[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[bill . brooks brooksfpe . com]

Referring to the 2013 edition, wouldn’t an Annex note to 23.4.2.1.1 be exactly 
the thing that’s needed?  Still time to propose for next edition I think.  Get 
all this out into the open where the PhD wordsmiths can wrestle it to the 
ground.

Bill Brooks (memberr)

William N. Brooks P.E.
Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc.
372 Wilett Drive
Severna Park, MD 21146
410 544 3620 o
412-400-6528 c

From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Brad Casterline ; BRUCE VERHEI 
; Byron Weisz ; Michael de Gabriele 
; Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

While I appreciate your insatiable curiosity and enthusiasm for what most 
consider the minutia of hydraulics, I caution that references to 
unsubstantiated preferences isn’t a particularly precise way of presenting 
technical content, especially when it’s this nuanced.

When I’m modeling a sprinkler system or private fire main system (two things 
I’ve very experienced with and that my firm does on a multiple-times-per-day 
basis), the only things I need to feel good about are:  conformance with basis 
of design criteria and applicable standards for the work in question; safety 
factor; cost-impact analysis of our proposed design.   Suggesting that 12 FPS 
is a feel-good criterion isn’t based on any particular scientific method that I 
can tell, so let’s leave that out of it.

As Byron astutely noted last week, fire protection demands are not continuous 
flows.   In fact, “Continuous Flow” is a defined term in AWWA standards, as is 
“Intermittent Flow”.   Since continuous flow is 24/7/365, we are an 
intermittent flow, as are fire hydrant flows, tank fills, pump tests and every 
other aspect of below-ground and overhead water-based systems.   The only 
reason that water districts care about velocity is that public main systems are 
more likely to experience surges and hammer phenomena at higher flow speeds.   
But we’re not a continuously flowing demand, we’re a closed system that sits 
static for 99.6735% of its lifetime and when called upon to activate (and with 
open nozzles, sprinklers, hydrant ports) we are highly unlikely to experience 
the rebounding pressure spikes of a hammer except potentially when that demand 
is shut off.Hammer in sprinkler systems has historically been caused by 
surges imposed on systems from outside sources.  (Also and by the way, 
regarding the continuous/intermittent thing, the fact that residential systems 
are a 7-10 minute event by rule, the restricting of meters to the limits of 
their continuous flow rating is BS.)

If the water gets to the emitter and the hydraulics of the design work within 
the parameters of the basis of design and good/best practices, then as Bruce 
might say, I don’t give a ___ about velocity because its NOT a codified 
metric and allowing any measure of subjectivity into the exercises – ESPECIALLY 
when it leaks into the enforcement side of the exercise – is not a good 
practice and should be disregarded.


Steve Leyton, President
Protection Design and Consulting
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
www.protectiondesign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectiondesign.com_=DwMGaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=iih4NVEkD89x14qk7m6LbFsl49j-eQ0kuCE55fl2VOI=axXgb8Run8Bdi8a6Oo1kuX0MIWmMUJg2kXBS8i3EFq8=EMYV-FWb9iPpplNapuyc_mqMAPGkWod0SXQ0DBzeuyI=>
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training




From: Brad Casterline mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:11 AM
To: BRUCE VERHEI mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>; Byron Weisz 
mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>>; Michael de Gabriele 
mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>>; Sprinkler Academy - C 
Bilbo mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>>
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

Michael,
I would like to recommend NFPA 750 (Water Mist) for excellent information for 
your questioning.
Like Bob alluded to, H-W is not necessarily less accurate at high velocities. 
The variation from D-W comes from holding the C-Factor constant for all pipe 
size. This results in there being a particular velocity where D-W Pf starts to 
exceed H-W pf.
Since we are tied to H-W and constant C-Factor, technically this could be cause 
for concern regarding max velocity.
What is that particular velocity?
For 1” S40, H-W C=120, compared to D-W weight density= 62.34 lb/ft^3, dynamic 
viscosity= 1.1 centipoise, and absolute roughness= .002 inch, it is 40 ft/s. 
Since the particular velocity is higher (and different!) for larger pipe size, 
I would like to recommend 12 m/s as a self-imposed Speed Limit 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Steve Leyton]

While I appreciate your insatiable curiosity and enthusiasm for what most 
consider the minutia of hydraulics, I caution that references to 
unsubstantiated preferences isn’t a particularly precise way of presenting 
technical content, especially when it’s this nuanced.

When I’m modeling a sprinkler system or private fire main system (two things 
I’ve very experienced with and that my firm does on a multiple-times-per-day 
basis), the only things I need to feel good about are:  conformance with basis 
of design criteria and applicable standards for the work in question; safety 
factor; cost-impact analysis of our proposed design.   Suggesting that 12 FPS 
is a feel-good criterion isn’t based on any particular scientific method that I 
can tell, so let’s leave that out of it.

As Byron astutely noted last week, fire protection demands are not continuous 
flows.   In fact, “Continuous Flow” is a defined term in AWWA standards, as is 
“Intermittent Flow”.   Since continuous flow is 24/7/365, we are an 
intermittent flow, as are fire hydrant flows, tank fills, pump tests and every 
other aspect of below-ground and overhead water-based systems.   The only 
reason that water districts care about velocity is that public main systems are 
more likely to experience surges and hammer phenomena at higher flow speeds.   
But we’re not a continuously flowing demand, we’re a closed system that sits 
static for 99.6735% of its lifetime and when called upon to activate (and with 
open nozzles, sprinklers, hydrant ports) we are highly unlikely to experience 
the rebounding pressure spikes of a hammer except potentially when that demand 
is shut off.Hammer in sprinkler systems has historically been caused by 
surges imposed on systems from outside sources.  (Also and by the way, 
regarding the continuous/intermittent thing, the fact that residential systems 
are a 7-10 minute event by rule, the restricting of meters to the limits of 
their continuous flow rating is BS.)

If the water gets to the emitter and the hydraulics of the design work within 
the parameters of the basis of design and good/best practices, then as Bruce 
might say, I don’t give a ___ about velocity because its NOT a codified 
metric and allowing any measure of subjectivity into the exercises – ESPECIALLY 
when it leaks into the enforcement side of the exercise – is not a good 
practice and should be disregarded.


