[Sprinklerforum] Re: Room, compartment, residential sprinkler design areas

[Taylor Schumacher]

Zedd may disagree since it's not referenced any more, but I use the old 
definition for small room (pre 2016). Later it seemed to be split in to small 
room and compartment.

11.3.1 went through some changes in 2016 to add the "room or compartment". In 
2013 it referenced small room (8.6.2.1.2)

This was new in 2002 (11.2.3.5.2). Read the substantiation.

Golinveaux had a white paper in the early aughts that explained this in detail, 
I don't have it handy, but I bet someone could chime in with it. (Chuck)


Taylor Schumacher

From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 2:33 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Room, compartment, residential sprinkler design areas


Caution: This email originated from outside your organization. Please take care 
when clicking links or opening attachments.


Okay Power Rangers, let's talk "intent" of the standard.   NFPA 13, 2022 
edition, specifically boring into 19.3.1.3 (3) regarding "rooms or 
compartments" that are ≤800 sq. ft. in area.   That subsection empowers the 
designer to use the average coverage per sprinkler in the subject design area 
to establish minimum end sprinkler flow rate.   So if I have a "room or 
compartment" that's 756 sq. ft., the average is 189 sq. ft. or 18.8 gpm 
starting flow rate but I have to verify that the flow rate is at least equal to 
or greater than the listed flow rate, which is going to be at .05 density for a 
residential sprinkler.So if I wanted the flexibility of installing a 
sprinkler up to 10' from a wall, the minimum flow rate for most residential 
pendents will be 20 gpm, which means I have to raise the end sprinkler flow 
rate in my hydraulic model.   But otherwise, I can bounce back and forth 
between the average and the listing so long as I satisfy both 19.3.1.3 (1) and 
19.3.1.3 (3).

But what's the "compartment in question here and what's a room?   And how does 
a room differ from a compartment and if it's different why isn't it defined and 
if it's not different, why is the term "room" even used in this context?  (Mr. 
Fetter, you sure do ask a lot of stupid questions.)   Let's say I have an 
APARTMENT that's composed of 5 sprinklered "rooms" - combined 
entry/kitchen/living/dining; bedroom; bathroom; walk-in closet; mechanical 
closet - all of them divided by non-rated partitions within a one-hour capsule 
that's required around every dwelling unit.   And the gross area within this 
apartment is 756 sq. ft.  Is that dwelling unit the compartment in question or 
is it the bedroom?  Am I limited to four sprinklers in a single "room" in order 
to use 19.3.1.3 (3) or is it four sprinklers withing the rated 
apartment/compartment?  In a perfect world, when I'm protecting small 
dwelling units in a multi-family building, I would like to average the four 
most demanding sprinklers in the most demanding dwelling unit (apartment), 
raise the flow rate to satisfy 10' max spacing off walls and obstructions, and 
buy the installer ultimate flexibility to avoid fan motors and detector 
clusters and whatever else they stumble across that's not on the approved 
building plans.But we have a SoCal AHJ that sees it differently, and with 
mad respect for them and the collective brainpower at that particular bureau, I 
think this is worthy of a shout-out

TC members - what's the significance of room vs. compartment?   Is there a 
difference and if not, please either define or remove the word room from the 
standard.

Your pal,
Steve


[cid:image002.jpg@01DAAC61.F6829890]
Steve Leyton, President
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
www.protectiondesign.com
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: XL pipe datasheet

[Ben Young]

Forgot about that one, thanks. I was hoping to find an older one with the
piping shown on the front.

Benjamin Young


On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:33 AM Mike Morey  wrote:

> www.meyerfire.com/uploads/1/6/0/7/16072416/stp1301_xl-blt-sub-sht_.pdf
>
>
>
> *Mike Morey*
>
> *CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677*
>
> *Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group
> * Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company*
>
> 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
>
> *direct *260.487.7824* /  cell *260.417.0625* /  fax *260.487.7991
> * email *mmo...@shambaugh.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Ben Young 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2024 10:28 AM
> *To:* 321 via Sprinklerforum 
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] XL pipe datasheet
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a PDF copy of an XL pipe datasheet that they could send
> me? Its like it was scrubbed from the internet, nothing comes up at all.
> Thanks, Benjamin Young ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
> ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
> ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>
> *This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender *
>
> You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>
> Does anyone have a PDF copy of an XL pipe datasheet that they could send
> me? Its like it was scrubbed from the internet, nothing comes up at all.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Benjamin Young
> This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If
> you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
> sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
> recipient.
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: XL pipe datasheet

