies for
> floor ceiling assemblies and that the addition of insulation in fact voids
> the listing of some that aren’t insulated (remember, this is sunny CA).
> So for plans submitted to that particular agency, we not only have to pick
> between the 3,000 sq. ft. (or 8-sprinkler) design area or using
> insulation.  In the case of the latter, they want a detail of the
> floor-ceiling and/or roof-ceiling assembly showing the insulation AND the
> UL listing number for the assembly.   On the sprinkler plans.
>
>
>
> At first, we were frustrated because they hadn’t codified this and we were
> just getting back plan review comments.  But I see why they’re doing it and
> I agree with this practice.
>
>
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Drucker
> *Sent:* Monday, May 08, 2017 9:29 AM
>
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: special inspections
>
>
>
> Ahhh I was waiting for that question. Because it's in the sprinkler
> standard, noted on the sprinkler plans by the sprinkler designer, and often
> the architect nor engineer know the sprinkler designer took that option, or
> it conflicts with the architects design.
>
>
>
> As a result we deny such applications unless the insulation fill is also
> shown on the architectural plans. In New Jersey it is also an adopted
> regulation that any plans, shop drawings etc prepared by other than the
> principal designer have to be reviewed and approved by the principal
> designer with an accompanying letter at the time of submission to that
> affect. Often enough we get back from the principal designer that the
> method submitted by others is not approved.
>
> On May 8, 2017 12:14 PM, "rongreenman ."  wrote:
>
> Seems to me that if the architect or GC wants to fill the space with
> insulation instead of sprinkle ring it's between him and the insulator to
> get it right. If the AHJ wants to get involved then OK, but with them. If
> you don't put in sprinklers because insulation has been approved what
> business is it of the sprinkler guy?
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:54 AM John Drucker - Home <
> john.druc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Members,
>
> When an interstitial space is filled entirely with non-combustible
> insulation we coordinate with the contractor and perform the inspection
> ourselves.
>
> John
>
> John Drucker, CET
> Assistant Construction Official
> Fire Protection Subcode Official
> Electrical Subcode Official
> Building Inspector
> Borough of Red Bank
> Red Bank, New Jersey
> Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org
> Cell/Text: 732-904-6823
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> --
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: special inspections

[rongreenman .]

Seems to me that if the architect or GC wants to fill the space with
insulation instead of sprinkle ring it's between him and the insulator to
get it right. If the AHJ wants to get involved then OK, but with them. If
you don't put in sprinklers because insulation has been approved what
business is it of the sprinkler guy?
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:54 AM John Drucker - Home <
john.druc...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Members,
>
> When an interstitial space is filled entirely with non-combustible
> insulation we coordinate with the contractor and perform the inspection
> ourselves.
>
> John
>
> John Drucker, CET
> Assistant Construction Official
> Fire Protection Subcode Official
> Electrical Subcode Official
> Building Inspector
> Borough of Red Bank
> Red Bank, New Jersey
> Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org
> Cell/Text: 732-904-6823
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: special inspections

[rongreenman .]

A shame about the drunk with power AHJ, even when the requirement is good.
When I get that kind of reply I'll always accept the I'm the boss answer
but I do try to get them to help me understand the need. In the Puget Sound
a coalition of contractors, all types effected (and some merely affected),
and AHJs are writing a best practices guide for SFDs. It's working well to
dispel some crazy stuff based on misinformation or a lack of knowledge from
all parties regarding concerns of the other.

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:25 AM Travis Mack  wrote:

> Sorry I don't have one. This has never been required. The city form we
> were instructed to use has nothing about this either.
>
> This ahj has not done this in the past. He also had some other comments
> that were unusual. When we called about these, his answer was "I'm the ahj.
> I require it my way. You will comply or no permit."
>
> At that point you know you are going to lose every battle.
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook:
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 8, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Triolo, Joe  wrote:
>
> I think it’s a good idea,  Travis do you have a copy you could send me?
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Joe Triolo
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Pete
> Schwab
> *Sent:* Monday, May 08, 2017 8:32 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: special inspections
>
>
>
> Travis
>
> I wish more AHJ’s would require this. Then we might see GC’s opt to go
> with Interstitial Sprinklers instead.
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> Peter Schwab
>
> VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies
>
>
>
> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
>
> 222 Capitol Court
>
> Ocoee, Fl 34761
>
>
>
> *Mobile: (407) 468-8248*
>
> Direct: (407) 877-5570
>
> Fax: (407) 656-8026
>
>
>
> www.waynefire.com
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> *I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you? *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack, SET
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 03, 2017 5:09 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* special inspections
>
>
>
> Has anyone run into a case where the AHJ requires a special inspection
> form filled for when the interstitial space is filled entirely with
> non-combustible insulation?
>
> It is fairly common in this area for Type V construction multi-family
> projects to have the interstitial spaces, and sometimes flat attic spaces,
> to be filled entirely with non-combustible insulation in lieu of providing
> fire sprinklers in the area.  However, we have one local AHJ that is
> mandating this is a condition that requires a special inspection form.
> It's a done deal because he flat out stated that it is our way and this is
> how it will be.  I just wonder if anyone else has run into this.  We are in
> the process of investigating what all is required.  It seems that we will
> need a professional engineer to go out and sign off that all insulation is
> filling the cavity entirely.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
>
> --
>
> [image: AVG logo] 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com 
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Hanging Pipe off system Piping

[rongreenman .]

I thought we were talking about an arm over the turn around on itself and
had enough culmative horizontal length to require a hanger. How many extra
pounds times five are we adding? Or do I have my threads confused?

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> I’ve stayed out of this one because folks way smarter than me are already
> engaged.
>
>
>
> Seems to me that if you can satisfy the metrics Roland alludes to in his
> preceding post, and get the design signed off by a structural engineer,
> there’s no reason it won’t work … at least in theory.  But my experience
> (as a resident of a seismically hyperactive city and state) is that many
> structural engineers get a little janky when you tell them they have to
> evaluate the structure and two different hanger assemblies for all of that
> cumulative “adequacy”.
>
>
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Roland
> Huggins
> *Sent:* Monday, May 01, 2017 11:14 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Hanging Pipe off system Piping
>
>
>
> 13 ALLOWS it in 9.1.1.8.1 (in the body) by saying shall not support
> NON-SYSTEM components.  That means other system components can be
> supported.  Then the annex further clarifies that yes indeed this includes
> system piping.  I think this mainly started with hanging activation
> components for water spray systems.
>
>
>
> The main caveat is that the upper hanger must be sized to include the
> weight of the lower pipe (which naturally is 5 times the actual weight).  I
> would argue that the 250 is only added once since you should not have two
> guys hanging in the same space (containing both pieces of pipe) at the same
> time.
>
>
>
> Just my opinion and not to be considered a formal interpretation of the
> NFPA or any of its technical committees.
>
>
>
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Jerry Van Kolken  wrote:
>
>
>
> We recently did a survey, and a question of legitimacy in the current
> installation of some piping supports came up. This system had a branchline
> with a drop to an arm-over that ran directly under the branchine. The
> arm-over is being supported by the branchline.
>
>
>
> Is this allowed?
>
>
>
> I personally think this is a bad installation but I skimmed the code and
> couldn’t find the answer one way or other.
>
>
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
>
> *Millennium Fire Protection Corp.*
>
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
>
> Oceanside, CA 92058
>
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Fwd: Fire Sprinkler Article Request

[rongreenman .]

This is a letter/article sent to me from Larry Glenn, former fire marshal
of Port Angeles, WA and retired Deputy State Fire Marshal. Sharing it for
your consideration.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Larry Glenn 
Date: Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fire Sprinkler Article Request
To: rongreen...@gmail.com


Ron,
Since I am no longer a member of the fraternity, I am having trouble
getting people to print this.  The State Chiefs have agreed to run it.
Anybody you can think of that might be willing to stir the pot, feel free.
Larry Glenn








INSTANT FIREFIGTERS

ARE
 AFFORDABLE
LIFESAVERS


In 1960, when I began my career in the fire service, interior attacks on
house fires were often able to be made without self contained breathing
apparatus, (SCBA)   Granted, in those days SCBAs weren't readily available
or used by many departments and there were many who saw it as a sign of
weakness to even bother with them.

Then in the late 60's and early 70's  the nature of house fires in general
changed dramatically.
With the introduction of polyurethane foam, (often described as compressed
gasoline), as a replacement for Jute furniture padding, one of the most
feared phenomena for all firefighters swiftly became an almost regular
occurance.  Flashover.

It starts small enough, as with most fires, with the ignition by a small
flame on or near any foam padded furniture inside any home.  The initial
piece of furniture on fire produces a thick layer of hot gases which
spreads rapidly across the ceiling, heating the surfaces of all the
combustible material within the room.  This causes them to give off
flammable gases.  Once those gases reach their ignition point, they ignite
almost instantaneously throughout the entire area.  Flashover in home fires
can and does occur often within just four minutes.  In many cases flashover
has already occurred with the responding fire engines barely even out of
the station.

Sadly, this means that in many cases if the occupants aren't out of the
home before flashover occurs there is a good chance they aren't going to
get out.

In answer to this dramatic change in fire progression, a number of
progressive fire departments in California, Arizona, and Washington began
promoting the installation of home fire sprinklers, often called "Instant
Firefighters", within their jurisdictions through local ordinances and
prevention enforcement.
Several agencies even built live fire residential fire protection sprinkler
demonstration trailers which showed the speed and effectiveness of home
fire sprinklers in extinguishing room fires within seconds, let alone the
minutes required to reach the point of flashover.

As a result of these programs, a number of cities and counties adopted home
fire sprinkler requirements for new homes.

Most of these programs were vehemently opposed by segments of the building
industry.  Their argument was that the fire problem was mainly in older
homes and the added cost would eliminate many new and first time buyers.
They made this same arguement against fire alarms but now also claim
today's home is built much safer from fire.  This is actually a true and
fair point to make as sheet rock rarely burns.

However, most of us don't sit or sleep on sheet rock.  We sit and sleep on
foam padded furnishings, with substantially lower flashover points.  I
firmly believe that houses burning aren't what is killing people and
destroying property, it is the polyurethane foam padded furnishing burning
in those homes that is killing people and destroying property.

The building industry is once again attacking home fire sprinkler
requirements.  Regrettably, in some areas of the country, they are even
having successes in weakening or removing these requirements based on this
same arguement about construction materials.  Despite the fact an
unfurnished home DOES NOT stay unfurnished for long.

So why, then, is the building industry finally having success after all
these years?

I believe the blame may fall equally on three entities.  The fire service,
the fire sprinkler industry and the fire sprinkler manufacturers.

First, the Fire Service - does the fire service practice what it preaches?
Ask your local fire department how many of their firefighters have fire
sprinklers in their homes.  I remember in the early 60s we were also among
the last to install the then smoke detectors in our homes, as well.

Second,  The Fire Sprinkler Industry -  Frankly the fire sprinkler industry
has sat on their successes for several decades and simply not continued
researching and developing their products.  Years ago we successfully
tested sprinkler heads that had a micro-switch connected by low voltage
wiring to a regular lawn sprinkler solenoid.  This micro-switch was taken
from an Identifier model head manufactured by Central Sprinkler
Corporation, who also witnessed these tests, normally used in correction

Re: FM Data Sheets

[rongreenman .]