Steve Leyton, President
Protection Design and Consulting
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
www.protectiondesign.com<http://www.protectiondesign.com/>
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training




From: Brad Casterline 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:11 AM
To: BRUCE VERHEI ; Byron Weisz ; 
Michael de Gabriele ; Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 

Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

Michael,
I would like to recommend NFPA 750 (Water Mist) for excellent information for 
your questioning.
Like Bob alluded to, H-W is not necessarily less accurate at high velocities. 
The variation from D-W comes from holding the C-Factor constant for all pipe 
size. This results in there being a particular velocity where D-W Pf starts to 
exceed H-W pf.
Since we are tied to H-W and constant C-Factor, technically this could be cause 
for concern regarding max velocity.
What is that particular velocity?
For 1” S40, H-W C=120, compared to D-W weight density= 62.34 lb/ft^3, dynamic 
viscosity= 1.1 centipoise, and absolute roughness= .002 inch, it is 40 ft/s. 
Since the particular velocity is higher (and different!) for larger pipe size, 
I would like to recommend 12 m/s as a self-imposed Speed Limit for you to feel 
good about.
Thanks,
Brad


From: BRUCE VERHEI mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:34 AM
To: Byron Weisz mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>>; Michael 
de Gabriele mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>>; Sprinkler 
Academy - C Bilbo mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>>
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

For the record I’ve been the conduit and tester for a lot of water flow tests 
done for purpose of sprinkler design. I ain’t never doctored .
You can quote me on that.

Best.

Bruce Verhei
On 03/15/2022 7:18 AM Byron Weisz 
mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>> wrote:


I think there are some good practices that need to be followed in the design of 
fire sprinkler systems and sometimes “simpler” is better. Treating the flow of 
water in fire sprinkler piping to other mechanical systems are not comparable. 
The obvious is a fire sprinkler system is designed for emergency use and other 
mechanical systems are in continuous use. Sadly, most Mechani

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Brad Casterline]

Michael,
I would like to recommend NFPA 750 (Water Mist) for excellent information for 
your questioning.
Like Bob alluded to, H-W is not necessarily less accurate at high velocities. 
The variation from D-W comes from holding the C-Factor constant for all pipe 
size. This results in there being a particular velocity where D-W Pf starts to 
exceed H-W pf.
Since we are tied to H-W and constant C-Factor, technically this could be cause 
for concern regarding max velocity.
What is that particular velocity?
For 1” S40, H-W C=120, compared to D-W weight density= 62.34 lb/ft^3, dynamic 
viscosity= 1.1 centipoise, and absolute roughness= .002 inch, it is 40 ft/s. 
Since the particular velocity is higher (and different!) for larger pipe size, 
I would like to recommend 12 m/s as a self-imposed Speed Limit for you to feel 
good about.
Thanks,
Brad


From: BRUCE VERHEI 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:34 AM
To: Byron Weisz ; Michael de Gabriele 
; Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

For the record I’ve been the conduit and tester for a lot of water flow tests 
done for purpose of sprinkler design. I ain’t never doctored .
You can quote me on that.

Best.

Bruce Verhei
On 03/15/2022 7:18 AM Byron Weisz 
mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>> wrote:


I think there are some good practices that need to be followed in the design of 
fire sprinkler systems and sometimes “simpler” is better. Treating the flow of 
water in fire sprinkler piping to other mechanical systems are not comparable. 
The obvious is a fire sprinkler system is designed for emergency use and other 
mechanical systems are in continuous use. Sadly, most Mechanical Engineers who 
write specifications for fire sprinkler design don’t understand the difference. 
I was taught that velocity in fire sprinkler piping was irrelevant and to my 
knowledge there is nothing stated in NFPA 13.

To continue the conversation there is no reference of a “safety margin” in NFPA 
13 either. I was told many years ago by this guy named Bob Caputo that NFPA 13 
allow you to design right to the design curve. Most jurisdictions in the 
Republic of California give water flow data from either the Fire Department or 
a Water Service Company to use for design of a system. This information is 
usually doctored in some way. So why would a designer take “doctored” water 
flow data and then include a 10% safety margin? Other than to meet a local 
requirement there is no reason. What makes no sense at all is to take 
“doctored” water flow information and use that information to size a fire pump 
to design an ESFR fire sprinkler system.

Again, the best person to answer the questions of velocity and safety margin in 
the design of a fire sprinkler system gracefully would be Bob.


Byron Weisz

Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1284
Lodi,  CA   95241
Phone (209) 334-9119
Fax  (209) 334-2923
Cell  (209) 993-8832
by...@cen-calfire.com<mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>

This and any attached documents are for the use of the intended recipient(s) 
only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or work 
product that may be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not 
the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
this communication and any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you are 
hereby requested to delete this message and any attached documents, to destroy 
any printed copies, and to telephone or otherwise contact the sender 
immediately about the error.

From: Michael de Gabriele 
mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 5:46 AM
To: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>>
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

You don't often get email from 
mpdegabri...@gmail.com<mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>. Learn why this is 
important<http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
Hello All,
I hope that this email finds you well.
I practice fire protection in Australia, and recently the Australian standards 
have removed the requirements for maximum pipe work velocity in sprinkler 
systems.
We also design systems to NFPA and FM Global requirements when insurers request 
upgrades, and as of late, the insurer on one particular project queried the 
pipe work velocities. I couldnt find any reference to velocity limitations in 
NFPA 13.
I still try and keep my sprinkler pipe velocities down to a reasonable & 
practical value (6m/sec through valves and max. 10m/sec in pipe work as per the 
older/superseded code).

I am curious though to whether the Hzen Williams Formula produces greater 
errors as the Velocities Increase in the pipe? Has anyone e

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[BRUCE VERHEI]

For the record I’ve been the conduit and tester for a lot of water flow tests 
done for purpose of sprinkler design. I ain’t never doctored . 

You can quote me on that.

Best.