[Mike Morey]

www.meyerfire.com/uploads/1/6/0/7/16072416/stp1301_xl-blt-sub-sht_.pdf

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager • Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991
email mmo...@shambaugh.com
[cid:image001.png@01DAAC33.63968790]

From: Ben Young 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 10:28 AM
To: 321 via Sprinklerforum 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] XL pipe datasheet

Does anyone have a PDF copy of an XL pipe datasheet that they could send me? 
Its like it was scrubbed from the internet, nothing comes up at all. Thanks, 
Benjamin Young ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ 
‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Does anyone have a PDF copy of an XL pipe datasheet that they could send me? 
Its like it was scrubbed from the internet, nothing comes up at all.

Thanks,


Benjamin Young

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this message in 
error, please  immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, 
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly or 
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message 
if you are not the intended recipient.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Interstitial Heads

[Brian Harris]

Fantastic. That's what I ordered and wanted to double check.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Travis Mack 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 8:39 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Interstitial Heads

It's been in the standards since the 2002 edition. Concealed combustible spaces 
with slope not exceeding 2:12 and <36" clear (paraphrasing) require specially 
listed sprinklers.

So yes, they have been required in those spaces for more than 20 years.


Travis Mack, SET

M.E.P.CAD |

181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074

www.mepcad.com<http://www.mepcad.com/> | m: 480.547.9348



AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD



Book appointment time in my calendar

https://calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad


From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 5:36:38 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Interstitial Heads


Is there a benefit, and or requirement, to use Interstitial heads instead of a 
plane jane 5.6k upright in those spaces?



Thank you,



Brian Harris, CET

BVS Systems Inc.

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

Phone: 704.896.9989

Fax: 704.896.1935



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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Interstitial Heads

[Brandon Telford]

Since NFPA 13 (2002 edition) was published the sprinkler selected for
protection of concealed combustible spaces less than 36” shall be listed
for such use. An upright is not listed for that application.

Thank you.

Brandon Telford

Sent from my iPhone.


On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 8:37 AM Brian Harris 
wrote:

> Is there a benefit, and or requirement, to use Interstitial heads instead
> of a plane jane 5.6k upright in those spaces?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Interstitial Heads

[matthew.willis1]

Why yes, there is.

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, C.E.T.
Ferguson Fire Design, LLC
D: (602) 337-0721<(602)%20337-0721> C: (307) 236-8249<(307)%20236-8249>
matthew.will...@ferguson.com

From: Brian Harris 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 6:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Interstitial Heads

Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Is there a benefit, and or requirement, to use Interstitial heads instead of a 
plane jane 5.6k upright in those spaces?

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Interstitial Heads

[Travis Mack]

It’s been in the standards since the 2002 edition. Concealed combustible spaces 
with slope not exceeding 2:12 and <36" clear (paraphrasing) require specially 
listed sprinklers.

So yes, they have been required in those spaces for more than 20 years.


Travis Mack, SET

M.E.P.CAD |

181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074

www.mepcad.com | m: 480.547.9348



AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD



Book appointment time in my calendar

https://calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad


From: Brian Harris 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 5:36:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Interstitial Heads


Is there a benefit, and or requirement, to use Interstitial heads instead of a 
plane jane 5.6k upright in those spaces?



Thank you,



Brian Harris, CET

BVS Systems Inc.

bvssystemsinc.com

Phone: 704.896.9989

Fax: 704.896.1935



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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Obstruction below sidewall sprinkler

[Worley, Tom]

Depends on which version you are using.  '16 and '19 only refers to storage 
needing to be 18" or more, not shelving specifically.

11.3.7.1.2  NFPA 13 - Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems (2022)

Shelving, and any storage thereon, directly below the sprinklers shall not 
extend above a plane located 18 in. (450 mm) below the ceiling sprinkler 
deflectors.