FM is constantly updating the data sheets randomly. You can subscribe to
updates at their site.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Richard Mote 
wrote:

> Thanks, I thought I had all the data sheets downloaded. I guess that’s
> what I get for thinking.
>
>
>
> *Richard Mote*
>
> Design Manager
>
> [image: http://www.rowesprinkler.com/emailsig/Email_Sig_Logo.jpg]
>
> *P:* 570.837.7647 <(570)%20837-7647>  ·  *W:* 877.324.ROWE  ·  *F:*
> 570.837.6335 <(570)%20837-6335>
>
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> *RoweSprinkler.com  *·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
>
>
>
> *** Confidentiality Notice ***
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an
> authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by e-mail at *rich...@rowesprinkler.com
> * or by telephone at *570-837-7647
> <(570)%20837-7647>* and delete the message and any attachments
> permanently from your system.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Mike B Morey
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 9:04 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: FM Data Sheets
>
>
>
> 3-7 for pumps, 3-2 for tanks.  If you go to fmglobal's site they have the
> whole list.
>
> --
>
>
> *Mike Morey*
> *CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677*
> *Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group
> *Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company*
> 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
> *direct *260.487.7824 <(260)%20487-7824>* /  cell *260.417.0625
> <(260)%20417-0625>* /  fax *260.487.7991 <(260)%20487-7991>
> *email *mmo...@shambaugh.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:Richard Mote 
> To:"sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org"  firesprinkler.org>
> Date:04/12/2017 09:01 AM
> Subject:FM Data Sheets
> Sent by:"Sprinklerforum"  firesprinkler.org>
> --
>
>
>
>
> FM seem to have a data sheet counterpart for a lot of the NFPA books. Does
> FM have a data sheet comparable to NFPA 20, and NFPA 22. I’ve looked thru
> the list of FM data sheets I have and I’m not seeing anything.
>
> *Richard Mote*
> Design Manager
>
> *P:* 570.837.7647 <(570)%20837-7647>  ·  *W:* 877.324.ROWE  ·  *F:*
> 570.837.6335 <(570)%20837-6335>
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
> *RoweSprinkler.com  *·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
>
> *** Confidentiality Notice ***
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an
> authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by e-mail at *rich...@rowesprinkler.com
> * or by telephone at *570-837-7647
> <(570)%20837-7647>* and delete the message and any attachments
> permanently from your system.
>  ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.
> firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-
> 2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=
> z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=SPl50Pz3XzGRn-Sdb--
> NjSnUptpEJvkg0WAFxV2-jhY&s=2JWuFFnhwN48jYcgyN_-vEEZDa9_RVV8L6QQpyOk4sA&e=
>
> This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If
> you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
> sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
> recipient.
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

I don't think you have anything to go with. If your spec required all new work to be done with hew materials then yes but unlisted pipe is allowed by the standard as a common material and as long as i

[rongreenman .]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM Reed A. Roisum, SET 
wrote:

> I am fine with “reusing” existing pipe, but in my mind, once it is taken
> down and put in a pile it isn’t existing pipe and not part of the existing
> system.  It is demo’d material to be disposed of however the specifications
> direct.
>
>
>
> I am trying to apply this to other systems…if the plumber replaced a sink
> in the same location as an existing sink, I don’t think anyone would have a
> problem reconnecting the existing supply lines.  But, on a renovation
> project if they installed a new sink in a new location but they had demo’d
> a sink in another room that was 20 years old and they took the demo’d
> sections of pipe to supply the new sink, I believe that would be an issue
> for most.  Any difference between this hypothetical and my situation?
>
> We allow the use of existing pipe all of the time, just not off the demo
> pile.  Guess I need to tighten up our spec to make sure it is clear if this
> is common practice.
>
>
>
> Just got a note from our PM on the project that he found some verbiage in
> the front-end specs that disallows the use of demolished materials.
>
> *“Provide products that comply with the Contract Documents that are
> undamaged and unless otherwise indicated, unused at the time of
> installation.”*
>
> *“Remove demolished materials from the site.”*
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET *|* *Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.* *|* Senior Fire
> Protection Designer *|* Fargo, ND *| direct: *701.552.9903* | **mobile:*
> 701.388.1352 *| **KFIengineers.com* 
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Pete Schwab
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:46 PM
>
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Salvaged Piping
>
>
>
> See below from the 2016 Public Input phase…. “The standard does not
> prohibit the re-use of existing piping”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Schwab
>
> VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies
>
>
>
> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
>
> 222 Capitol Court
>
> Ocoee, Fl 34761
>
>
>
> *Mobile: (407) 468-8248*
>
> Direct: (407) 877-5570
>
> Fax: (407) 656-8026
>
>
>
> www.waynefire.com
>
>
>
> [image: Description: cid:image001.png@01CBEADF.99691B40]
>
>
>
> *I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you? *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Carr
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 11, 2017 1:38 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Salvaged Piping
>
>
>
> Don’t think I would have a problem with it,
>
> How old is the existing pipe?
>
> Was it wet or dry?
>
> Was it visually inspected?
>
> Will it hold a hydro?
>
> Common practice to re-use existing pipe.
>
>
>
> Richard Carr, SET
>
> Branch Manager
>
> Cox Fire Protection, Inc
>
> 6555 Grace Lane.
>
> Jacksonville, Fl. 32205
>
> rc...@coxfire.com
>
> 904-781-8227
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Matthew
> J Willis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 11, 2017 1:35 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Salvaged Piping
>
>
>
> I think you are fighting a losing battle. If the pipe meets the criteria
> in Chapter 6, and can hold the Hydro, then it is good to go. Contractors
> typically reuse pipe for drops and the like….
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis*
>
> *Project Manager*
>
> *Rapid Fire Protection Inc.* 
>
> *1530 Samco Road*
>
> *Rapid City, SD 57702*
>
> *Office-605.348.2342*
>
> *Direct Line-605.593.5063*
>
> *Cell-605.391.2733*
>
> *Fax:-605.348.0108*
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Micah
> Davis, SET
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:33 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Salvaged Piping
>
>
>
> Don't see anything in the standard or IFC that prohibits re-using demo'd
> pipe.  Could you require that the contractor prove there is no MIC in the
> re-used pipe?  At least that would provide a level of assurance the pipe is
> sound.  Also, might put enough pressure on the contractor to abandon the
> practice or possibly even undo some of the questionable work.
>
>
>
> *Micah Davis, SET*
> NICET #124745
> Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV
>
> *Dynamic Fire Designs*
>
>
>
> Mail: micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com
> Mobile: 931-242-1299
> www.dynamicfiredesigns.com 
>
> Dynamic Fire Designs • 13063 County Line Rd., Box #87 • Spring Hill • FL •
> 34609
>
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
> protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
> received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
> from your system; you may not copy t

Re: Sprinklers over low partitions

[rongreenman .]

I had a different technical situation, but a similar AHJ one once. I got an
informal interpretation from AFSA, penned by Roland, supporting my case,
and this guy who'd been a house designer for ten years, a tail-board jockey
for two, and a plan reviewer for one said Roland obviously didn't
understand the code.

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:33 AM, John Paulsen  wrote:

> Lol, I can easily see myself assuming the PIA role on this one! But I have
> to respect my clients desire not to poison the “AHJ well” for their future
> projects. I have tried to reason with this guy and so has my client’s
> design department manager and the plan reviewer is not budging.
>
>
>
> John P.
>
> Crown FSD
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
> @lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Leyton
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 8, 2017 9:26 AM
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sprinklers over low partitions
>
>
>
> Copy that. As a third-party designer, I understand what you're saying. On
> the other hand, I have a reputation throughout Southern California as being
> a real pain in the ass when it comes to bickering with fire officials about
> interpretations. Design-build contractors with turnkey responsibility are
> arguing from a position of vested interest. As a third-party designer, my
> interest in a particular issue is for the good of the order. The cost
> difference isn't coming out of my pocket, so that makes me a somewhat
> less-biased advocate in that regard.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>  Original message 
>
> From: John Paulsen 
>
> Date: 4/8/17 9:23 AM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> Subject: RE: Sprinklers over low partitions
>
>
>
> Steve:
>
>
>
> If I were the installing contractor I would definitely approach the
> problem the way you suggest. But as a sub-contracted designer, it is up to
> my client to choose the fight, not me. As much as I agree with you, my
> hands are tied.
>
>
>
> John P
>
> Crown FSD
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
> @lists.firesprinkler.org ]
> *On Behalf Of *Steve Leyton
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 8, 2017 9:18 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sprinklers over low partitions
>
>
>
>  I would ask the owner of the project to help you acquire information
> about mini storage industry standard practices. The reason that the
> partitions are not full height is the same reason that hospital curtains
> have a drop with a between the track and the top of the panel - it's for
> fire sprinkler distribution! The design of this building and those partial
> height partitions is to allow the exact basis of design concept that you
> have undertaken for the fire sprinkler system.
>
>
>
> The first mini storage units I worked on as a designer had full height
> walls. When you have 5 by 5, 5 by 10 and 10 by 10 cells that each have a
> sprinkler, you can literally end up with 40 sprinklers in the design area.
> After doing a couple projects with ESFR-like demands, we worked with a
> local storage company to drop the walls and use heavy duty mesh on top of
> the partitions for security between individual units. This is now the norm
> and I would not take no for an answer in this situation. Get the owner of
> the project to help you in any way that they can. If, as owners often do,
> they try to pawn this off as your problem, then I would hit them for the
> additive change order you're entitled to for extra sprinklers and larger
> pipe size. That will get their attention and likely lead to some support
> for your argument.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>  Original message 
>
> From: John Paulsen 
>
> Date: 4/8/17 5:14 AM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> Subject: Sprinklers over low partitions
>
>
>
> We are in the final phases of designing a self-storage facility (Ord Haz,
> Grp II) that has upright, quick response sprinklers with the deflectors at
> least 18” above the top of the individual storage unit partitions. In some
> cases where the units are 5’x5’ or 5’x10’ we have located the sprinklers
> directly over the top of the low partition. Our design concept is that the
> sprinkler will throw evenly to each side of the partition and cover the
> space on either side. This prevents us from have to “stagger” the
> sprinklers with arm-overs to prevent spacing closer than 6’ apart. We have
> also provided the manufacturer’s sprinkler spray pattern information to
> support our design concept.
>
>
>
> Now the local plan reviewer is telling us that he will not accept this
> sprinkler arrangement and that each unit has to have sprinkler(s) over
> them. This is the second project that we have done in this jurisdiction and
> we ran into a similar issue with the first one that we solved with the
> sprinkler over the partition arrangement. Now he will not accept this
> solution, but he doesn’t site any code or handbook

Re: QUESTIONS NFPA 5000 AND OTHER RULES [EXTERNAL]

[rongreenman .]

These guys may be able to help you regarding British Standards,

http://www.bafsa.org.uk/

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL 
wrote:

> You can access the NFPA Standards on-line for free by going to
> http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/resources/free-access
>
> Sorry but can't help with BS .
>
>
> Craig L. Prahl
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> CH2M
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
> Fax - 864.920.7129
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] On Behalf Of Cesar Lira
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:48 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: QUESTIONS NFPA 5000 AND OTHER RULES [EXTERNAL]
>
> Hi,
> Somebody know NFPA5000 and BS:2008 and what involve for the hose stand
> pipes systems and extinguishers??
>
> CL
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Another NFPA 25 Question - Controllers

[rongreenman .]

I think it's out of control in a lot of places. In fact is like to see
intent and justification documented for much of the document. Intent
equaling what problem is this rule solving and justification delineating
how severe and prevalent the risk versus what you gain for the cost. Maybe
just the committee actions that resulted in an addition all compiled in one
place and in the order of the current edition.

That said: Yes to your original question Roland.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM Roland Huggins 
wrote:

> Speaking of owner’s don’t care, does any think that NFPA 25 is completely
> out of control regarding pumps?
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:51 AM, John Irwin <
> jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com> wrote:
>
> I love the sentiment. But that’s a lot of up-selling when it comes to
> selling an inspection. We’re still competing with bottom feeders. And most
> property managers just don’t care.
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Drain Pipe Material

[rongreenman .]

More important question. Are you planning to connect to a waste line
without a receiver of some sort that provides for an approved air gap?