Bruce Verhei 

> On 03/15/2022 7:18 AM Byron Weisz  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are some good practices that need to be followed in the 
> design of fire sprinkler systems and sometimes “simpler” is better. Treating 
> the flow of water in fire sprinkler piping to other mechanical systems are 
> not comparable. The obvious is a fire sprinkler system is designed for 
> emergency use and other mechanical systems are in continuous use. Sadly, most 
> Mechanical Engineers who write specifications for fire sprinkler design don’t 
> understand the difference. I was taught that velocity in fire sprinkler 
> piping was irrelevant and to my knowledge there is nothing stated in NFPA 13.
> 
> 
> To continue the conversation there is no reference of a “safety margin” 
> in NFPA 13 either. I was told many years ago by this guy named Bob Caputo 
> that NFPA 13 allow you to design right to the design curve. Most 
> jurisdictions in the Republic of California give water flow data from either 
> the Fire Department or a Water Service Company to use for design of a system. 
> This information is usually doctored in some way. So why would a designer 
> take “doctored” water flow data and then include a 10% safety margin? Other 
> than to meet a local requirement there is no reason. What makes no sense at 
> all is to take “doctored” water flow information and use that information to 
> size a fire pump to design an ESFR fire sprinkler system.
> 
> 
> Again, the best person to answer the questions of velocity and safety 
> margin in the design of a fire sprinkler system gracefully would be Bob.  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Byron Weisz
> 
>  
> 
> Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
> 
> P.O. Box 1284
> 
> Lodi,  CA   95241
> 
> Phone (209) 334-9119
> 
> Fax  (209) 334-2923
> 
> Cell  (209) 993-8832
> 
> by...@cen-calfire.com
> 
> 
> This and any attached documents are for the use of the intended 
> recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, 
> confidential, or work product that may be exempt from disclosure under 
> applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and any 
> attachments is strictly prohibited, and you are hereby requested to delete 
> this message and any attached documents, to destroy any printed copies, and 
> to telephone or otherwise contact the sender immediately about the error.
> 
> 
> From: Michael de Gabriele 
>     Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 5:46 AM
> To: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
> Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant
> 
> 
> 
> You don't often get email from mpdegabri...@gmail.com 
> mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com . Learn why this is important 
> http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I hope that this email finds you well.
> 
> I practice fire protection in Australia, and recently the Australian 
> standards have removed the requirements for maximum pipe work velocity in 
> sprinkler systems.
> 
> We also design systems to NFPA and FM Global requirements when insurers 
> request upgrades, and as of late, the insurer on one particular project 
> queried the pipe work velocities. I couldnt find any reference to velocity 
> limitations in NFPA 13.
> 
> I still try and keep my sprinkler pipe velocities down to a reasonable & 
> practical value (6m/sec through valves and max. 10m/sec in pipe work as per 
> the older/superseded code).
> 
> 
> I am curious though to whether the Hzen Williams Formula produces greater 
> errors as the Velocities Increase in the pipe? Has anyone ever seen a 
> limitation to the Formula or come across any articles to this effect?
> 
> 
> Looking forward to your response / comments / advice
> 
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Michael de Gabriele
> 
> Fire Protections Engineer
> 
> mpdegabri...@gmail.com mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:48 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
> mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com > wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > Hi Travis,
> > 
> > 
> > I learned many years ago the reason velocity restrictions have 
> > persisted.  In systems that have running water, the higher velocities wear 
> > the inner walls of the pipe/tub

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Brad Casterline]

The role velocity plays is that friction loss is proportional to the square of 
the velocity. Using Darcy-Weisbach this holds “truer” at any velocity than 
Hazen-Williams does outside a certain range of velocities.
It’s interesting to calc using D-W with the weight density and viscosity of 
clean water at 40F and find the velocity producing the same friction loss as 
H-W for a particular pipe size and C-Factor. You should only try this at home 
nights and weekends though, as it can get pretty wild.
I’ve heard that when the founders were coming up with the pipe schedules, they 
assumed a minimum end head pressure and spacing (to determine the flow), added 
the flows along the way, and increased the pipe size when the velocity got to 
around 32 ft/s.

b

From: Bob Caputo 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 11:16 AM
To: Byron Weisz ; Michael de Gabriele 
; Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

Two separate issues:

There is no safety margin required by NFPA standards with regard to the water 
supply test versus the system demand.  The annex recommends one but the AHJ has 
the purview to require one.  I have tried many times, to define a 10% or 5% 
required safety margin by submitting proposals to the NFPA 13 committee and 
none have passed.  Ken Isman from University of Maryland (formerly from NFSA) 
also pushed this issue passionately but failed to convince the committee that a 
safety margin is required, or that one can e defined for every project.  If 
your project is in the already populated area, you may not need one but if it’s 
a location where communities are being developed or factories and warehouses 
are being planned, 10% might not be enough.

The evaluation of water supplies is engineering as opposed to design.  A 
registered professional engineer should evaluate all of the issues surrounding 
a project to determine the adequacy of a water supply.  NFPA standards provide 
wide leeway for the AHJ to make decisions, since they are the ones who need to 
show up and fight a fire or access a building. It is within the purview of the 
AHJ to add a safety margin to a water supply where they determine one is needed.


The velocity issue is simple.  NFPA standards do not require or limit 
velocities anywhere except for the suction side of a fire pump.  NFPA 13 and 24 
did limit velocities many years ago but the reasons have long since been 
dispelled.  People though at faster velocities, the Hazen Williams formula was 
less accurate.  Joe Hankins once told me that FM’s velocity limits were created 
because they didn’t want 1” grids or systems that couldn’t be upgraded as 
tenants or owners changed hands or building uses.

The benefit of being old is knowing old stuff, as long as you can still 
remember it



[https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4h8r7hdtsr6154/AFSA_L.png?raw=1]
Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
c: 760-908-7753
p:
214-349-5965 ext124
w:
firesprinkler.org<http://firesprinkler.org/>
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/facebook_sig.png]<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
  
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/twitter_sig.png] 
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>   
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/linkedin_sig.png]
 <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>  
 
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/instagram_sig.png]
 <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>

Expand your business with ITM.
Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s comprehensive 
20-month ITM Inspector Development program<https://www.firesprinkler.org/itm> 
that provides a blended learning environment teamed with robust curriculum 
created by top industry leaders. Now enrolling for Spring 2022!