Thomas R. Worley
  Estimator/Design Manager
  Fire Foe Corp.
  999 Trumbull Ave.
  Girard, OH 44420
  P: 330-759-9834 x112
  F: 330-759-8949
  E: t...@firefoe.com
[cid:image001.png@01DAA6D5.BE466420]

From: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 2:11 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Obstruction below sidewall sprinkler

I am working on a system with extended coverage sidewall sprinklers, allegedly 
protecting an LH occupancy. The space is a high ceiling area where the 
elevation distance between the high and low ceilings is 22". The low ceiling is 
protected by pendants.

4" below the center line of the sidewall sprinklers is a shelf that stick out 
6" (4-1/4" from deflector to the edge). It would seem to me that this is an 
obstruction but it is not addressed in 13. Any thoughts?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe NFPA14 2019

[Steve Leyton]

Sorry for the delay in responding; I deleted this email.

I would have to see the floor plan to form an opinion, and based on what you've 
got, the issue has taken a hard left turn.   The standard doesn't require a 
hose connection on the apparatus access level, which I assume is the subject 
floor here, but many fire departments do as a matter of local policy and 
practice.But you have to have the one to satisfy the exit corridor 
provision, so I'd say that if the FD requires both connections, you have a 
horizontal standpipe but if you can omit the one at the stair, then you would 
perform a "conventional" calc' regarding the added flow of the second 
standpipe.BUT... this is all best answered in collaboration with the 
serving FD.


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Protection Design and Consulting
Steve Leyton, President
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: Chris Wilson 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 6:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe NFPA14 2019

Steve,
Yes there is a hose connection at the first floor landing of the remote stand 
pipe. Yes there is access to occupied first floor space via the exit passage 
and the remote stairway.
Thanks

Christopher S. Wilson SET
Project Design Manager
Treasure Valley Fire Protection
2731 S. Saturn Way
Boise, ID 83709
Phone:  208-362-1888
Fax: 208-362-2207

please note all TVFP email
addresses have changed
new email below

chr...@tvfpinc.com<mailto:chr...@tvfp.us>

From: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:29 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe NFPA14 2019

Do you have a hose connection on the 1st floor landing of the remote standpipe 
stairwell in addition to the one at the exit passageway door?   And is there 
access to occupiable areas on the first floor from the passageway or stairwell?

Obviously, two or more hose connections supplied by a feed main on a single 
floor is a horizontal standpipe by definition, but it would seem to me that in 
this type of egress system that would be redundant or not of value depending on 
where a firefighter would be going with the water after connection to one or 
the other hose connection.

The foregoing does not represent any opinion or interpretation of the standard 
on behalf of NFPA or the NFPA 14 Technical Committee.

[cid:image001.jpg@01DAA6B9.DACA9100]
Steve Leyton, President
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: Chris Wilson [mailto:chr...@tvfpinc.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:42 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Standpipe NFPA14 2019


To all,
I have a 4 story building with 2 exit stairways I am installing a class I 
manual wet standpipe combination sprinkler system. The remote stair is on the 
interior of the building and has a rated exit passageway  on the first floor 
that is 73' long. I am placing all hose valves on the main floor landings and 
one a the exit door of the exit passage way.

I am planning on calculating 500 gpm from the remote stand pipe and 250 for the 
2nd standpipe. The exit passage way hose connection will be fed by a  2/12 
lateral pipe fed from the  4" horizontal supply to the remote standpipe as it 
pass by the exit passageway.

Do I need to include an additional 250 gpm in my calcs at the hose valve at the 
exit passageway?