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:26 AM Parsley Consulting <
parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:

> Jerry,
> I would refer the fire marshal to NFPA 13, 2016, 6.1.1.5:
>
> 6.1.1.5 Components that do not affect system performance such as *drain
> piping*, drain valves, and signs *shall not* be required to be listed
>
> All the emphasis is mine.
> sincerely,
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting*
>
>
>
>
> * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone
> 760-745-6181 Visit our website  *
> On 03/27/2017 10:51 AM, Jerry Van Kolken wrote:
>
> Does the drain piping have to conform to NFPA 13-6.3 after the drain valve?
>
>
>
> I have a system where we have connected to the drain provided by the
> plumbers, but they provided ABS pipe. Now the Fire Marshal is  citing these
> drains as deficiencies.
>
>
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
>
> *Millennium Fire Protection Corp.*
>
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
>
> Oceanside, CA 92058
>
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing 
> listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Call plates

[rongreenman .]

Anybody know what edition of 13 first required call plates.
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Seismic Bracing

[rongreenman .]

And if I recall, some time ago rods six inches or less had the addendum
that the measurement had to be taken from the top of the pipe.

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:17 PM Parsley Consulting <
parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:

> Rocci,
> You're  correct in one way, the '16 edition no longer allows the use
> of hanger rods less than 6" long to omit lateral seismic bracing on mains,
> if the Cp value is greater than 0.50.  That does indeed cover most of
> California, and several other places as well.
> That change was added to 9.3.5.5.10.2, (4) in this last cycle, along
> with a few other qualifiers.
> And Travis correct as well, short rods would only allow omission of
> lateral bracing, should the Cp < 0.50. Longitudinal would still be required.
> sincerely,
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting*
>
>
>
> * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone
> 760-745-6181 Visit our website  *
> On 03/20/2017 12:51 PM, Rocci Cetani 3 wrote:
>
> I believe 2016 has greater restrictions on this……From what I remember it
> basically eliminates California from using this exception due to the max Cp
> of 0.50
>
>
>
> *Rocci Cetani III, **CET*
>
> *Designer*
>
> *Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III*
>
>
>
> *Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.*
>
> 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
>
> Morgan Hill, CA 93037
>
> P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
>
> F-(408) 776-1590
>
>
>
>
>
> roc...@norcalfire.com
>
> www.norcalfire.com
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may
> contain confidential information
>
> belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of
> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or
> the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking
> of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack, SET
> *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 12:41 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Seismic Bracing
>
>
>
> Short rods only eliminate lateral bracing.  You will still need
> longitudinal bracing.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> On 3/20/2017 12:39 PM, Tony Silva wrote:
>
> In a 13R building there are a 2" cpvc blazemaster supply mains run to
> supply the upper floor sprinkler systems. The piping will be supported
> using 2" long rods. The location requires seismic protection. Will sway
> bracing be required? Any other requirements?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing 
> listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Concealed Combustible Spaces with Gyp Bd?

[rongreenman .]

I don't know. If someone drove the little submarine into the joust bay
there'd be exposed wood and some could die.


On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:03 AM Parsley Consulting <
parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:

> According to one source
>  I looked over, Gypsum
> wallboard has a flame spread rating of 10-15, and gypsum sheathing has a
> flame spread rating of 15-20, both of which are below the magic NFPA 13
> number of 25.  According to a tech data sheet from Dunn Edwards paints
> ,
> gypsum board is rated as a Class A rated material which would have a flame
> spread of from 0 - 25, so it apparently doesn't exceed the maximum allowed
> by -13.
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting*
>
>
>
> * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone
> 760-745-6181 Visit our website  *
> On 03/20/2017 10:37 AM, Mick Dugal wrote:
>
> Right, but then it directs you to the exceptions:
> 8.15.1.2.1*Concealed spaces of noncombustible and limited-combustible
> construction with minimal combustible loading having no access shall not
> require sprinkler protection
>
> I would think the above code applies but does adding 2 layers of 5/8"
> drywall make wood framing noncombustible *construction*?
>
> If not, then I wonder about:
>
> 8.15.1.2.10 Concealed spaces where rigid materials are used and the
> exposed surfaces have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and the materials
> have been demonstrated not
> to propagate fire more than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) when tested in accordance with
> ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface Burning Characteristics of
> Building Materials, or ANSI/UL
> 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building
> Materials, extended for an additional 20 minutes in the form in which they
> are installed, shall not require
> sprinkler protection.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Roland Huggins <
> rhugg...@firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> Start with the opening paragraph 8.15.1.1 where it states - EXPOSED
> combustible construction shall be protected
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Mick Dugal 
> wrote:
>
> Would a wood framed corridor rocked with 2 layers of 5/8" gyp bd (a UL
> listed assembly) and a dropped acoustical grid ceiling still require
> sprinklers? Would NFPA 13 :8.15.1.2.10 permit the exclusion of sprinklers
> from such a space?
>
>
> 8.15.1.2.10 Concealed spaces where rigid materials are used and the
> exposed surfaces have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and the materials
> have been demonstrated not to propagate fire more than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) when
> tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface
> Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for
> Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, extended
> for an additional 20 minutes in the form in which they are installed, shall
> not require sprinkler protection.
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing 
> listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Paint Booth Exhaust Stack

[rongreenman .]

Is the offset an offset or a horizontal run?


On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:09 PM, James Crawford 
wrote:

> The exhaust stack has a total length of 20’-0”, there is a head at the top
> of the stack and heads behind the filters, the fan is located at the base
> of the stack.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>
> James Crawford
>
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
>
> Phone  604-888-0318 <(604)%20888-0318>
>
> Fax 604-888-4732 <(604)%20888-4732>
>
> Cel 604-790-0938 <(604)%20790-0938>
>
> Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
>
> Web www.phaserfire.ca
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Art Tiroly
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:56 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Paint Booth Exhaust Stack
>
>
>
> Is that the total duct length or is there a riser to the roof?
>
> Are there heads in the plenum behind the filter?
>
> Where is the exhaust  fan?
>
>
>
>
>
> Art Tiroly
>
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
>
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
>
> 216-621-8899 <(216)%20621-8899>
>
> 216-570-7030 <(216)%20570-7030> cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *James
> Crawford
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:47 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Paint Booth Exhaust Stack
>
>
>
> NFPA #33 (2016 ed) section 9.4.6 (2) Horizontal Exhaust ducts shall have
> sprinklers located on 12’-0” centers beginning no more that 6’-0” from the
> duct entrance.
>
>
>
> If the horizontal run is only 2’-0” do you require a sprinkler head to
> protect this section of the duct, (is there a minimum distance)
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>
> James Crawford
>
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
>
> Phone  604-888-0318 <(604)%20888-0318>
>
> Fax 604-888-4732 <(604)%20888-4732>
>
> Cel 604-790-0938 <(604)%20790-0938>
>
> Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
>
> Web www.phaserfire.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Concealed Combustible Spaces with Gyp Bd?

[rongreenman .]

Is it that obvious?


On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Mick Dugal 
wrote:

> Obviously I'm talking about the concealed space above the dropped ceiling.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:57 PM,  wrote:
>
>> A corridor is not a concealed space.  Is the rest of the area around the
>> corridor sprinklered?  What does this corridor serve?  Is it for egress?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Craig L. Prahl*
>> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
>> *CH2M*
>> 200 Verdae Blvd.
>> Greenville, SC  29607
>> Direct - 864.920.7540 <(864)%20920-7540>
>>
>> Fax - 864.920.7129 <(864)%20920-7129>
>>
>> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
>> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
>> @lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Mick Dugal
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:42 PM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> *Subject:* Concealed Combustible Spaces with Gyp Bd? [EXTERNAL]
>>
>>
>>
>> Would a wood framed corridor rocked with 2 layers of 5/8" gyp bd (a UL
>> listed assembly) and a dropped acoustical grid ceiling still require
>> sprinklers? Would NFPA 13 :8.15.1.2.10 permit the exclusion of sprinklers
>> from such a space?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.15.1.2.10 Concealed spaces where rigid materials are used and the
>> exposed surfaces have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and the materials
>> have been demonstrated not to propagate fire more than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) when
>> tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface
>> Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for
>> Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, extended
>> for an additional 20 minutes in the form in which they are installed, shall
>> not require sprinkler protection.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Paint Booth Exhaust Stack

[rongreenman .]

My read on this would be that if you gave a sprinkler in the middle of a
24" horizontal duct you have 12" on center. Don't you need one at the top
of each vertical run?
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:47 PM James Crawford 
wrote:

> NFPA #33 (2016 ed) section 9.4.6 (2) Horizontal Exhaust ducts shall have
> sprinklers located on 12’-0” centers beginning no more that 6’-0” from the
> duct entrance.
>
>
>
> If the horizontal run is only 2’-0” do you require a sprinkler head to
> protect this section of the duct, (is there a minimum distance)
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>
> James Crawford
>
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
>
> Phone  604-888-0318
>
> Fax 604-888-4732
>
> Cel 604-790-0938
>
> Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
>
> Web www.phaserfire.ca
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Combined Standpipe/Sprinkler System Floor Controls Location

[rongreenman .]

It's in 25 too.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Reed A. Roisum, SET 
wrote:

> Pulling a Brad and replying to my own post J.
>
>
>
> I also found the following in NFPA 13, 2010 edition…
>
>
>
> *NFPA 13, 2010 edition*
>
>
>
> *A.8.16.1.1.1** …  All valves controlling water supplies for sprinkler
> systems or portions thereof, including floor control valves, should be
> accessible to authorized persons during emergencies. Permanent ladders,
> clamped treads on risers, chain-operated hand wheels, or other accepted
> means should be provided where necessary.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *8.16 Piping Installation.*
>
> *8.16.1 Valves.*
>
> *8.16.1.1* Control Valves.*
>
> *8.16.1.1.1* General.*
>
> *8.16.1.1.1.1** Each sprinkler system shall be provided with a listed
> indicating valve in an accessible location, so located as to control all
> automatic sources of water supply.*
>
> *8.16.1.1.7* Control Valve Accessibility**. All control valves shall be
> located where readily accessible and free of obstructions.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET *|* *Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.* *|* Senior Fire
> Protection Designer *|* Fargo, ND *| direct: *701.552.9903
> <(701)%20552-9903>* | **mobile:* 701.388.1352 <(701)%20388-1352> *| *
> *KFIengineers.com* 
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Reed A. Roisum, SET
> *Sent:* Monday, March 13, 2017 4:25 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Combined Standpipe/Sprinkler System Floor Controls Location
>
>
>
> Are there requirements for the location and accessibility of floor
> controls on a combined sprinkler/standpipe system?  I am reviewing NFPA 14,
> 2013 ed. and it appears as though you are allowed to locate control valves
> above a ceiling or in a closet or in a concealed space with an access panel
> based on 6.3.8.4… *“Where a main or sectional system control valve is
> located in a closed room or concealed space, the location of the valve
> shall be indicated by a sign in an approved location on the outside of the
> door or near the opening to the concealed space.”*
>
>
>
> I know it isn’t best practice to have it difficult to get to the controls
> but I am looking for if there are any requirements in NFPA 14 or 13 on
> where the floor controls *shall* be located.  The appendix in NFPA 14
> says they *“should be accessible to authorized persons during
> emergencies”(*A.6.3.6.1.1), but are there any “shalls” anywhere?
>
> Does “accessible” mean that you can physically get to it with some work,
> or does it mean readily accessible where a large man in full gear can walk
> to it without squeezing through an access hatch?
>
>
>
> Is locating floor controls above a grid ceiling acceptable?  A.6.3.6.1.1
> also says, *“Permanent ladders, clamped treads on risers, chain-operated
> hand wheels, or other accepted means should be provided where necessary.”*
>
>
>
> Any guidance is appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Reed Roisum
>
>
>
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET *|* *Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.* *|* Senior Fire
> Protection Designer *|* Fargo, ND *|** direct: *701.552.9903
> <(701)%20552-9903>* | **mobile:* 701.388.1352 <(701)%20388-1352> *|*
> *KFIengineers.com* 
>
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Cabinets Against a Wall

[rongreenman .]