From: Byron Weisz mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Michael de Gabriele 
mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>>; Sprinkler Academy - C 
Bilbo mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>>
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

I think there are some good practices that need to be followed in the design of 
fire sprinkler systems and sometimes “simpler” is better. Treating the flow of 
water in fire sprinkler piping to other mechanical systems are not comparable. 
The obvious is a fire sprinkler system is designed for emergency use and other 
mechanical systems are in continuous use. Sadly, most Mechanical Engineers who 
write specifications for fire sprinkler design don’t understand the difference. 
I was taught that velocity in fire sprinkler 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Alex Correia]

SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org

To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org


[1567533267276]
Alex Correia

Fire Equipment Incorporated

c:(401) 439-2551 o: (401) 232-5960

a:  11 Industrial Dr, Smithfield, RI 02917

w: www.feinewengland.com<http://www.feinewengland.com/>
e:acorr...@feinewengland.com






From: Bob Caputo 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 12:16:04 PM
To: Byron Weisz; Michael de Gabriele; Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

Two separate issues:

There is no safety margin required by NFPA standards with regard to the water 
supply test versus the system demand.  The annex recommends one but the AHJ has 
the purview to require one.  I have tried many times, to define a 10% or 5% 
required safety margin by submitting proposals to the NFPA 13 committee and 
none have passed.  Ken Isman from University of Maryland (formerly from NFSA) 
also pushed this issue passionately but failed to convince the committee that a 
safety margin is required, or that one can e defined for every project.  If 
your project is in the already populated area, you may not need one but if it’s 
a location where communities are being developed or factories and warehouses 
are being planned, 10% might not be enough.

The evaluation of water supplies is engineering as opposed to design.  A 
registered professional engineer should evaluate all of the issues surrounding 
a project to determine the adequacy of a water supply.  NFPA standards provide 
wide leeway for the AHJ to make decisions, since they are the ones who need to 
show up and fight a fire or access a building. It is within the purview of the 
AHJ to add a safety margin to a water supply where they determine one is needed.


The velocity issue is simple.  NFPA standards do not require or limit 
velocities anywhere except for the suction side of a fire pump.  NFPA 13 and 24 
did limit velocities many years ago but the reasons have long since been 
dispelled.  People though at faster velocities, the Hazen Williams formula was 
less accurate.  Joe Hankins once told me that FM’s velocity limits were created 
because they didn’t want 1” grids or systems that couldn’t be upgraded as 
tenants or owners changed hands or building uses.

The benefit of being old is knowing old stuff, as long as you can still 
remember it



[https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4h8r7hdtsr6154/AFSA_L.png?raw=1]

Bob Caputo, CFPS

President

American Fire Sprinkler Association
c: 760-908-7753

p:

214-349-5965 ext124

w:

firesprinkler.org<http://firesprinkler.org/>

[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/facebook_sig.png]<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
  
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/twitter_sig.png] 
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>   
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/linkedin_sig.png]
 <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>  
 
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/instagram_sig.png]
 <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>



Expand your business with ITM.
Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s comprehensive 
20-month ITM Inspector Development program<https://www.firesprinkler.org/itm> 
that provides a blended learning environment teamed with robust curriculum 
created by top industry leaders. Now enrolling for Spring 2022!

From: Byron Weisz mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Michael de Gabriele 
mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>>; Sprinkler Academy - C 
Bilbo mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>>
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

I think there are some good practices that need to be followed in the design of 
fire sprinkler systems and sometimes “simpler” is better. Treating the flow of 
water in fire sprinkler piping to other mechanical systems are not comparable. 
The obvious is a fire sprinkler system is designed for emergency use and other 
mechanical systems are in continuous use. Sadly, most Mechanical Engineers who 
write specifications for fire sprinkler design don’t understand the difference. 
I was taught that velocity in fire sprinkler piping was irrelevant and to my 
knowledge there is nothing stated in NFPA 13.

To continue the conversation there is no reference of a “safety margin” in NFPA 
13 either. I was told many years ago by this guy named Bob Caputo that NFPA 13 
allow you to design right to the design curve. Most juris

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Bob Caputo]

Two separate issues:



There is no safety margin required by NFPA standards with regard to the
water supply test versus the system demand.  The annex recommends one but
the AHJ has the purview to require one.  I have tried many times, to define
a 10% or 5% required safety margin by submitting proposals to the NFPA 13
committee and none have passed.  Ken Isman from University of Maryland
(formerly from NFSA) also pushed this issue passionately but failed to
convince the committee that a safety margin is required, or that one can e
defined for every project.  If your project is in the already populated
area, you may not need one but if it’s a location where communities are
being developed or factories and warehouses are being planned, 10% might
not be enough.



The evaluation of water supplies is engineering as opposed to design.  A
registered professional engineer should evaluate all of the issues
surrounding a project to determine the adequacy of a water supply.  NFPA
standards provide wide leeway for the AHJ to make decisions, since they are
the ones who need to show up and fight a fire or access a building. It is
within the purview of the AHJ to add a safety margin to a water supply
where they determine one is needed.





The velocity issue is simple.  NFPA standards do not require or limit
velocities anywhere except for the suction side of a fire pump.  NFPA 13
and 24 did limit velocities many years ago but the reasons have long since
been dispelled.  People though at faster velocities, the Hazen Williams
formula was less accurate.  Joe Hankins once told me that FM’s velocity
limits were created because they didn’t want 1” grids or systems that
couldn’t be upgraded as tenants or owners changed hands or building uses.



The benefit of being old is knowing old stuff, as long as you can still
remember it







*Bob Caputo, CFPS*

*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*

c: 760-908-7753

p:

214-349-5965 ext124

w:

firesprinkler.org

<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>
   <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>



*Expand your business with ITM.*

Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s comprehensive
20-month ITM Inspector Development program
<https://www.firesprinkler.org/itm> that provides a blended learning
environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry leaders.
Now enrolling for Spring 2022!



*From:* Byron Weisz 
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:18 AM
*To:* Michael de Gabriele ; Sprinkler Academy - C
Bilbo 
*Cc:* travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant



I think there are some good practices that need to be followed in the
design of fire sprinkler systems and sometimes “simpler” is better.
Treating the flow of water in fire sprinkler piping to other mechanical
systems are not comparable. The obvious is a fire sprinkler system is
designed for emergency use and other mechanical systems are in continuous
use. Sadly, most Mechanical Engineers who write specifications for fire
sprinkler design don’t understand the difference. I was taught that
velocity in fire sprinkler piping was irrelevant and to my knowledge there
is nothing stated in NFPA 13.



