Re: day of questions - Hangars
Definitely Air Force project. Reviewer claims that since NFPA 409 says to do design and installation according to NFPA 13, he is claiming the 30% increase is mandatory. Any specific standard or code that I can refute this? It was never specified. Just a reviewer comment. Contractor doesn't want to eat material increases due to this comment - as you can imagine. 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 On 1/29/2015 12:19 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: Assuming Air Force definitely no increase. 99% sure no increase in Navy and NFPA 409. In all cases NFPA 13 defers design to other standards. Those standards say nothing about increases. But if specified for increase then its a contractual issue not a code issue. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:12 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: day of questions - Hangars Does the 30% design area increase apply to an aircraft hangar that has a roof slope in excess of 2:12? Had a job that was specified with a given density/area. A new reviewer is requesting a 30% increase to design area for slope. This particular project also has a HiEx foam system as well. -- 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: day of questions - Hangars
Assuming Air Force definitely no increase. 99% sure no increase in Navy and NFPA 409. In all cases NFPA 13 defers design to other standards. Those standards say nothing about increases. But if specified for increase then its a contractual issue not a code issue. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:12 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: day of questions - Hangars Does the 30% design area increase apply to an aircraft hangar that has a roof slope in excess of 2:12? Had a job that was specified with a given density/area. A new reviewer is requesting a 30% increase to design area for slope. This particular project also has a HiEx foam system as well. -- 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: day of questions - Hangars
NFPA 409 is not applicable to Air Force. See first few pages of Etl 02-15. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:23 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: day of questions - Hangars Definitely Air Force project. Reviewer claims that since NFPA 409 says to do design and installation according to NFPA 13, he is claiming the 30% increase is mandatory. Any specific standard or code that I can refute this? It was never specified. Just a reviewer comment. Contractor doesn't want to eat material increases due to this comment - as you can imagine. 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 On 1/29/2015 12:19 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: Assuming Air Force definitely no increase. 99% sure no increase in Navy and NFPA 409. In all cases NFPA 13 defers design to other standards. Those standards say nothing about increases. But if specified for increase then its a contractual issue not a code issue. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:12 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: day of questions - Hangars Does the 30% design area increase apply to an aircraft hangar that has a roof slope in excess of 2:12? Had a job that was specified with a given density/area. A new reviewer is requesting a 30% increase to design area for slope. This particular project also has a HiEx foam system as well. -- 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: day of questions - Hangars
Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars NFPA 409 is not applicable to Air Force. See first few pages of Etl 02-15. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:23 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: day of questions - Hangars Definitely Air Force project. Reviewer claims that since NFPA 409 says to do design and installation according to NFPA 13, he is claiming the 30% increase is mandatory. Any specific standard or code that I can refute this? It was never specified. Just a reviewer comment. Contractor doesn't want to eat material increases due to this comment - as you can imagine. 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 On 1/29/2015 12:19 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: Assuming Air Force definitely no increase. 99% sure no increase in Navy and NFPA 409. In all cases NFPA 13 defers design to other standards. Those standards say nothing about increases. But if specified for increase then its a contractual issue not a code issue. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:12 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: day of questions - Hangars Does the 30% design area increase apply to an aircraft hangar that has a roof slope in excess of 2:12? Had a job that was specified with a given density/area. A new reviewer is requesting a 30% increase to design area for slope. This particular project also has a HiEx foam system as well. -- 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ 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
RE: day of questions - Hangars
Travis, I don't have a 409 in front of me, but I am looking at the NFPA site and the Second Draft Report that is available. In section 6.2.4.5.1 it cites The design area of the closed head water sprinkler system shall not be required to be increased for ceiling slope. If you have a current 409, check out that section and see if reads the same. Marc Walter Sprinkler Design Services (503) 956-4019 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: day of questions - Hangars From the ETL: Sprinkler protection must be designed for the occupancy hazard present in accordance with this ETL, UFC 3-600-01, NFPA 33, and the following NFPA standards (if there is a conflict between this ETL and any provisions of an NFPA standard or code, this ETL will take precedence): It gives a specific criteria of 0.2/5000 in this case. Would that be able to take precedence over any modifications that NFPA 13 may require? 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 On 1/29/2015 12:49 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. wrote: Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars NFPA 409 is not applicable to Air Force. See first few pages of Etl 02-15. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:23 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: day of questions - Hangars Definitely Air Force project. Reviewer claims that since NFPA 409 says to do design and installation according to NFPA 13, he is claiming the 30% increase is mandatory. Any specific standard or code that I can refute this? It was never specified. Just a reviewer comment. Contractor doesn't want to eat material increases due to this comment - as you can imagine. 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 On 1/29/2015 12:19 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: Assuming Air Force definitely no increase. 99% sure no increase in Navy and NFPA 409. In all cases NFPA 13 defers design to other standards. Those standards say nothing about increases. But if specified for increase then its a contractual issue not a code issue. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:12 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: day of questions - Hangars Does the 30% design area increase apply to an aircraft hangar that has a roof slope in excess of 2:12? Had a job that was specified with a given density/area. A new reviewer is requesting a 30% increase to design area for slope. This particular project also has a HiEx foam system as well. -- 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink l er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink l er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org