If less than 2 in 12 then it's flat, not sloped.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Brian Harris 
wrote:

> If memory serves me correctly you can slope uphill if the pitch does not
> exceed 2:12
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssytemsinc.com 
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Travis Mack, SET
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 11:18 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Cabinets Against a Wall
>
>
>
> I always thought it was cross slope and down, but never up.  Has that
> changed?
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
>
> fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>
>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> On 3/7/2017 9:17 AM, Steve Leyton wrote:
>
> I didn’t get that impression at all, so perhaps it’s still a little too
> obscure.  Is it the intent that residential sidewalls can be arranged so
> they discharge cross-slope and up-slope?  I don’t think so …
>
>
>
> SML
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Matt
> Grise
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:11 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Cabinets Against a Wall
>
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> I got the impression NFPA13d 2016 8.1.1 was meant to deal with both
> pendant and sidewall sprinklers. The picture shows only pendants, but it is
> in a section separate from the pendant/sidewall positioning sections.
> Section 10.2 also makes several references to general and sidewall spacing
> under slopes.
>
>
>
> Also – the tyco listings previously had multiple diagrams showing how to
> position residential sidewalls under sloped ceilings. Those were removed
> after the 13R/D code language was changed to the generalized description of
> heads under slopes.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:44 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Cabinets Against a Wall
>
>
>
> Sloped ceiling?   Can a sidewall be oriented so it discharges down-slope?
>
>
>
> You comment sent me scurrying to our tech data library and also to NFPA
> 13D and 13.  Both standards are mute regarding the positioning of
> residential horizontal sidewall sprinklers on/under sloped ceilings.
> Viking tech data sheets say to refer to the appropriate standard.  Tyco
> says their RHSW sprinklers can be used under sloped ceilings but no
> specific positioning criteria is offered.   If we use the spray sprinkler
> criteria, the sprinklers have to be oriented so they are placed at the peak
> of a sloped ceiling and spray downward.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something somewhere regarding RHSW sprinklers and sloped
> ceilings?
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Mote
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 6:18 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Cabinets Against a Wall
>
>
>
> This a sloped ceiling area, with the ceiling being attached directly to
> the underside of the joists. No space to run pendants in a conditioned area.
>
>
>
> *Richard Mote*
>
> Design Manager
>
> [image: http://www.rowesprinkler.com/emailsig/Email_Sig_Logo.jpg]
>
> *P:* 570.837.7647 <(570)%20837-7647>  ·  *W:* 877.324.ROWE  ·  *F:*
> 570.837.6335 <(570)%20837-6335>
>
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> *RoweSprinkler.com  *·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
>
>
>
> *** Confidentiality Notice ***
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an
> authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by e-mail at *rich...@rowesprinkler.com
> * or by telephone at *570-837-7647
> <(570)%20837-7647>* and delete the message and any attachments
> permanently from your system.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Matt
> Grise
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:56 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Cabinets Against a Wall
>
>
>
> Pendant sprinkler?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Richard
>

Re: Cabinets Against a Wall

[rongreenman .]

If I'm picturing this right can you (meaning the carpenter) furr the wall
out above the cabinets the extra two inches.

Or, if the cabinets are at either side of the ceiling that runs parallel
why can't you use pendants? Or, if they're along the wall with the slope
and you can't use pendants aren't you already using sidewalls on the
opposite walls with the slope.

I've just got an orthographic picture in my head from my old drafting book
of a box with a shed roof and I'm putting a box representing the cabinets
on all the walls. I see the 14" depth, the three feet from the ceiling to
the top of the interior box, and the length is irrelevant. Maybe I'm making
the room too big in my head?



On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> Sloped ceiling?   Can a sidewall be oriented so it discharges down-slope?
>
>
>
> You comment sent me scurrying to our tech data library and also to NFPA
> 13D and 13.  Both standards are mute regarding the positioning of
> residential horizontal sidewall sprinklers on/under sloped ceilings.
> Viking tech data sheets say to refer to the appropriate standard.  Tyco
> says their RHSW sprinklers can be used under sloped ceilings but no
> specific positioning criteria is offered.   If we use the spray sprinkler
> criteria, the sprinklers have to be oriented so they are placed at the peak
> of a sloped ceiling and spray downward.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something somewhere regarding RHSW sprinklers and sloped
> ceilings?
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Richard Mote
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 6:18 AM
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Cabinets Against a Wall
>
>
>
> This a sloped ceiling area, with the ceiling being attached directly to
> the underside of the joists. No space to run pendants in a conditioned area.
>
>
>
> *Richard Mote*
>
> Design Manager
>
> [image: http://www.rowesprinkler.com/emailsig/Email_Sig_Logo.jpg]
>
> *P:* 570.837.7647 <(570)%20837-7647>  ·  *W:* 877.324.ROWE  ·  *F:*
> 570.837.6335 <(570)%20837-6335>
>
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> *RoweSprinkler.com  *·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
>
>
>
> *** Confidentiality Notice ***
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an
> authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by e-mail at *rich...@rowesprinkler.com
> * or by telephone at *570-837-7647
> <(570)%20837-7647>* and delete the message and any attachments
> permanently from your system.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Matt
> Grise
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:56 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Cabinets Against a Wall
>
>
>
> Pendant sprinkler?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Mote
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 7:50 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Cabinets Against a Wall
>
>
>
> NFPA 13D, 2017 (the edition currently in force in PA) 8.2.5.6.3 Where
> sidewall sprinklers are more than 3 ft. above the top of cabinets, the
> sprinkler shall be permitted to be installed on the wall above the cabinets
> where the cabinets are no greater than 12 in. from the wall.
>
>
>
> We have a case that meets all of the above criteria except for a 2” wide
> crown molding around the top of the cabinets, so the overall width is 14”
> around the top of the cabinet. Obvious solution is put the sprinkler on the
> other end of the room, however that wall is a rated wall with a
> un-conditioned space on the other side.
>
> Any sugestions?
>
>
>
>
>
> *Richard Mote*
>
> Design Manager
>
> [image: http://www.rowesprinkler.com/emailsig/Email_Sig_Logo.jpg]
>
> *P:* 570.837.7647 <(570)%20837-7647>  ·  *W:* 877.324.ROWE  ·  *F:*
> 570.837.6335 <(570)%20837-6335>
>
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> *RoweSprinkler.com  *·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
>
>
>
> *** Confidentiality Notice ***
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an
> authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by e-mail at *rich...@rowesprinkler.com
> * or by telephone

Re: Unsprinklered spaces in strip malls

[rongreenman .]

I've worked on those kinds of malls and typical up here is the bulk mains
running in the back of the spaces with cross-main locations on either
separate control valves or just flanges, with white painted frying pans on
chains, but I thought the conversation was about strip malls.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> Good point.   There are two basic ways to sprinkler a multi-tenant mall:
> run mains and branches throughout with capacity for TI’s or run just mains
> and let each tenant build their own system by cutting into the main with a
> saddle.   Over the years, I’ve worked on a couple of regional-sized malls
> where the tenant suites were served by bulk mains only and each one had its
> own control valve and alarm switch.
>
>
>
> SL
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *mphe...@aerofire.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:27 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Unsprinklered spaces in strip malls
>
>
>
> Would it not be conceivable that the building owner is simply deferring
> the cost of the sprinkler installation to the individual tenants when and
> if they lease a shop/space in the building?
>
>
>
> Mark at Aero
>
> 602 820-7894 <(602)%20820-7894>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Roland
> Huggins
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:27 AM
> *To:* SprinklerFORUM
> *Subject:* Re: Unsprinklered spaces in strip malls
>
>
>
> Whether or not the swiss cheese passive construction is tight or not
> doesn’t change the owner’s building code driven options.  Their insurance
> carrier will obvious adjust their premiums accordingly.
>
>
>
> I never said it was the smart thing to do, just that it is allowed.  I was
> one of the initial somewhat loud voices saying one could not even mix
> different systems.  Then after a long discussion with a very patient Chris
> with the ICC, he turned on the light with a simple question.  How can I say
> that systems can never be mixed when it is possible to have large portions
> of an otherwise sprinklered building with NO SPRINKLERS at all.
>
>
>
> It’s still a stupid thing to do (for the few combinations that allow it)
> but it can be done.  Of course when there is a loss (just like the
> approximate 1 out of a 1000 fire events with 13R where the attic is
> involved), the owner is going to want to sue some one for not MAKING them
> spend the extra money up front for additional protection while all along
> fighting spending ANY MONEY on such things.
>
>
>
> Roland
>
>
>
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 8:07 AM,  
> wrote:
>
>
>
> It’s totally conceivable that based on the Building Code occupancy
> classification of areas that there would be leased spaces that would not
> require an automatic fire sprinkler system.  However it is highly
> unlikely that during construction of the building that the owner would
> provide the proper fire rated separations between occupancies since it
> would be near impossible to anticipate future uses of the building.
>
>
>
> So unless they can provide compliant rated separations, it would be hard
> to defend with a blanket statement that no sprinklers are required in
> random areas.  Most of the time that kind of statement is made based on
> preference (the preference not to spend money) and unsubstantiated opinion
> and not so much on factual code data.
>
>
>
> But as the installing contractor, you should have been provided with
> engineering documents stating the requirements based on some sort of
> engineering/code analysis.  Hopefully.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Craig L. Prahl*
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Unsprinklered spaces in strip malls

[rongreenman .]

I think the building code would allow, or could be interpreted, to mean
what Roland is alluding to in his short post. Then the same with Steve. Is
the AHJ calling for sprinklers per occupancy definitions in the building
code? You can make a case that in a mixed use you need a OH2 in the
auto-parts store, an LH in the restaurant dining area, nothing in the real
estate office equipped with a FAP and pull stations, etc. Or you can argue
that this is a mixed use building and the entire thing needs sprinklering
throughout and to the highest hazard occupant unless there are separations
that compartmentalize the apparent single building into attached multiple
buildings. Language s so imprecise, especially when multiple groups use the
same word with different meanings.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Roland Huggins 
wrote:

> I did an article in 2013 on when different parts of  a single building can
> have different levels of protection.  IT started off with when you could
> have a portion with a 13 system and others with a 13R.  It morphed into
> when you can have parts with NO protection.  Shoot me an email off line if
> anyone wants a copy.
>
> Roland
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
> Dallas, TX
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:10 AM, Steve Leyton 
> wrote:
>
> Careful with that claim Shawn.  NFPA 13 does NOT require a building or
> part of a building to be furnished with sprinklers, just as NFPA 14 doesn't
> require standpipes in buildings and NFPA 20 doesn't require pumps on FP
> systems, etc., etc.   The adopted building code requires sprinklers in
> buildings or only partially in buildings or not at all.  NFPA 13 prescribes
> HOW to sprinkler those buildings or parts of buildings that are required to
> be sprinklered.So if the building and/or fire officials apply/interpret
> the code to allow this configuration then that's what it is and you
> sprinkler those affected portions per NFPA 13.
>
> I'm curious as to why certain parts of such a "building" would require
> sprinklers and others not.  I understand there are "different" occupancies
> but are they "separate" occupancies?   Or "separate" buildings?  If a fire
> wall is required, each one of those assemblies is likely more expensive and
> intrusive than sprinklers would be in an adjacent space.
>
> Steve L.
>
> ---
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Owner Info Certicate

[rongreenman .]

And while we're at it, how about a word version of the Sprinkler
System-General Information sheet (NFPA 13-2013 Section A.25.6)?