To continue the conversation there is no reference of a “safety margin” in
NFPA 13 either. I was told many years ago by this guy named Bob Caputo that
NFPA 13 allow you to design right to the design curve. Most jurisdictions
in the Republic of California give water flow data from either the Fire
Department or a Water Service Company to use for design of a system. This
information is usually doctored in some way. So why would a designer take
“doctored” water flow data and then include a 10% safety margin? Other than
to meet a local requirement there is no reason. What makes no sense at all
is to take “doctored” water flow information and use that information to
size a fire pump to design an ESFR fire sprinkler system.



Again, the best person to answer the questions of velocity and safety
margin in the design of a fire sprinkler system gracefully would be Bob.





*Byron Weisz*



*Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.*

P.O. Box 1284

Lodi,  CA   95241

Phone (209) 334-9119

Fax  (209) 334-2923

Cell  (209) 993-8832

by...@cen-calfire.com



This and any attached documents are for the use of the intended
recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, or work product that may be exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and any
attachments is strictly prohibited, and you are hereby requested to delete
this message and any attached documents, to destroy any printed copies, and
to telephone o

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Travis.Mack]

I just always like challenge people, like specifying engineers, who like to say 
“it used to be in the book. I know I have seen it.”  I just ask them to please 
find any edition where NFPA 13 had velocity limits on piping systems.  It is a 
long urban myth that “it was in the red book.”  It has never been in NFPA 13 as 
a limitation.  It was a limitation set forth by insurance companies, such as 
FM.  However, NFPA 13 has never put a limitation on velocity.

I really like when they ask, “Well when did it change?”  I give the same 
response.  It was never in the book.  Find me any edition of NFPA 13 that 
limited the velocity.  Of course, no one can, but they give some reason why it 
is important.

Then it gets even more fun when there is a change to the project, like on a 
recent hospital we did.  With the change to storage criteria, we would have had 
to upsize installed and coordinated branch lines simply due to velocity limits 
by the consultant.  Owner was involved in one meeting and I said, we can either 
get a change order for demo, re-confirm coordination and re-pipe the area 
because we have exceeded the consultant’s velocity limits.  The owner asked if 
they were needed.  The FM guy said no.  I said no.  The owner said we are to 
ignore the consultants criteria.

Please rate our customer 
service<https://survey.medallia.com/?emailsignature=3539=Fire%20and%20Fabrication>

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
Senior Engineering Manager
MFP Design
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>
www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>

From: Byron Weisz 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 7:18 AM
To: Michael de Gabriele ; Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 

Cc: Travis Mack ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

I think there are some good practices that need to be followed in the design of 
fire sprinkler systems and sometimes “simpler” is better. Treating the flow of 
water in fire sprinkler piping to other mechanical systems are not comparable. 
The obvious is a fire sprinkler system is designed for emergency use and other 
mechanical systems are in continuous use. Sadly, most Mechanical Engineers who 
write specifications for fire sprinkler design don’t understand the difference. 
I was taught that velocity in fire sprinkler piping was irrelevant and to my 
knowledge there is nothing stated in NFPA 13.

To continue the conversation there is no reference of a “safety margin” in NFPA 
13 either. I was told many years ago by this guy named Bob Caputo that NFPA 13 
allow you to design right to the design curve. Most jurisdictions in the 
Republic of California give water flow data from either the Fire Department or 
a Water Service Company to use for design of a system. This information is 
usually doctored in some way. So why would a designer take “doctored” water 
flow data and then include a 10% safety margin? Other than to meet a local 
requirement there is no reason. What makes no sense at all is to take 
“doctored” water flow information and use that information to size a fire pump 
to design an ESFR fire sprinkler system.

Again, the best person to answer the questions of velocity and safety margin in 
the design of a fire sprinkler system gracefully would be Bob.


Byron Weisz

Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1284
Lodi,  CA   95241
Phone (209) 334-9119
Fax  (209) 334-2923
Cell  (209) 993-8832
by...@cen-calfire.com<mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>

This and any attached documents are for the use of the intended recipient(s) 
only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or work 
product that may be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not 
the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
this communication and any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you are 
hereby requested to delete this message and any attached documents, to destroy 
any printed copies, and to telephone or otherwise contact the sender 
immediately about the error.

From: Michael de Gabriele 
mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 5:46 AM
To: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>>
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

You don't often get email from 
mpdegabri...@gmail.com<mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>. Learn why this is 
important<

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Byron Weisz]

I think there are some good practices that need to be followed in the design of 
fire sprinkler systems and sometimes “simpler” is better. Treating the flow of 
water in fire sprinkler piping to other mechanical systems are not comparable. 
The obvious is a fire sprinkler system is designed for emergency use and other 
mechanical systems are in continuous use. Sadly, most Mechanical Engineers who 
write specifications for fire sprinkler design don’t understand the difference. 
I was taught that velocity in fire sprinkler piping was irrelevant and to my 
knowledge there is nothing stated in NFPA 13.

To continue the conversation there is no reference of a “safety margin” in NFPA 
13 either. I was told many years ago by this guy named Bob Caputo that NFPA 13 
allow you to design right to the design curve. Most jurisdictions in the 
Republic of California give water flow data from either the Fire Department or 
a Water Service Company to use for design of a system. This information is 
usually doctored in some way. So why would a designer take “doctored” water 
flow data and then include a 10% safety margin? Other than to meet a local 
requirement there is no reason. What makes no sense at all is to take 
“doctored” water flow information and use that information to size a fire pump 
to design an ESFR fire sprinkler system.

Again, the best person to answer the questions of velocity and safety margin in 
the design of a fire sprinkler system gracefully would be Bob.


Byron Weisz

Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1284
Lodi,  CA   95241
Phone (209) 334-9119
Fax  (209) 334-2923
Cell  (209) 993-8832
by...@cen-calfire.com

This and any attached documents are for the use of the intended recipient(s) 
only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or work 
product that may be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not 
the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
this communication and any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you are 
hereby requested to delete this message and any attached documents, to destroy 
any printed copies, and to telephone or otherwise contact the sender 
immediately about the error.