Thanks
Christopher S. Wilson SET
Project Design Manager
Treasure Valley Fire Protection
2731 S. Saturn Way
Boise, ID 83709
Phone:  208-362-1888
Fax: 208-362-2207

please note all TVFP email
addresses have changed
new email below

chr...@tvfpinc.com<mailto:chr...@tvfp.us>


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Rick Matsuda]

Maybe they can install solid vertical bulkheads along the length of the tables 
spaced at 10 to 12-feet between the bulkheads. 
These would slow the progression of any fire along the length of the tables and 
force the heat out from under the tables to activate the overhead sprinklers 
quicker. 
Rick Matsuda 

> On May 13, 2024, at 6:40 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> 
> All:
> 
> I was just approved by NFPA Standards Council to represent AFSA on the 420.   
> I do not yet have a copy of the first draft (it’s not available on the 420 
> web page or through free access), but I’ve requested and will look over the 
> fire protection systems design criteria, which I believe consists of nothing 
> tangible at this moment.  
>  
> Since my firm is located in SoCal, we’ve done several grows and each one has 
> been different.   We’ve designed for an open warehouse with fixed lighting 
> mounts that simply go up and down.  We’ve had to contend with a fixture 
> that’s about 4’ wide and can be moved up/down/left/right.   We’ve done 
> two-tier grows and three-tier grows and we’ve also dealt with the pre-fab 
> grow rooms.   Within those grow rooms we’ve seen fixed tables and the sliding 
> ones alluded to in this thread.   To say it’s the Wild West out here is an 
> understatement. 
>  
> Especially in CA, many fire officials have simply hit the HPS button and 
> called it a 24’ (three tiers of mature plants) of Class 3 or 4 on racks in 
> the open rooms, but I have issues with that since mature plants are 85% 
> water.   The growing medium that is fast becoming industry standard is Class 
> A material (rock wool), it’s kept wet, and doesn’t require a container, so 
> the commodity ISN’T that hazardous.   What complicates things is the presence 
> of the solid shelving, and that gets even more complicated by the sliding 
> fixtures that can be nested up to four across, which is a 16’ wide solid 
> obstruction in some grow rooms, and sometimes there are two or three of those 
> shelving levels.  
>  
> I don’t have any specific answers right now but I am hopeful that we can 
> point the code development conversation down a reality-based path, that being 
> the fact that this commodity isn’t all that hazardous (well, if the munchies 
> aren’t considered a hazard), and the shelving (which is plastic or polymer 
> composite) makes up a very small percentage of the overall volume of the 
> storage space.   Yes, there are obstructions to sprinkler discharge, but we 
> have that in other storage arrays as well, so absent any clearer 
> prescription, it’s hard to argue with the shielded fire load approach and use 
> EH2.  But if it’s only a single tier, then I’m probably back in the OH2 camp, 
> although as I said before, it almost seems like there are no two growing 
> facilities that are alike and the system designer is going to have to flex to 
> what the AHJ is requiring and what the specific conditions of that particular 
> facility would dictate.
>  
>  
> The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 420 
> Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the 
> standard.
>  
> Protection Design and Consulting
> Steve Leyton, President
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  www.protectiondesign.com 
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
> Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Fpdcdesign  
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 8:52 AM
> To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
> 
> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing
>  
> The array of tables are about 1000 sqft each
>  
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> 860-554-7054  (fax)
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
> 
> 
> 
> On May 13, 2024 at 10:42 AM,  wrote:
> 
> I’m in the 2019 edition, but sections 9.5.5.3.1.5 and 9.5.5.3.2 may help 
> provide guidance.  They do not up the hazard level due to an obstruction in 
> place, I like the idea of taking into effect a shielded fire, especially with 
> the size of some of these grow ops these days, but there are certain 
> provisions that would suggest otherwise….
>  
> Spencer Tomlinson, PE
> Owner, Fire Protection Engineer
>  
> 
>Cell: 620-955-7293
>  
> From: Fpdcdesign  
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 9:32 AM
> To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
> 
> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing
>  
> Travis, The definition of EH2 and section 19.3.3.1.5 both deal with 
> protection where there are unprotected spaces adjacent or within. The big 
> difference is the word “extensive

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Steve Leyton]

All:

I was just approved by NFPA Standards Council to represent AFSA on the 420.   I 
do not yet have a copy of the first draft (it’s not available on the 420 web 
page or through free access), but I’ve requested and will look over the fire 
protection systems design criteria, which I believe consists of nothing 
tangible at this moment.