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Tim Stone  wrote:

> Ron, Thank you. Great idea!!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *G. Tim Stone*
>
>
>
> *G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC*
>
> *NICET Level III Engineering Technician*
>
> *Fire Protection Sprinkler Design*
>
> *and Consulting Services*
>
>
>
> *117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452*
>
> *CELL: (802) 373-0638 <(802)%20373-0638>   TEL: (802) 434-2968
> <(802)%20434-2968>   Fax: (802) 434-4343 <(802)%20434-4343>*
>
>tston...@comcast.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *rongreenman .
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:03 AM
>
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Owner Info Certicate
>
>
>
> Frank, Roland-- This form in Word might be a good addition to the Member
> Center/Document Center/Other Miscellaneous Forms on the website.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Todd Williams 
> wrote:
>
> Actually I wouldn't mind a copy either if you would like to share
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> Office: 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080>
>
> Cell: 860-608-4559
>
> Fax: 860-553-3553 <(860)%20553-3553>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Paul Cetani  wrote:
>
> Hey Scott,
>
> I would love a copy of that in Word as well if you wouldn’t mind. It would
> save me the time to create my own….
>
>
>
> *Paul B. Cetani*
>
> *Exec. Vice President*
>
>
>
> Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
>
> *16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A*
>
> *Morgan Hill, CA 95037*
>
> *T 408-776-1580 <(408)%20776-1580>*
>
> *F 408-776-1590 <(408)%20776-1590>*
>
> *pa...@norcalfire.com *
>
> *www.norcalfire.com <http://www.norcalfire.com/>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Scott Futrell
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 5:24 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Owner Info Certicate
>
>
>
> Todd,
>
> We don’t start bid documents without these filled out and signed by the
> occupants – we have a Word document we send them.
>
> We don’t start plan review without them included in the submittal.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2 <(763)%20425-1001>
>
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Todd
> Williams
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 10:31 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Owner Info Certicate
>
>
>
> Does anyone actually get those?
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> Office: 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080>
>
> Cell: 860-608-4559
>
> Fax: 860-553-3553 <(860)%20553-3553>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Travis Mack, SET 
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have this in a word or excel format that they wouldn't mind
> sending me?
>
>
> --
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
> fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ron Greenman
>
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700 <(253)%20576-9700>
>
>
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
> director (1942-)
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Unsprinklered spaces in strip malls

[rongreenman .]

What I usually see up here is 80-100 sqft spacing calced to OH2 in for the
strip mall shell with a 1" nipple out of the side of branch lines to a 1"
ell with a 1" x 1/2" or 3/4" bushing to the head (allowed for temporary
install) in non-combustible construction and the nipple to a !" x 1/2" x 1"
tee, half inch up with a head, and a plug in the 1" pointing down in
combustible construction. The tight spacing leaves plenty of outlets for
TIs and the OH2 covers any type of typical strip mall tenant.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> Hey Shawn:
>
> Remember to put a subject heading on every email so Roland and Frank have
> an easier go of things on Archive Fridays.
>
> Have never seen this but I'm in California where such horror is amended
> out of our code.   You would need to have fire-rated occupancy or building
> separations between the sprinklered and unsprinklered portions and I can
> see a host of other issues, like having to run sprinkler pipe through
> unsprinklered spaces.
>
> You have M and A and maybe B group occupancies in this building (or chain
> of buildings)?
>
> Steve L.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] On Behalf Of Shawn Chapman
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:59 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject:
>
> Are you folks seeing strip malls which are using some IBC code?? that
> supposedly allows unsprinklered spaces in only certain assembly occupancy
> lease spaces.  For instance, a strip mall that has 2 of 6 spaces only
> sprinklered with 4 only having feed mains through unsprinklered space?  I
> thought 13 was all or nothing..
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>



-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Owner Info Certicate

[rongreenman .]

Frank, Roland-- This form in Word might be a good addition to the Member
Center/Document Center/Other Miscellaneous Forms on the website.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Todd Williams  wrote:

> Actually I wouldn't mind a copy either if you would like to share
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> Office: 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080>
> Cell: 860-608-4559
> Fax: 860-553-3553 <(860)%20553-3553>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Paul Cetani  wrote:
>
> Hey Scott,
>
> I would love a copy of that in Word as well if you wouldn’t mind. It would
> save me the time to create my own….
>
>
>
> *Paul B. Cetani*
>
> *Exec. Vice President*
>
>
>
> Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
>
> *16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A*
>
> *Morgan Hill, CA 95037*
>
> *T 408-776-1580 <(408)%20776-1580>*
>
> *F 408-776-1590 <(408)%20776-1590>*
>
> *pa...@norcalfire.com *
>
> *www.norcalfire.com *
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Scott Futrell
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 5:24 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Owner Info Certicate
>
>
>
> Todd,
>
> We don’t start bid documents without these filled out and signed by the
> occupants – we have a Word document we send them.
>
> We don’t start plan review without them included in the submittal.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2 <(763)%20425-1001>
>
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org ] *On Behalf Of *Todd
> Williams
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 10:31 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Owner Info Certicate
>
>
>
> Does anyone actually get those?
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> Office: 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080>
>
> Cell: 860-608-4559
>
> Fax: 860-553-3553 <(860)%20553-3553>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Travis Mack, SET 
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have this in a word or excel format that they wouldn't mind
> sending me?
>
>
> --
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
> fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Check valves on Antifreeze loops

[rongreenman .]

Douglas,

The Health Department is the who that regulates the why, where, when and
what regarding water quality. They'll want a Double Check Backflow Assembly
(DCBA) or Double Detector Check (DDC) on the incoming riser before you
change to black or galvanized steel, and an Reduced Pressure Backflow
Assembly (RPBA,  often mislabeled RPZ because it has an area between the
checks known as the reduced pressure zone) on each of the loops. Oregon,
like Washington, probably has a retroactivity clause in the health code so
whether a new system or old you'll need these if someone knowledgable is
the regulator.

Now to the systems. Depending on when this was built determines if you can
use that piping configuration with the check valves with holes you're
alluding to. But here's the rub, if the health department makes you change
to a RPBA you'll need to drain the system, if you have that configuration
the building has to be over five years old and needs a five-year internal
inspection so you'll have to drain the system, or if you've been working on
the system you have likely drained the loops. As per Charles' comments you
can't put the old stuff back and you can't buy the listed pre-mix that
doesn't exist.

Back to the holes in the check valves question: Yes, in all the check
valves in the loop in that old piping configuration. The hole and the
differences in elevation of the water only pipe vis-s-vis the piping with
solution is to allow for the entire system to absorb the expansion of the
anti-freeze solution (more dramatic than water at normal temperatures)
without allowing ant-freeze solution to creep back into main system. If you
have an RPBA then you need to use a properly sized (calculated) and listed
expansion tank to regulate the pressure.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Charles Thurston 
wrote:

> Hello Douglas,
>
>I got this from the 2013 code in the front where it talks about the
> changes from the prior version: "The use of antifreeze in new NFPA 13
> sprinkler systems is now prohibited unless the solution use has been listed
> and the listing indicates illustrates the inability for the solution to
> ignite."
>
>From the information provided you are going to need an RPZ
> backflow between the antifreeze loop and the system. You have to have one
> to isolate it from a drinking water supply. RPZs are not allowed to be
> installed in a pit. Biggest problem of installing an RPZ as per Figure
> 7.6.3.3 is each time you have a surge in the system it is going to let
> excess pressure out of the antifreeze side and dilute the antifreeze
> solution.
>
>Figure 7.6.3.1 gives a layout if you change the backflow outside to
> be above ground and put the PRZ out there.
>
> Saturday, January 28, 2017, 1:43:41 AM, you wrote:
>
>
> We have a building with 2 outside canopies, each is protected by an
> antifreeze loop.  The sprinkler system has a backflow in a pit.  Do each of
>  the 2 antifreeze loops need a one way swing check valve, with a hole in
> the clapper? I will put a test port at each end of both loops, even though
> the loops are not 150 gallons.
>
>
>
>
> *-- Best regards, Charles Thurston  *
> charl...@mbfsg.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *MYRTLE BEACH FIRE SAFETY GROUP A Division of Pye-Barker Fire Safety 1445
> Cannon Road Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 (843) 916 - 8787 <(843)%20916-8787>
> (843) 839 - 3473 <(843)%20839-3473> facsimile*
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Tank Capacity

[rongreenman .]

It was in one edition of 13R wayback when. I don't think it had ever been
"allowed" by 22 until recently but it only makes sense. Now define reliable
refill rate for this application emphasizing reliable.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:48 PM Brad Casterline 
wrote:

> Requirements for break tanks were added NFPA 20 (2007), according to page
> 20-2.
>
> Brad
> On Jan 27, 2017 2:41 PM, "Mike B Morey"  wrote:
>
> The earliest reference I can find is NFPA 25 2007 in section 5.30, it has
> moved around since, but as others have pointed out, it's defined in there
> as a break tank.
>
>
> --
>
> *Mike Morey*
> *CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677*
> *Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group
> * Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company*
> 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
> *direct *260.487.7824 <(260)%20487-7824>* /  cell *260.417.0625
> <(260)%20417-0625>* /  fax *260.487.7991 <(260)%20487-7991>
> * email *mmo...@shambaugh.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:Dale Wingard 
> To:"sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org" <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date:01/27/2017 02:52 PM
> Subject:Tank Capacity
> Sent by:"Sprinklerforum" <
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> --
>
>
>
> NFPA 22 (2013 Edition) excerpt-
>
> 4.1.4 A tank shall be sized so that the stored supply *plus reliable
> automatic refill* shall be sufficient to meet the demand placed upon it for
> the design duration.
>
> I have researched earlier editions but I have not been able to find where
> the reliable automatic refill has been previously allowed; however, I
> recall this being the case.  Am I overlooking something?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>  [attachment "Dale Wingard  SET.vcf" deleted by Mike B
> Morey/Shambaugh/EMCORGROUP]
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=ZIlAYkYGG--WYErIebjpFDdfGghXLB-667jMo2EgODU&s=qOSLfkv2O4_vGbMHmTDjJ1Ouas46DTZW6qD5O1rpvcc&e=
>
> This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If
> you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
> sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
> recipient.
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Hydrant Flow Test

[rongreenman .]

The simple thing is to ensure that the tank has the necessary capacity for
the new duration of flow and then just calculate the design area(s) back to
the tank. If you want to be conservative use a more severe c factor. It's a
dead end closed system. No flows necessary.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:20 AM Brad Casterline 
wrote:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1pnryhlf5f0fckn/tim_flow_test.xlsx?dl=0



Tentative Estimate:



150,?,430.



.2/1950= 390 GPM min system demand so should be OK.



I welcome any and all to take what they like and leave the rest, and if you
have any questions mail me off Forum any time day or night here:



bcasterli...@gmail.com



Tim, if this is the same AHJ as the tree deal you will be in luck. I used
Roland's Sprinkler Age article as a way forward with the spreadsheet, and
for checking and correcting my thinking and results over the year or so I
scratched my head.

In that article Roland estimates GPM based on calculating the size, length,
fittings and valves of the main drain. He assumes a flow and C of D for the
discharge and calcs back to the riser for a PSI required. It is for
estimating GPM for the purpose of exercising backflows.

I think your AHJ would see the value of it, and respect the author.

2013, June I think it was, maybe May.



Brad




--

*From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Brad
Casterline
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:28 PM


*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* Re: Hydrant Flow Test



Man those trees were fun Tim!

150 Static at the riser gauge?
Any Main Drain Test Tags?
If you could give me the Residual from the tags, and the size, length,
fittings and valves of the main drain I could estimate the GPM, and you
would have it all-- a source node to calc to right there in front of you,
all open and above ground, without flowing a single drop or turning a
wrench.
And nevermind all the "we can't trust Main Drain Tests as REAL flow tests,
we don't know why not, we just can't, for our calculations".

I figured out why not, and fixed it.

Brad

On Jan 24, 2017 3:54 PM, "Todd Williams"  wrote:

This is a quick response and would have to think it out a little, but could
you flow from the hose valves on the standpipes and read a static and
residual at one of the back flow preventer test outlets?

Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

Office: 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080>

Cell: 860-608-4559

Fax: 860-553-3553 <(860)%20553-3553>



On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Tim Stone  wrote:

I am working on an existing project. 4 story wood frame hotel at a ski
area. The building equipped with 3 standpipes and no less than 11 – 4” Dry
pipe systems. The water supply is an underground water tank serving both
fire and domestic. The tank is located up on the side of the mountain.
Inside the building at the sprinkler riser there is 150 PSI Static. System
was built in 1997 with no provisions for flow testing in the future. No
Fire Hydrants off the underground entering the building. There are yard
hydrants fed from separate water supply (Pond next to hotel building).