From: Michael de Gabriele 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 5:46 AM
To: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

You don't often get email from 
mpdegabri...@gmail.com<mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>. Learn why this is 
important<http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
Hello All,
I hope that this email finds you well.
I practice fire protection in Australia, and recently the Australian standards 
have removed the requirements for maximum pipe work velocity in sprinkler 
systems.
We also design systems to NFPA and FM Global requirements when insurers request 
upgrades, and as of late, the insurer on one particular project queried the 
pipe work velocities. I couldnt find any reference to velocity limitations in 
NFPA 13.
I still try and keep my sprinkler pipe velocities down to a reasonable & 
practical value (6m/sec through valves and max. 10m/sec in pipe work as per the 
older/superseded code).

I am curious though to whether the Hzen Williams Formula produces greater 
errors as the Velocities Increase in the pipe? Has anyone ever seen a 
limitation to the Formula or come across any articles to this effect?

Looking forward to your response / comments / advice

Kind Regards
Michael de Gabriele
Fire Protections Engineer
mpdegabri...@gmail.com<mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:48 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo 
mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>> wrote:
Hi Travis,

I learned many years ago the reason velocity restrictions have persisted.  In 
systems that have running water, the higher velocities wear the inner walls of 
the pipe/tube down over time.  The limits were intended to bolster system 
lifetime.
Mechanical engineers are the largest group responsible for specifying sprinkler 
systems and used the limits that seemed reasonable to them.
Of course, our systems are not flowing or circulating and these rules should 
not apply to dedicated fire protection piping.  We have only recently come away 
from having "closed loop circulating systems" being defined in the NFPA 13 
Standard.  And this is one of the reasons we used to do that.
About the only requirement I have seen in Fire Protection was the old rules 
from FM Global (last 10-15 years) where the underground systems had limits.  I 
believe those have been gone for a while.
However, some MILSPEC and certain States still have some requirements embedded 
in older sections of regulations.
Hope this helps.


It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, 
and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the 
NFPA Regulations Governing C

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Michael de Gabriele]

Hello All,
I hope that this email finds you well.
I practice fire protection in Australia, and recently the Australian
standards have removed the requirements for maximum pipe work velocity in
sprinkler systems.
We also design systems to NFPA and FM Global requirements when insurers
request upgrades, and as of late, the insurer on one particular project
queried the pipe work velocities. I couldnt find any reference to velocity
limitations in NFPA 13.
I still try and keep my sprinkler pipe velocities down to a reasonable &
practical value (6m/sec through valves and max. 10m/sec in pipe work as per
the older/superseded code).

I am curious though to whether the Hzen Williams Formula produces greater
errors as the Velocities Increase in the pipe? Has anyone ever seen a
limitation to the Formula or come across any articles to this effect?

Looking forward to your response / comments / advice

Kind Regards
Michael de Gabriele
Fire Protections Engineer
mpdegabri...@gmail.com

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:48 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo <
prodesigngr...@msn.com> wrote:

> Hi Travis,
>
> I learned many years ago the reason velocity restrictions have persisted.
> In systems that have running water, the higher velocities wear the inner
> walls of the pipe/tube down over time.  The limits were intended to bolster
> system lifetime.
> Mechanical engineers are the largest group responsible for specifying
> sprinkler systems and used the limits that seemed reasonable to them.
> Of course, our systems are not flowing or circulating and these rules
> should not apply to dedicated fire protection piping.  We have only
> recently come away from having "closed loop circulating systems" being
> defined in the NFPA 13 Standard.  And this is one of the reasons we used to
> do that.
> About the only requirement I have seen in Fire Protection was the old
> rules from FM Global (last 10-15 years) where the underground systems had
> limits.  I believe those have been gone for a while.
> However, some MILSPEC and certain States still have some requirements
> embedded in older sections of regulations.
> Hope this helps.
>
>
> It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the
> NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance
> with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore
> not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the
> NFPA, nor any of their technical committees.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Cecil Bilbo
> Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
> Decatur, IL
> 217.607.0325
> www.sprinkleracademy.com
> ce...@sprinkleracademy.com
> ??
> OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!
>
> --
> *From:* travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> *Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2022 5:41 PM
> *Cc:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant
>
>
> This was the “why” that I got:
>
>
>
> We require a 10 psi margin for safety and to account for future
> degradation of water supply.  The 14 fps insures that the piping will be
> larger and is an added layer of margin for future development.
>
>
>
> It wasn’t a fight the contractor wanted to go with since it was something
> he missed in the specs.  They had no explanation as to why 14 fps.
>
>
>
> *Please rate our customer service
> <https://survey.medallia.com/?emailsignature=3539=Fire%20and%20Fabrication>*
>
>
>
> *Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET*
>
> *Senior Engineering Manager*
>
> *MFP Design*
>
> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
>
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Wagoner 
> *Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2022 3:36 PM
> *To:* Travis Mack 
> *Cc:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant
>
>
>
> Travis,
>
> I've run up against that a time or two myself.  It honestly baffles me how
> those who have so limited an understanding of fire sprinkler systems
> mandate what we do.
>
> I've usually responded in one of several ways.
>
> 1st, I ask them to show me where in any applicable code or standard
> they've found a limitation on velocities in above ground piping.  And,
> clearly, as you and others have said - they can't becaus

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo]

Hi Travis,

I learned many years ago the reason velocity restrictions have persisted.  In 
systems that have running water, the higher velocities wear the inner walls of 
the pipe/tube down over time.  The limits were intended to bolster system 
lifetime.
Mechanical engineers are the largest group responsible for specifying sprinkler 
systems and used the limits that seemed reasonable to them.
Of course, our systems are not flowing or circulating and these rules should 
not apply to dedicated fire protection piping.  We have only recently come away 
from having "closed loop circulating systems" being defined in the NFPA 13 
Standard.  And this is one of the reasons we used to do that.
About the only requirement I have seen in Fire Protection was the old rules 
from FM Global (last 10-15 years) where the underground systems had limits.  I 
believe those have been gone for a while.
However, some MILSPEC and certain States still have some requirements embedded 
in older sections of regulations.
Hope this helps.