RE: day of questions - Hangars
I specify the area increase for the excessive slope. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars This must be one of those design features of a hangar where the fire, the building and the sprinkler system realize it isn't a NFPA 13 design and the sprinklers operate differently (quicker and more effectively) with a slope exceeding 2 in 12 then they do for a sprinkler system installed in a different building with a slope exceeding 2 in 12, right? We always require the thirty percent increase because why would it be any different unless the original specified design area included the increase already? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001x12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: day of questions - Hangars
That is exactly what I am trying to determine. Based on the 2nd draft report that indicates a new section of 6.2.4.5.1, it seems that is exactly the case. However, my contractor would like to be certain before we go and make changes or not. Now, there are definite differences in the design areas and densities required in 409 and the ETL. So, this is just left in the middle. Is the specific criteria given in the ETL just what it says and no application for slope is needed? Do we use the 2nd draft proposal as an intent to what the 409 committee intended? Does that section even apply? These are where the questions arise. I have done quite a few hangars where the criteria has been outlined as was on this project. A slope modifier was not applied as the criteria was specifically given. So, I am just trying to get to the justification if we have to increase the slope or not. So far, it seems to be 50/50 in responses. It turns out we just got a reply (while I was typing this novel and taking phone calls) from this reviewer when approached with the 6.2.4.5.1 that he agrees with that statement and no increase is needed for this project. 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 On 1/29/2015 1:15 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. wrote: Scott, I think if there is an allowance to not increase the area due to slope, it is specifically because it has already been figured into the design in some way. That's ultimately what we're trying to confirm. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars This must be one of those design features of a hangar where the fire, the building and the sprinkler system realize it isn't a NFPA 13 design and the sprinklers operate differently (quicker and more effectively) with a slope exceeding 2 in 12 then they do for a sprinkler system installed in a different building with a slope exceeding 2 in 12, right? We always require the thirty percent increase because why would it be any different unless the original specified design area included the increase already? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001x12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: day of questions - Hangars
Scott, I think if there is an allowance to not increase the area due to slope, it is specifically because it has already been figured into the design in some way. That's ultimately what we're trying to confirm. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars This must be one of those design features of a hangar where the fire, the building and the sprinkler system realize it isn't a NFPA 13 design and the sprinklers operate differently (quicker and more effectively) with a slope exceeding 2 in 12 then they do for a sprinkler system installed in a different building with a slope exceeding 2 in 12, right? We always require the thirty percent increase because why would it be any different unless the original specified design area included the increase already? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001x12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ 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
RE: day of questions - Hangars
NFPA 13 - 11.2.3.2.1.1 The water supply requirement for sprinklers only shall be calculated from the density/area curves of Figure 11.2.3.1.1 or from Chapter 22 where density/area criteria are specified for special occupancy hazards. 11.2.3.2.4 Sloped Ceilings. The system area of operation shall be increased by 30 percent without revising the density when the following types of sprinklers are used on sloped ceilings with a pitch exceeding 1 in 6 (a rise of 2 units in a run of 12 units, a roof slope of 16.7 percent) in nonstorage applications: (1) Spray sprinklers, including extended coverage sprinklers listed in accordance with 8.4.3(4), and quick-response sprinklers (2) CMSA sprinklers I think you have it backwards my friend. You need a statement TO increase the area. The above section tell you when to increase. You didn't select a design from 11.2.3.1.1. Think of it like all the other special applications, ESFR, residential, largest room, corridors,you can't get to 11.2.3.2.4 without going through 11.2.3.2.1.1. It's also not unlike 13R where you use the hanging and calculation methods from 13 but not the design approaches. As far as using NFPA 409 ETL 02-15 says This ETL is the Air Force alternative to NFPA Standard 409, and will be used except as noted. Attachment 1 provides criteria and technical guidance. The only exceptions I know of are for certain types of planes (think Cessna's). Navy is a little different in they say use 409 except as modified in UFC 4-211-10N. Army - let's move on. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars NFPA 409 is not applicable to Air Force. See first few pages of Etl 02-15. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:23 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: day of questions - Hangars Definitely Air Force project. Reviewer claims that since NFPA 409 says to do design and installation according to NFPA 13, he is claiming the 30% increase is mandatory. Any specific standard or code that I can refute this? It was never specified. Just a reviewer comment. Contractor doesn't want to eat material increases due to this comment - as you can imagine. 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 On 1/29/2015 12:19 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: Assuming Air Force definitely no increase. 99% sure no increase in Navy and NFPA 409. In all cases NFPA 13 defers design to other standards. Those standards say nothing about increases. But if specified for increase then its a contractual issue not a code issue. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell 952-656-3652 ccah...@burnsmcd.com Original message From: Travis Mack Date:01/29/2015 11:12 AM (GMT-08:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: day of questions - Hangars Does the 30% design area increase apply to an aircraft hangar that has a roof slope in excess of 2:12? Had a job that was specified with a given density/area. A new reviewer is requesting a 30% increase to design area for slope. This particular project also has a HiEx foam system as well. -- 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