The owners are using the Conference Rooms for Trade Shows where large
amounts of combustible materials are being brought in from time to time. At
Christmas time, they bring fresh cut Balsam Fir trees in, have them
professionally decorated and then auction them off and shipped.  Some may
remember my earlier post about the Trees. I know Brad Casterline will. The
State AHJ has asked the owner to change the Conference Room use from Light
Hazard to Ordinary Hazard Group 2.  I need a current flow test to be
performed so to recalculate the affected areas in the building (3
Conference room spaces). Here is the problem.



The simple solution is to shut the sprinkler system down, Drain Sprinkler
system, (over 300’ of 6” and various 4” runs too) turn FDC check valves 180
deg. (there are 2) or replace them with spool pieces of pipe, turn water on
and measure water flow from free standing Fire Dept. Connection out in the
front yard.  At minimum 2-3 hours to drain through 2” drain valve based on
isolation of all known control valves. This procedure would probably take
most of the day and the owner would be required to have a fire watch in
place for the day.



The owner and Servicing sprinkler contractor have run this idea by me for
possible solution. One of the conference rooms is fed by one of the 4” Dry
Pipe valves and the system extends outside (4”grooved feed main) to supply
coverage on outside porches and covered walk ways on the ground level . The
contractor has suggested that the 4” grooved main be taken apart outside
and used to perform the flow test while reading the pressure gauges back in
the sprinkler valve riser room.  This operation could be done in half a day
without any disruption to sprinkler protection balance of the building. A
length of 2.5” fire hose and a Hose Monste

Re: New Member

[rongreenman .]

Steve,

Don't screw with the new guy


YET.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> Did you pay your initiation fee?
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Shawn Foor
> *Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2017 7:21 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* New Member
>
>
>
> Hello, I am a new member and am trying to figure out how this works.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Shawn Foor, SET
>
>
>
> *FOOR DESIGN, LLC*
>
> *6227 S. 87TH E. AVE*
>
> *TULSA, OK 74133*
>
> *P:918-237-1400 <(918)%20237-1400>*
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Pitot flow test kits

[rongreenman .]

I always remove the gauge and treat it as if it were delicate instrument.
Oh wait, it is. Lubing the quick connect after it';s dry is also a good
idea. These are measuring devices, not pipe wrenches. The difference
between a fine single malt and Bud Light.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Fred Musser 
wrote:

> Dewayne,
>
> Hopefully it is not one of ours or NEMCO (our supplier), we supply only
> Parker fittings, brass body and full stainless internals and pay
> considerably extra over imported ones.
>
> Please contact me off line
>
> Fred Musser
> Fire Safety Technology
> m...@firesafetytech.com
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 19, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Dewayne Martinez  com> wrote:
>
> Anyone else have a problem with these new pitot flow test kits with the
> air “quick” couplings for the gauge rusting up and giving inaccurate
> readings?
>
> If so what have you done about it?  I am thinking we should remove the
> gauge from the coupling after every use and blast it with WD-40 or the
> equivalent.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dewayne
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Uprights on 3" pipe

[rongreenman .]

I think u]you are stuck with the rule and your best solution is arm overs
that also meet the 3x rule.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Brad Casterline 
wrote:

> You mentioned the rule for no upright directly on 3". I am probably way
> behind the times but that rule first came about for Large Drop sprinklers.
> Does it apply to SSU in LH and OH now?
>
> m=E/c^2
> .
> On Jan 13, 2017 6:18 PM, "Travis Mack"  wrote:
>
>> No. It is a state government project.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/
>> 92218417692
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mark Phillips 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Is it an XL Gaps or FM job?
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
>> On Jan 13, 2017 7:04 PM, Travis Mack  wrote:
>> Beam depth keeps me from going up. Already using obstructed beam rules.
>> 18" beams. If pipe tight to beam then bottom of pipe is 21.5" and a pendent
>> would be about 24" below deck.
>>
>> I think they need sprigs or arm overs. But before I raise issues about
>> this I wanted to be sure others thought it had to have sprigs or arm over
>> as well.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages
>> /MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Hinson, Ryan > hin...@burnsmcd.com >> wrote:
>>
>> You did not say you could not raise the 3” pipe.  Couldn’t you raise it
>> and put pendants in?  Since the piping is obviously exposed, is there any
>> reason you can’t comply with deflector-to-deck distances if you do that?
>> If the pendants extending below the piping is a height or
>> exposure-to-mechanical-damage issue, install a listed headguard on it.
>>
>> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
>> Senior Fire Protection Engineer
>> O 952-656-3662 <(952)%20656-3662> \  M 320-250-5404 <(320)%20250-5404>
>>  \  F 952-229-2923 <(952)%20229-2923>
>> rhin...@burnsmcd.com
>>  \  burnsmcd.com
>> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
>> *Registered in: MN, PA, & TX
>> **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
>>
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
>> @lists.firesprinkler.org ]
>> On Behalf Of Travis Mack
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> @lists.firesprinkler.org >
>> Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe
>>
>> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights
>> directly on a 3" main?
>>
>> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a
>> consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>>
>> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light
>> hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put
>> uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would
>> comply with the 3x rule.
>>
>> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral
>> movement for various other reasons.
>>
>> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't
>> need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>>
>> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages
>> /MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> @lists.firesprinkler.org >
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforu

Re: Funky Wavy Soffit

[rongreenman .]

Brian,

I think your unobstructed developing spray pattern while fine on the
horizontal plane is obstructed vertically. But, the cloud does prohibit
water from reaching the floor. I'm not so sure the 48" thing applies here
but I can't find anything in ten or so minutes refuting your argument.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Brian Harris 
wrote:

> Ron-
>
> You could certainly say these are more of a “cloud” than a soffit as they
> do not extend to the deck. With that being said what are your thoughts on
> heads below them?
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssytemsinc.com <http://bvssystemsinc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *rongreenman .
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:47 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Funky Wavy Soffit
>
>
>
> That said wouldn't the soffit rule apply for max distance from the edge of
> the soffitt if it extends up to the main ceiling or, as your question seems
> to imply to me, " The top of this soffit is approximately 5’0” below the
> overhead sprinklers" it sounds more like a cloud abutting a wall than a
> soffit. I don't think the 48" rule applies at all.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:43 AM, rongreenman . 
> wrote:
>
> I think that whenever someone posts a reference number and doesn't include
> the text or at least the edition he should be severely beaten.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Brian Harris 
> wrote:
>
> We have a grocery store that has a wavy kinda soffit (see dropbox file
> link below) around the perimeter of most of the store. The top of this
> soffit is approximately 5’0” below the overhead sprinklers & is less than
> 48” at the widest points. With that being said are additional heads needed
> in this lower soffit? In my opinion 8.6.5.2 would not apply since the
> pattern development is not affected so the next stop would be 8.6.5.3. The
> only thing that stands out to me there would be the 48” width we I do not
> have. So I say no additional heads needed below, what say you?
>
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3klcgh37fhowmp8/Wavy%20Soffit.pdf?dl=0
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> Design Manager
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989 <(704)%20896-9989>
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935 <(704)%20896-1935>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ron Greenman
>
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700 <(253)%20576-9700>
>
>
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
> director (1942-)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ron Greenman
>
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700 <(253)%20576-9700>
>
>
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
> director (1942-)
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Funky Wavy Soffit

[rongreenman .]

No. I got up on the wrong side of the bed and that's a face plant into a a
rough cedar wall. still pulling out splinters, Brian. But do you get my
point? You may be looking at the reference numbers in the 2007 edition
where you are and I'm looking at 2013 and the numbers don't match. I always
tell my people to make it easy for customers to give you their money and
that advice applies here. When you're asking for free help and looking for
code references to argue a point make it easy for the other Forumites to
help you. I now when I pull out the book to help and 8.6.5.3 is not the 48"
rule because you're using a different edition than I am, then I'm done
looking, but tell me the edition you are using and I can pull out almost
anything back to '68 (I'm missing a couple). I think Leyton can tell you I
was able to get him a reference to a building built in maybe '74 that
hadn't changed use and saved his client a pile of dough that someone who
the Wizard had just bestowed a golden badge upon wanted spent.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Harris 
wrote:

> Ron-
>
> You want my address?
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssytemsinc.com <http://bvssystemsinc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *rongreenman .
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:43 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Funky Wavy Soffit
>
>
>
> I think that whenever someone posts a reference number and doesn't include
> the text or at least the edition he should be severely beaten.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Brian Harris 
> wrote:
>
> We have a grocery store that has a wavy kinda soffit (see dropbox file
> link below) around the perimeter of most of the store. The top of this
> soffit is approximately 5’0” below the overhead sprinklers & is less than
> 48” at the widest points. With that being said are additional heads needed
> in this lower soffit? In my opinion 8.6.5.2 would not apply since the
> pattern development is not affected so the next stop would be 8.6.5.3. The
> only thing that stands out to me there would be the 48” width we I do not
> have. So I say no additional heads needed below, what say you?
>
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3klcgh37fhowmp8/Wavy%20Soffit.pdf?dl=0
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> Design Manager
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989 <(704)%20896-9989>
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935 <(704)%20896-1935>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ron Greenman
>
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700 <(253)%20576-9700>
>
>
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
> director (1942-)
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Funky Wavy Soffit

[rongreenman .]

That said wouldn't the soffit rule apply for max distance from the edge of
the soffitt if it extends up to the main ceiling or, as your question seems
to imply to me, " The top of this soffit is approximately 5’0” below the
overhead sprinklers" it sounds more like a cloud abutting a wall than a
soffit. I don't think the 48" rule applies at all.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:43 AM, rongreenman . 
wrote:

> I think that whenever someone posts a reference number and doesn't include
> the text or at least the edition he should be severely beaten.
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Brian Harris 
> wrote:
>
>> We have a grocery store that has a wavy kinda soffit (see dropbox file
>> link below) around the perimeter of most of the store. The top of this
>> soffit is approximately 5’0” below the overhead sprinklers & is less than
>> 48” at the widest points. With that being said are additional heads needed
>> in this lower soffit? In my opinion 8.6.5.2 would not apply since the
>> pattern development is not affected so the next stop would be 8.6.5.3. The
>> only thing that stands out to me there would be the 48” width we I do not
>> have. So I say no additional heads needed below, what say you?
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3klcgh37fhowmp8/Wavy%20Soffit.pdf?dl=0
>>
>>
>>
>> *Brian Harris, CET*
>>
>> BVS Systems Inc.
>>
>> Design Manager
>>
>> bvssystemsinc.com
>>
>> Phone: 704.896.9989 <(704)%20896-9989>
>>
>> Fax: 704.896.1935 <(704)%20896-1935>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ron Greenman
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700 <(253)%20576-9700>
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
> director (1942-)
>



-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Funky Wavy Soffit

[rongreenman .]

I think that whenever someone posts a reference number and doesn't include
the text or at least the edition he should be severely beaten.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Brian Harris 
wrote:

> We have a grocery store that has a wavy kinda soffit (see dropbox file
> link below) around the perimeter of most of the store. The top of this
> soffit is approximately 5’0” below the overhead sprinklers & is less than
> 48” at the widest points. With that being said are additional heads needed
> in this lower soffit? In my opinion 8.6.5.2 would not apply since the
> pattern development is not affected so the next stop would be 8.6.5.3. The
> only thing that stands out to me there would be the 48” width we I do not
> have. So I say no additional heads needed below, what say you?
>
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3klcgh37fhowmp8/Wavy%20Soffit.pdf?dl=0
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> Design Manager
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989 <(704)%20896-9989>
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935 <(704)%20896-1935>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: NFPA 25 - exercising hose valves

[rongreenman .]

Always remember you are there to do inspections and tests to ensure that a
system is likely to perform properly during an event. If something fails in
a test you are merely showing the client that the failure needs correction.
You have done him a service. I remember several fire pumps that failed
merely because they were started and several building owners accusing me of
breaking the pumps. I'd always say I just turned it on as if I were a fire
and showed you your pump was already broken. Aren't you lucky I'm not a
fire. Psychologically we feel bad bringing the client bad news, but do you
you're being paid, whether the client agrees or not, to bring truthful
news. Learning you need an expensive repair today is bad news, but
discovering you need an expensive repair during a fire is worse news.