It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, 
and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the 
NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be 
considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any 
of their technical committees.

Sincerely,


Cecil Bilbo
Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
Decatur, IL
217.607.0325
www.sprinkleracademy.com<http://www.sprinkleracademy.com>
ce...@sprinkleracademy.com<mailto:ce...@sprinkleracademy.com>
??
OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!


From: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 5:41 PM
Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant


This was the “why” that I got:



We require a 10 psi margin for safety and to account for future degradation of 
water supply.  The 14 fps insures that the piping will be larger and is an 
added layer of margin for future development.



It wasn’t a fight the contractor wanted to go with since it was something he 
missed in the specs.  They had no explanation as to why 14 fps.



Please rate our customer 
service<https://survey.medallia.com/?emailsignature=3539=Fire%20and%20Fabrication>



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

Senior Engineering Manager

MFP Design

480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471

travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>

www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>



Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>



From: Ken Wagoner 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Travis Mack 
Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant



Travis,

I've run up against that a time or two myself.  It honestly baffles me how 
those who have so limited an understanding of fire sprinkler systems mandate 
what we do.

I've usually responded in one of several ways.

1st, I ask them to show me where in any applicable code or standard they've 
found a limitation on velocities in above ground piping.  And, clearly, as you 
and others have said - they can't because it isn't there.  As far as NFPA is 
concerned it never was. A contact I had at NFPA a few years back told me of an 
"engineer" who called him and wanted to know when that had been removed from 
-13.  He did some research and found that it was never removed, because it was 
never there in the first place. That didn't go over well with the caller who 
was sure my contact was misleading him.

2nd, I acknowledge that the limitations on velocities in underground pipes on 
public property are established as another poster observe to lessen the 
deterioration caused from perpetually flowing water.  When I mention that pipe 
sizing on public property is their purview, and what is installed on private 
property they have no control over.  Usually my trump card in that argument is 
to ask why backflow preventers are usually at or near the property line.

3rd, and this works almost every time, I ask them to explain "why".  I don't 
hear many responses to that which make any sense as far as fire sprinklers go.

my thoughts only,

Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
500 West Mechanic Street
Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235
Phone: (760) 745-6181
Visit the 
website<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.parsleyconsulting.com%2f=E,1,Y5zKJKPEh1mBEBqSR-VE9cUKl5y-eyP8BpvmE_5j9ZqW2eJbNphYzrCMBZ-2YuX6d-RRkHI4gQ1FV-cvOeCfRC58uZS9NiToZv2mx7909oCqLvCW_n5hDHeK=1>

On 3/14/2022 3:33 PM, 
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tra

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Travis.Mack]

This was the “why” that I got:

We require a 10 psi margin for safety and to account for future degradation of 
water supply.  The 14 fps insures that the piping will be larger and is an 
added layer of margin for future development.

It wasn’t a fight the contractor wanted to go with since it was something he 
missed in the specs.  They had no explanation as to why 14 fps.

Please rate our customer 
service<https://survey.medallia.com/?emailsignature=3539=Fire%20and%20Fabrication>

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
Senior Engineering Manager
MFP Design
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>
www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>

From: Ken Wagoner 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Travis Mack 
Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

Travis,

I've run up against that a time or two myself.  It honestly baffles me how 
those who have so limited an understanding of fire sprinkler systems mandate 
what we do.

I've usually responded in one of several ways.

1st, I ask them to show me where in any applicable code or standard they've 
found a limitation on velocities in above ground piping.  And, clearly, as you 
and others have said - they can't because it isn't there.  As far as NFPA is 
concerned it never was. A contact I had at NFPA a few years back told me of an 
"engineer" who called him and wanted to know when that had been removed from 
-13.  He did some research and found that it was never removed, because it was 
never there in the first place. That didn't go over well with the caller who 
was sure my contact was misleading him.

2nd, I acknowledge that the limitations on velocities in underground pipes on 
public property are established as another poster observe to lessen the 
deterioration caused from perpetually flowing water.  When I mention that pipe 
sizing on public property is their purview, and what is installed on private 
property they have no control over.  Usually my trump card in that argument is 
to ask why backflow preventers are usually at or near the property line.

3rd, and this works almost every time, I ask them to explain "why".  I don't 
hear many responses to that which make any sense as far as fire sprinklers go.

my thoughts only,
Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
500 West Mechanic Street
Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235
Phone: (760) 745-6181
Visit the 
website<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.parsleyconsulting.com%2f=E,1,Y5zKJKPEh1mBEBqSR-VE9cUKl5y-eyP8BpvmE_5j9ZqW2eJbNphYzrCMBZ-2YuX6d-RRkHI4gQ1FV-cvOeCfRC58uZS9NiToZv2mx7909oCqLvCW_n5hDHeK=1>
On 3/14/2022 3:33 PM, 
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
I totally realize where all this comes from.  It just amazes me at times, how 
long incorrect information and lack of understanding of things can remain in an 
industry.  I always challenge anyone to show me in a copy of NFPA 13 anytime 
where it had velocity limits.  I’ve checked back as far as the 30’s and could 
never find it.

People always say, I know it was in there at one time.

Please rate our customer 
service<https://survey.medallia.com/?emailsignature=3539=Fire%20and%20Fabrication>

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
Senior Engineering Manager
MFP Design
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>
www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>

From: Prahl, Craig/GVL <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 1:30 PM
To: Brett Peters <mailto:br...@proudline.ca>; Travis Mack 
<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>
Cc: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Velocity - Rant

What Brett said.

I have had more “discussions” on velocity and pressure loss where the 
challenger was quoting limits that are placed on totally unrelated type 
systems. Try to explain to them that those rules do not apply to fire 
protection systems and they’ll look at you like you’ve got a horn coming out of 
your forehead.  I’ve also had these types of artificial limitations placed by 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Ken Wagoner]

Travis,

I've run up against that a time or two myself.  It honestly baffles me 
how those who have so limited an understanding of fire sprinkler systems 
mandate what we do.


I've usually responded in one of several ways.