RE: day of questions - Hangars
Bill - as Chris just pointed out, The Air Force ETL (which this thread is discussing) references NFPA 13, but not for design densities. Because the ETL defines the design densities, you cannot get to the sloped ceiling requirements of NFPA 13 because they fall under the design densities section of 13, which we are not referencing. Apparently - absent the specific requirement by the ETL to increase design areas - the Air Force considers sloped ceiling to be a non-issue in a high-ex foam / overhead sprinkler system design (or that it is adequately addressed with the 5,000 sq.ft. design area). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars I specify the area increase for the excessive slope. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars This must be one of those design features of a hangar where the fire, the building and the sprinkler system realize it isn't a NFPA 13 design and the sprinklers operate differently (quicker and more effectively) with a slope exceeding 2 in 12 then they do for a sprinkler system installed in a different building with a slope exceeding 2 in 12, right? We always require the thirty percent increase because why would it be any different unless the original specified design area included the increase already? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001x12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.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 __ 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
RE: day of questions - Hangars
Yes, I'm also referencing the ETL. Have you had your opinion confirmed by MED FPE? I've never considered the ceiling slope provisions to be a density issue. So maybe I've been an overly conservative designer. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Bill - as Chris just pointed out, The Air Force ETL (which this thread is discussing) references NFPA 13, but not for design densities. Because the ETL defines the design densities, you cannot get to the sloped ceiling requirements of NFPA 13 because they fall under the design densities section of 13, which we are not referencing. Apparently - absent the specific requirement by the ETL to increase design areas - the Air Force considers sloped ceiling to be a non-issue in a high-ex foam / overhead sprinkler system design (or that it is adequately addressed with the 5,000 sq.ft. design area). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars I specify the area increase for the excessive slope. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars This must be one of those design features of a hangar where the fire, the building and the sprinkler system realize it isn't a NFPA 13 design and the sprinklers operate differently (quicker and more effectively) with a slope exceeding 2 in 12 then they do for a sprinkler system installed in a different building with a slope exceeding 2 in 12, right? We always require the thirty percent increase because why would it be any different unless the original specified design area included the increase already? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001x12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.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 __ 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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: day of questions - Hangars
I can't tell you how or why I know this but this is a 95% assured position of none other than Fred Walker (Chief Air Force FPE): 4-4.5 Overhead Sprinkler System for Aircraft Storage and Servicing Areas. Hydraulically design a system to provide 0.2 gpm/sq. ft. (8.0 L/min/sq. m) over the hydraulically most demanding 5,000 sq. ft. (465 sq. m) used for fueled aircraft. Do not increase design area for sloped ceilings or preaction systems. I say 95% because he just retired end of December and anything could change between now and 100%. I've done a couple sloped hangars in the last few year and they were not increased, COE, TCX and Base reviewed. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 5:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Yes, I'm also referencing the ETL. Have you had your opinion confirmed by MED FPE? I've never considered the ceiling slope provisions to be a density issue. So maybe I've been an overly conservative designer. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Bill - as Chris just pointed out, The Air Force ETL (which this thread is discussing) references NFPA 13, but not for design densities. Because the ETL defines the design densities, you cannot get to the sloped ceiling requirements of NFPA 13 because they fall under the design densities section of 13, which we are not referencing. Apparently - absent the specific requirement by the ETL to increase design areas - the Air Force considers sloped ceiling to be a non-issue in a high-ex foam / overhead sprinkler system design (or that it is adequately addressed with the 5,000 sq.ft. design area). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars I specify the area increase for the excessive slope. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars This must be one of those design features of a hangar where the fire, the building and the sprinkler system realize it isn't a NFPA 13 design and the sprinklers operate differently (quicker and more effectively) with a slope exceeding 2 in 12 then they do for a sprinkler system installed in a different building with a slope exceeding 2 in 12, right? We always require the thirty percent increase because why would it be any different unless the original specified design area included the increase already? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001x12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.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 __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
Re: day of questions - Hangars
I agree with Mark and Chris so I guess that means I’m calling you overly conservative. I’ve been called worse - lol. I mainly piped in to comment that the Research Foundation just started a project to address developing criteria for sloped ceilings in storage. If I were king for a day (or the soup nazi), I’d decree give me some in-racks and be done with it. It’ll be interesting to see what comes out at the end. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/ On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:41 PM, Bill Brooks bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com wrote: Yes, I'm also referencing the ETL. Have you had your opinion confirmed by MED FPE? I've never considered the ceiling slope provisions to be a density issue. So maybe I've been an overly conservative designer. Bill Brooks ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