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:33 AM, John Irwin <
jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com> wrote:

> That's a consideration. But I'm not afraid to take my medicine when I find
> issues that were handled incorrectly by my predecessors.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Irwin
> Critical System Solutions Sprinkler Construction Manager
> 813-618-2781 jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com
>
>
> Sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity, spelling errors and
> punctuation gaffes.
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Parsley Consulting 
> Date: 1/11/17 12:22 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: NFPA 25 - exercising hose valves
>
> Roland,
> And there lies the predicament.
> If the previous ITM services were done by John's firm, he'd be
> admitting to the client that his own staff had not done their jobs
> properly, and that could have significant financial impact.  By no means am
> I suggesting some sort of double talk to deflect any concerns on the part
> of the client, rather it's an issue his staff has to be sure of before they
> take that stance.
> A client of mine here in San Diego, also an AFSA member now that it
> occurs to me, succeeded a few years ago in taking away the ITM contract for
> a residential high rise from the original installing contractor who'd been
> performing ITM since the building was built in '98.
> One of the first observations they made was that the churn pressure on
> the pump had locked 290 psi on the discharge side of the system.  While
> there were PRV's on all the necessary upper floors, the installers had
> neglected to add them to the parking level, which was where the pump was
> located.  The sprinklers on the garage levels, rated at 175 psi, had been
> subjected to 290 psi for almost 15 years.
> Once my firm started looking into the ITM records it was reasonably
> clear the original contractor had been doing drive-by work.
> just a bit of experience to be shared,
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting*
>
>
>
> * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone
> 760-745-6181 <(760)%20745-6181> Visit our website
>  *
> On 01/11/2017 7:39 AM, Roland Huggins wrote:
>
> Sounds to me like an opportunity to discuss with your client what an
> inadequate job the prior inspectors were doing.
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
> Dallas, TX
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 6:51 AM, John Irwin  criticalsystemsolutions.com> wrote:
>
> These are the answers I was hoping to receive.
>
> Thank you everyone.
>
> *John Irwin - CET*
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing 
> listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: DI Piping

[rongreenman .]

Yes I meant fittings. Haven't found any DI pipe that can be threaded.

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:20 AM Tom Duross  wrote:

> What Ron said (I think he meant fittings) and I’ve seen many instances of
> grooved unlined DI piping within pump rooms (talk about heavy!) but if used
> on the potable side, I believe like Dave said, cement lined CL52.
>
> TD
>
>
>
>
>
> In many companies DI has replaced CI for small screwed piping. Grooved
> fittings are DI. The only problem I could see is the connection method and
> restraint, and small leakage if using PE fittings on the pipe.
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:24 AM å...   wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't know of a many good reasons to deny this design.  If anyone calls
> you on your judgment, preempt their question by caveatting your decision
> using Section 1.5.
>
>
>
> Scot Deal
>
> Excelsior Fire & Risk Engineering
>
> gsm:  +420 722 141 478
>
> ___
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> --
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: DI Piping

[rongreenman .]

In many companies DI has replaced CI for small screwed piping. Grooved
fittings are DI. The only problem I could see is the connection method and
restraint, and small leakage if using PE fittings on the pipe.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:24 AM å...   wrote:

>
> I don't know of a many good reasons to deny this design.  If anyone calls
> you on your judgment, preempt their question by caveatting your decision
> using Section 1.5.
>
> Scot Deal
> Excelsior Fire & Risk Engineering
> gsm:  +420 722 141 478
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> --
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Shelf life of AR-AFFF foam concentrate

[rongreenman .]

I'd think after the conditions described the shelf life of the tote would
be in question as much as the foam.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:47 PM,  wrote:

> The location in which it currently resides is being relocated along with
> valve connections and additional piping.  As part of the relocation work,
> if the foam is no longer viable it needs to be replaced as part of this
> project.  It is part of the protection for some pretty large fuel storage
> tanks.  So if it’s no good, yes it’s worth messing with.
>
>
>
>
>
> Just found out that if it was stored properly that is with at least a 1/4”
> layer of Foam Seal Oil, the shelf life of the product at the temperature
> extremes in which it’s stored, is at least 25 years.
>
>
> *Craig L. Prahl*
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> *CH2M*
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540 <(864)%20920-7540>
>
> Fax - 864.920.7129 <(864)%20920-7129>
>
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
> @lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Matt Grise
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2017 5:27 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Shelf life of AR-AFFF foam concentrate [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> What is the value of the foam concentrate? Is it worth messing with?
>
>
>
> Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II
> Vice President – New Construction
> *Alliance Fire Protection*
>
> 130 w 9th Ave.
> North Kansas City, MO 64116
>
>
> **Licensed in KS & MO*
>
>
>
> 913.888.0647 <(913)%20888-0647> ph
> 913.888.0618 <(913)%20888-0618> f
> 913.526.7443 <(913)%20526-7443> cell
> *www. AFPsprink.com*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
> @lists.firesprinkler.org ]
> *On Behalf Of *craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:25 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Shelf life of AR-AFFF foam concentrate
>
>
>
> No, we do not have such a test facility.  We don’t do that kind of work.
>
>
>
>
> *Craig L. Prahl*
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> *CH2M*
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540 <(864)%20920-7540>
>
> Fax - 864.920.7129 <(864)%20920-7129>
>
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
> @lists.firesprinkler.org ]
> *On Behalf Of *å... 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Shelf life of AR-AFFF foam concentrate [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The ChemGuard chemist told me, back in the day, that 20 years was their
> expectation.
>
>
>
> I seem to recall 3M put a 25-year shelf life on their PFOS (perfluoroctane
> sulfanate) /PFOA (perfluoroctanoic acid) AFFF, but then their
> electro-telomerization formulation was halted long-before that expiration
> date arrived.
>
>
>
>
>
> Surely CH2M-Hill has a test facility where you can put some of this foam
> through its paces with a turbulent pool fire?  We remamber that
> ease-of-extinguishing tank fires scales exponentially, and not just due to
> the square of the radius.
>
>
>
>
>
> ​Scot Deal
>
> Excelsior Fire & Risk Engineering
>
> gsm:  +420 722 141 478 <+420%20722%20141%20478>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
> firesprinkler.org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700 <(253)%20576-9700>

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Insecticides, Fungicides & Herbicides

[rongreenman .]

I once had a project that was a metal building housing a 1000F molten salt
bath device about 12 feet wide and 20 feet long. The building was designed
to be 24 feet wide and 32 feet long. The FM wanted the building sprinklered
although the device literature said that no fire protection was required as
there were four redundant over temperature shut-offs and to not use water
around it, nor did the argument regarding what the result of water hitting
a 1000F body of molten metal would be. The solution was to put a 18 x 26
hood and duct over the machine, then hang those heavy vinyl strips from the
perimeter of the hood down to the floor.

Doesn't help you but I an interesting story about an interesting solution
to between a rock and a hard place. As others have noted yours is not an
NFPA 13 design/build scenario.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Matt Grise  wrote:

> I agree. I don’t think you will find the answer for this in NFPA 13.
>
>
>
> H3 & H4 with non-water protection does not sound like a good “intro to
> exotic fire protection” project. It is outside of my expertise for sure!
> Some of those pesticides are pretty strong poisons. Not a pretty sight when
> things go wrong.
>
>
>
> Matt Grisé
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Todd Williams
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 27, 2016 1:51 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Insecticides, Fungicides & Herbicides
>
>
>
> Ask them to have an FPE evaluate the protection requirements for the
> occupancy. If this is a design build deal, I wouldn't go near it.
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080> (ofc)
>
> 860-608-4559 <(860)%20608-4559> (cell)
>
>
>
> via Newton Mail
> 
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gregory Lindholm 
> wrote:
>
> We have been asked to quote a sprinkler system that has some stuff that
> says things like:
>
>
>
> Class A Fire Extinguishers Only, or
>
> Do Not Use Water, or
>
> Do Not Use Water Jets For Extinguishing, use Power, Sand or Carbon Dioxide
>
>
>
> They list IBC Classifications of H-3 or H-4.
>
>
>
> What do we do with this?
>
>
>
> Greg Lindholm
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: 1.85 Graph

[rongreenman .]

Taking up the George Church clarion call: If you are an AFSA member this
and a myriad of other useful forms and reports and good stuff are available
to you on the AFSA website. If you are not a member you cannot access those
forms and you are really taking advantage of the generosity of the AFSA and
it's paying members who are  making this forum available to all and to the
many members who take the time to discuss issues with all the forum
followers, on their own time, for free. If any of you out there aren't
members you owe it to your industry, and yourselves to join. and join your
local chapter or affiliate if there is one in your area. To paraphrase a
famous ad campaign, "The benefits of membership"

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Brad Casterline 
wrote:

> Another web based graph (among other utilities here):
>
> https://www.fsc-icalc.com/
>
> Brad
> On Dec 7, 2016 8:30 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a blank 1.85 graph form you can send me?
>>
>> Much appreciated.
>>
>> Bill Menster
>> WFM Consulting Inc.
>> 2416 Malaya Ct.
>> Punta Gorda, FL 33983
>> ph. 941-421-9786 <(941)%20421-9786>
>> fax 941-391-6133 <(941)%20391-6133>
>> wmens...@comcast.net
>> www.wfmconsultinginc.com
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Concealed Space

[rongreenman .]

Remember that the performance criteria for most sprinklers is to control a
fire, keep it from spreading beyond the design parameters, and so
sprinklering this attic space could keep the fire from taking down the
entire building while the FD is enrout.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:34 AM Michael Hill  wrote:

> In this case, I don’t think you can get away from sprinklers in the attic
> (I was never able to). It is partially enclosed by exposed combustible
> construction.
>
>
>
> Sprinklers spaced along the slope or at the peak (assume a pitched/peaked
> roof) will still wet portions of the wood decking.
>
>
>
> Mike Hill
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Jay Stough
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 8:12 AM
> *To:* Sprinkler Forum 
> *Subject:* Concealed Space
>
>
>
> I have an attic in building built in the late 70's.  It is constructed of
> Steel trusses with 2 x 4's on top to attach a plywood roof.  Other than
> that, there is no combustible material in the concealed attic space.  It is
> at least 8' from the bottom of the steel trusses to the peak.  My first
> thoughts are that this as a combustible concealed space requiring
> protection.  But I keep coming back to what am I protecting, the
> combustible roof above the sprinklers?  If that's the case, why install
> sprinklers?  This is in Penna where we are still (and will be for quite
> some time) on the 2007 edition of NFPA 13.
>
> Am I missing something in 8.15.1 to eliminate sprinklers in this area?
> The roof material is definitely not fire retardant treated or limited
> combustible.
>
> *Jay Stough*
>
> NICET IV LAYOUT
>
> NICET III ITM
> ___
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> --
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Stairways as small rooms.

[rongreenman .]