1st, I ask them to show me where in any applicable code or standard 
they've found a limitation on velocities in above ground piping.  And, 
clearly, as you and others have said - they can't because it isn't 
there.  As far as NFPA is concerned it never was. A contact I had at 
NFPA a few years back told me of an "engineer" who called him and wanted 
to know when that had been removed from -13.  He did some research and 
found that it was never removed, because it was never there in the first 
place. That didn't go over well with the caller who was sure my contact 
was misleading him.


2nd, I acknowledge that the limitations on velocities in underground 
pipes on public property are established as another poster observe to 
lessen the deterioration caused from perpetually flowing water.  When I 
mention that pipe sizing on public property is their purview, and what 
is installed on private property they have no control over.  Usually my 
trump card in that argument is to ask why backflow preventers are 
usually at or near the property line.


3rd, and this works almost every time, I ask them to explain "why".  I 
don't hear many responses to that which make any sense as far as fire 
sprinklers go.


my thoughts only,
*Ken Wagoner, SET*
*Parsley Consulting
500 West Mechanic Street
Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235*
*Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
*Visit the website 
* 


On 3/14/2022 3:33 PM, travis.m...@mfpdesign.com wrote:


I totally realize where all this comes from.  It just amazes me at 
times, how long incorrect information and lack of understanding of 
things can remain in an industry.  I always challenge anyone to show 
me in a copy of NFPA 13 anytime where it had velocity limits.  I’ve 
checked back as far as the 30’s and could never find it.


People always say, I know it was in there at one time.

_Please rate our customer service 
_


**

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

*Senior Engineering Manager*

*MFP Design*

480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471

travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 

www.mfpdesign.com 

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



*From:* Prahl, Craig/GVL 
*Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2022 1:30 PM
*To:* Brett Peters ; Travis Mack 


*Cc:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Velocity - Rant

What Brett said.

I have had more “discussions” on velocity and pressure loss where the 
challenger was quoting limits that are placed on totally unrelated 
type systems. Try to explain to them that those rules do not apply to 
fire protection systems and they’ll look at you like you’ve got a horn 
coming out of your forehead.  I’ve also had these types of artificial 
limitations placed by owners who have some “FP” person on staff who 
has never performed a flow test or developed a hydraulic calculation 
but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express which had sprinklers.


Craig Prahl |Jacobs| Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com |www.jacobs.com 



1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS

*From:* Brett Peters 
*Sent:* Monday, March 14, 2022 4:13 PM
*To:* travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
*Cc:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Velocity - Rant

It's because they have velocity limits when sizing heating and water 
lines and can't wrap their heads around sprinkler hydraulics.


when you have constant water flow through piping, high velocity wears 
the pipe out faster, somehow they translate that to sprinkler pipe 
failure even though sprinkler pipe rarely even sees any water flow!


Thanks

Brett Peters

General Manager Installation & Design

Proudline Fire Protection Services Ltd.

br...@proudline.ca

780 490 7602 office ext 202

780 490 7605 fax

780 777 0568 cell

780 718 2676 24h

Visit us at www.proudline.ca 



On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:50 PM  wrote:

Does anyone have any idea where these engineers come 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant

[Travis.Mack]

I totally realize where all this comes from.  It just amazes me at times, how 
long incorrect information and lack of understanding of things can remain in an 
industry.  I always challenge anyone to show me in a copy of NFPA 13 anytime 
where it had velocity limits.  I’ve checked back as far as the 30’s and could 
never find it.

People always say, I know it was in there at one time.

Please rate our customer 
service

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
Senior Engineering Manager
MFP Design
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

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

From: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 1:30 PM
To: Brett Peters ; Travis Mack 
Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Velocity - Rant

What Brett said.

I have had more “discussions” on velocity and pressure loss where the 
challenger was quoting limits that are placed on totally unrelated type 
systems. Try to explain to them that those rules do not apply to fire 
protection systems and they’ll look at you like you’ve got a horn coming out of 
your forehead.  I’ve also had these types of artificial limitations placed by 
owners who have some “FP” person on staff who has never performed a flow test 
or developed a hydraulic calculation but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express 
which had sprinklers.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS



From: Brett Peters mailto:br...@proudline.ca>>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 4:13 PM
To: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Cc: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Velocity - Rant

It's because they have velocity limits when sizing heating and water lines and 
can't wrap their heads around sprinkler hydraulics.
when you have constant water flow through piping, high velocity wears the pipe 
out faster, somehow they translate that to sprinkler pipe failure even though 
sprinkler pipe rarely even sees any water flow!

Thanks

Brett Peters
General Manager Installation & Design
Proudline Fire Protection Services Ltd.
br...@proudline.ca
780 490 7602 office ext 202
780 490 7605 fax
780 777 0568 cell
780 718 2676 24h
Visit us at 
www.proudline.ca

[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1OmoSKJ_6j8bUkKaO7Bn03FqLsLL_CGFg=download]
 
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=12vmay3NIMK7kvNSKzKSwQ3QMUu4c0Pjh=download]
  
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1WooQGP1U-Z-tivGaOd9iUIJe1t5nDIjs=download]
  
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1MBUQypGGoakyf2Oz-f89so4CO5gWL-XH=download]
  
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1-auFTtN-brybbHNv2RnkM0NRf831e6rW=download]
  
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=14_f6c1uVNDgMx_0OrApPsa-zCV1WCOMO=download]
  
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1kQhWctmizXAVYEesipCzOmZj6rp3W5J7=download]
  
[https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1cLsq8r4z61yUMJBu7OB2THA3zKwD16X4=download]


On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:50 PM 
mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>> wrote:
Does anyone have any idea where these engineers come up with the velocity 
limits?  We have one that they are requiring a 10 PSI margin (not an issue 
since AHJ requires 20%), but also limiting velocity to FOURTEEN fps.  There has 
never been a limit in NFPA 13.  The velocity that we determine is only based on 
a demand calc.  The water supply doesn’t know to reduce flow so that a 10 psi 
margin is maintained.  If a single sprinkler activates, that 1” arm over is 
going to see far greater than 14 fps.

It really just baffles me how this criteria has become so ingrained in the 
engineering culture.

Please rate our customer 
service

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
Senior Engineering Manager
MFP Design
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us