Jim is correct but you can use an extended coverage head while ignoring the
small room rules altogether.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Jim Davidson <
jdavid...@davidsonassociates.net> wrote:

> If you are looking at the specific NFPA 13 Code Sections the “Small Room”
> Rule applies only to those sprinklers specified in Section 8.6 of the
> Code which is titled  “*8.6 Standard Pendent and Upright Spray
> Sprinklers.”*
>
>
>
> *3.3.22 Small Room. *A compartment of light hazard occupancy
> classification having unobstructed construction and a floor area not
> exceeding 800 ft2 (74 m2)
>
>
>
> *8.6.2.1.2.1 *The protection area of coverage for each sprinkler in the
> small room shall be the area of the room divided by the number of
> sprinklers in the room.
>
>
>
> *8.6.3.2.4* *The requirements of 8.6.3.2.1 shall not apply within small
> rooms as defined in 3.3.22
>
>
>
> It appears that the small room rule is specifically for the types of
> sprinklers referenced by Section 8.6 “*8.6 Standard Pendent and Upright
> Spray Sprinklers.”.*
>
>
>
> Just my opinion.
>
>
>
> Have a fire safe day!
>
>
>
> Jim Davidson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Davidson Associates*
>
> *Fire Protection Engineering
>
> P. O. Box 4002*
>
> *Code Consultants
>
> Greenville, DE  19807*
>
> *
> (302) 994-9500 <(302)%20994-9500>*
>
> *
> Fax (302) 994-3414 <(302)%20994-3414>*
>
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY*
>
> *This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be
> privileged.*
>
> *If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this
> report in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately,
> and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any
> purpose, or store or copy them in any medium.*
>
> *Thank you for your cooperation.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Todd Williams
> *Sent:* Monday, December 12, 2016 10:46 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Stairways as small rooms.
>
>
>
> 16', not 17'. My error
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080> (ofc)
>
> 860-608-4559 <(860)%20608-4559> (cell)
>
>
>
> via Newton Mail
> 
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Travis Mack  wrote:
>
> 9' + 7'-6" = 16'-6".
>
>
>
> Your 17' dimension is too large. 2 sprinklers or 1 ex cov sprinkler.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-
> LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Todd Williams  wrote:
>
> Does the definition of small rooms include enclosed stairways? I am
> working on a location with 17' x 8 ft stair enclosures was wondering if I
> can use a single sprinkler.
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 <(860)%20535-2080> (ofc)
>
> 860-608-4559 <(860)%20608-4559> (cell)
>
>
>
> via Newton Mail
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Ghostship Fire

[rongreenman .]

A result of the Station fire was not only the lowering of the square
footage threshold for installation of sprinklers, but also an increase in
exiting capacity.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Foster, Ed  wrote:

> “…then that sprinkler protection would be sufficient life safety
> protection without adding exit capacity.”
>
>
>
> I have read with interest the thread resulting from the Oakland fire.
> While there is much to say I do choose to take this opportunity to provide
> a comment on this entry.
>
> The above quote would lead many, who have already changed the codes by
> allowing “tradeoffs” and who are consistently proposing that we in the fire
> service are not considering the advantages afforded by the installation of
> automatic fire sprinklers, to present yet another argument that exiting can
> be compromised by the addition of a sprinkler system in a building. Travel
> distance changes are just one example in the current cods, what would be
> next?
>
> One man’s opinion.
>
> *Ed Foster*
>
> Fire Marshal
>
> Fire Prevention Bureau
>
> Carpinteria-Summerland Fire District
>
> (805) 566-2451
>
> *[image: cid:82df1ca92855c9c2623baa3ddf8c0acda8677ac1@zimbra]*
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *å... 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2016 1:11 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Ghostship Fire
>
>
>
>
>
> Exiting is arguably more critical than (automatic) fire sprinkler
> protection, becuase it serves more emergencies.  But if the sprinkler
> system were properly designed, installed and maintained to reasonably
> predictable, worse-case occupancy conditions, then that sprinkler
> protection would be sufficient life safety protection without adding exit
> capacity.  This life safety extends to all occupants of the building except
> those unfortunate enough to be intimately involved with the fire origin, or
> those of extremely frail pulmonary/cardiovascular condition.  In fact, with
> a properly designed, installed and maintained sprinkler system for
> reasonable, worse-case occupancy conditions, we could have had all the
> exits locked, and sufficient life safety protection would be provided by
> sprinklers alone, for those not intimate with the fire origin and not in
> the room of origin.  Automatic fire sprinklers control if not extinguish
> residential fires such that for residential applications, fire fighters
> need only bring in a few buckets of water to complete the extinguishment of
> fire.
>
>
>
> Yes, there are special circumstances where sprinklers might not be as
> effective as they usually are, such as:
>
>   a large fire load that might be shielded under tables, or a solid
> mezzanine,
>
>   an extra-ordinary large fuel load (Tupperware party) protected overhead
> by a wax-coated tarp
>
>   or combustible liquids
>
>
>
> One of the counterarguments to sprinklers is--not nearly enough automatic
> fire sprinklers systems, once designed and installed according to NFPA 13,
> are maintained per NFPA 13/NFPA 25;  impairments appear that reduce system
> reliability.  Still, few systems competing with fire sprinklers offer as
> little maintenance or as much reliability (NFPA 25 maintenance
> notwithstanding) as fire sprinklers, without or with good maintenance.
>
>
>
> Without knowing any other details about this fire than what has been
> presented on this forum, I would venture to say we would be looking at no
> more than 1 or 2 fire related deaths (if that) had the building presented a
> properly designed, installed and maintained sprinkler system to NFPA 13.
>
>
>
> There are no special interests in this statement, other than sharing the
> most accurate information possible.  I am not a sprinkler contractor.  I am
> not a member of NFPA 13 or 130.  I am not a hired 'expert witness' who is
> paid hundreds of dollars per hour to legally testify for wealthy parties
> interested in defending their position.
>
>
>
>
>
> Scot Deal
>
> Excelsior Fire & Risk Engineering
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: 3000Sq. Ft. / 8 Heads

[rongreenman .]

Is there a rated wall between them, and does it go from floor to
compartment ceiling.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Gary Stites  wrote:

>
> ​In a large mixed use building in California, we have several floors that
> are wood I-Beams (TJI's) with gyp board to the bottom, not filled with
> insulation. NFPA 13-11.2.3.1.4(3) requires 3000 SqFt. to be calculated.
> NFPA 13-11.3.1.2 requires that 8 residential heads be calculated.
>
> What if, say, 1250 SqFt. of a floor was commercial retail and the rest was
> residential.In other words there isn't 3000 SqFt. of commercial to
> calculate. Would you calc the commercial area and then 5 residential heads?
>
> ​Thanks​
>
> --
> Gary Stites
>
>
> RLH 
> WWW.K25.Rocks
> *http://www.sprinklersoft.net/
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Retirement, New Contacts

[rongreenman .]

What Rod said.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Rod DiBona  wrote:

> Steve,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your leadership for our entire industry and in particular
> for the AFSA. The forum is yet a microcosm of what you have done with
> excellence for so long. I have personally benefitted from both tremendously
> and thank you publicly for this. Wishing you joy and happiness in all you
> do.
>
>
>
> Rod at Rapid Fire
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Muncy
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 7:39 AM
> *To:* Sprinkler 
> *Subject:* Retirement, New Contacts
>
>
>
> As some of you know, I will soon be retiring from AFSA after 28 wonderful
> years. Although my official date of retirement is December 31, I will be
> taking the remainder of my vacation days during the second half of
> December, so my last day in the office will be December 13th.
>
>
>
> We have been planning an orderly transition of responsibilities for the
> past two years. Effective November 1st, my oversight of the SprinklerForum
> will end. Roland Huggins, AFSA VP for Tech Services, and AFSA’s Tech
> Services team will continue to monitor the SprinklerForum for technical
> issues and potential violations of SprinklerForum guidelines. Roger Gragg,
> AFSA’s Manager of IT and Marketing, will provide list support dealing with
> email distribution, listserver delivery problems, and Internet/email issues.
>
>
>
> Their email addresses are:
>
>
>
> Roland Huggins -  rhugg...@firesprinkler.org
>
> Roger Gragg -  rgr...@firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> The SprinklerForum celebrated it’s 20th birthday this year.  It had a slow
> start but now serves over 700 subscribers addressing important technical
> issues (and an occasional snarky personal comment.) I’ve enjoyed watching
> the success of this program and the friendships that it has spawned over
> the years. The SprinklerForum will always be special to me, as has been
> shown in the past in our SprinklerForum receptions at our annual
> conventions.  I wish all of you great success, and hope the Forum will
> continue to serve you for the years ahead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve A. Muncy, CAE - President
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   -- FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES!
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: electrical bldg high ex foam in the news - too much foam shunt-trips unaffected-and-working-electrical gear

[rongreenman .]

There are considerable life scenarios where more is *not* better.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:52 AM, å...   wrote:

>
>
>
> There are considerable design scenarios where more fire protection is
> *not*  better fire protection.
>
> Scot Deal
> Excelsior Fire & Risk Engineering
>
>>
>>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Apartment with a Loft

[rongreenman .]

If this is a 13 project then you don't have to use residential heads but
can still the residential rules. Four most demanding heads and done.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Dewayne Martinez <
dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> wrote:

> So if it were a mezz like Todd stated you would calculate both levels?  I
> have never done this before for the area-density method.  I could see for
> the room-design this might be the case since it is all in one compartment.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Phillips
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 6:26 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Apartment with a Loft
>
> Hydraulic remote areas are not limited to one level unless there is s
> seperation
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> On Nov 17, 2016 7:12 AM, Dewayne Martinez 
> wrote:
> Why, because of the room design method?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Phillips
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 4:14 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Apartment with a Loft
>
> Heads need to be included unless there is a seperation but most lofts are
> open
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> On Nov 16, 2016 5:08 PM, Gregory Lindholm  wrote:
>
> This is a new one for me.
>
>
> I have a small apartment (500 sq. ft. footprint), with a loft over 1/2 of
> it. It is in an old warehouse being converted to apartments, while
> retaining the 2x10 exposed joists, so Residential Heads cannot be used.
>
>
> I would probably just use the room design method with all of the heads at
> the top plus 2 heads in the corridor, but what about the heads below the
> loft? They are exposed to the high area. I know you do not have to
> calculate both the high heads and the heads underneath obstructions
> normally, but something does not seem right with what I was planning.
>
>
> Anybody have any good ideas?
>
>
> Greg Lindholm
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o
> rg
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o
> rg
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o
> rg
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>



-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: 13D Porches

[rongreenman .]

I'd say no but that's just the opinion of someone whose opinion has no
weight. Ask your AHJ for his.

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Todd Williams  wrote:

> NFPA 13D allows for exclusion of sprinklers in open attached porches. Does
> screening count as an enclosure?
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
> via Newton Mail
> 
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Move noisy air compressor?

[rongreenman .]

I had one once that fed a system it a six car garage and it came on every
50-52 hours, In every three week cycle it would come on every other night
during sleeping hours for about a week. There was a woman who's bed was
just above it and she could hear the vibration when in bed. Not really a
leakage problem but because the system was so small. Isolation pads worked.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:29 AM,  wrote:

> If the system is not leaking, the compressor shouldn’t be running very
> often at all.  So if it’s running enough to create a noise complaint I
> think I’d be doing some investigation into the integrity of the piping
> system.
>
>
>
>
> *Craig L. Prahl*
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> *CH2M*
> 200 Verdae Blvd.
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
>
> Fax - 864.920.7129
>
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *rongreenman .
> *Sent:* Monday, October 31, 2016 1:21 PM
> *To:* maur...@marvi.org; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Move noisy air compressor? [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> There is no requirement about distance, nor is a compressor even required.
> Air maintenance is required in some form (manually or automatically from a
> compressor, nitrogen generator, compressed air bottle, ...?) and there
> needs to be a method that replenishes the system from 0 psig to it's
> required pressure in 30 minutes maximum.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Maurice Marvi  wrote:
>
> How often is the compressor running that the customer is complaining?
> Could you have another problem?
>
>
>
> M Marvi
>
>
>
> On 10/30/2016 11:47 PM, Douglas Hicks wrote:
>
> A customer has received complaints about the air compressor being too
> noisy.  The compressor is bolted to a concrete floor, no rubber pads used.
> I have used rubber pads (55-56 small block Chevy motor mounts) to control
> the noise.  Sometimes that works, sometimes not.  Grainger also has square
> pads for noise control.  Any feed back as to which is better, motor mounts
> jor the squasre pads.
>
>
>
> If the motor mounts do not control the noise, can we move the compressor?
> If so, how far away?Is there a max distance?  They are looking at 60
> feet away, using 3/4"  or 1" pipe.
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ron Greenman
>
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700
>
>
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
> director (1942-)
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


-- 
Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org