Since my firm is located in SoCal, we’ve done several grows and each one has 
been different.   We’ve designed for an open warehouse with fixed lighting 
mounts that simply go up and down.  We’ve had to contend with a fixture that’s 
about 4’ wide and can be moved up/down/left/right.   We’ve done two-tier grows 
and three-tier grows and we’ve also dealt with the pre-fab grow rooms.   Within 
those grow rooms we’ve seen fixed tables and the sliding ones alluded to in 
this thread.   To say it’s the Wild West out here is an understatement.

Especially in CA, many fire officials have simply hit the HPS button and called 
it a 24’ (three tiers of mature plants) of Class 3 or 4 on racks in the open 
rooms, but I have issues with that since mature plants are 85% water.   The 
growing medium that is fast becoming industry standard is Class A material 
(rock wool), it’s kept wet, and doesn’t require a container, so the commodity 
ISN’T that hazardous.   What complicates things is the presence of the solid 
shelving, and that gets even more complicated by the sliding fixtures that can 
be nested up to four across, which is a 16’ wide solid obstruction in some grow 
rooms, and sometimes there are two or three of those shelving levels.

I don’t have any specific answers right now but I am hopeful that we can point 
the code development conversation down a reality-based path, that being the 
fact that this commodity isn’t all that hazardous (well, if the munchies aren’t 
considered a hazard), and the shelving (which is plastic or polymer composite) 
makes up a very small percentage of the overall volume of the storage space.   
Yes, there are obstructions to sprinkler discharge, but we have that in other 
storage arrays as well, so absent any clearer prescription, it’s hard to argue 
with the shielded fire load approach and use EH2.  But if it’s only a single 
tier, then I’m probably back in the OH2 camp, although as I said before, it 
almost seems like there are no two growing facilities that are alike and the 
system designer is going to have to flex to what the AHJ is requiring and what 
the specific conditions of that particular facility would dictate.


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 420 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Protection Design and Consulting
Steve Leyton, President
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: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 8:52 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

The array of tables are about 1000 sqft each

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)



On May 13, 2024 at 10:42 AM, mailto:spen...@tomlinsonfire.com>> wrote:
I’m in the 2019 edition, but sections 9.5.5.3.1.5 and 9.5.5.3.2 may help 
provide guidance.  They do not up the hazard level due to an obstruction in 
place, I like the idea of taking into effect a shielded fire, especially with 
the size of some of these grow ops these days, but there are certain provisions 
that would suggest otherwise….

Spencer Tomlinson, PE
Owner, Fire Protection Engineer

[red logo]
   Cell: 620-955-7293

From: Fpdcdesign mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 9:32 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

Travis, The definition of EH2 and section 19.3.3.1.5 both deal with protection 
where there are unprotected spaces adjacent or within. The big difference is 
the word “extensive” in the EH2 definition. From what I have seen below grow 
tables it is a very wet environment with most of the combustibles being water 
and non-water filled PVC pipe. I’m not sure that would rise to extensive. The 
other argument if below the tables can be considered  a “concealed space”. 
Since there is no NFPA definition, we need to go to a dictionary definition. My 
dictionary say the definition of conceal is “to hide from view”. Nothing that 
talks about physical separation. I think this would meet that criteria.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)




On May 13, 2024 at 10:07 AM, mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>> wrote:

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Fpdcdesign]

  
  

  The array of tables are about 1000 sqft each
  
  
  
Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
  
860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 13, 2024 at 10:42 AM,   (mailto:spen...@tomlinsonfire.com)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> I’m in the 2019 edition, but sections 9.5.5.3.1.5 and 9.5.5.3.2 may help 
> provide guidance.They do not up the hazard level due to an obstruction in 
> place, I like the idea of taking into effect a shielded fire, especially with 
> the size of some of these grow ops these days, but there are certain 
> provisions that would suggest otherwise….
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
>  Spencer Tomlinson, PE
>
>   
>
>  Owner, Fire Protection Engineer
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>
>
>   
>
>   Cell: 620-955-7293
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:  Fpdcdesign  
>   Sent:  Monday, May 13, 2024 9:32 AM
>   To:  Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers  
> 
>   Subject:  [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> Travis, The definition of EH2 and section 19.3.3.1.5 both deal with 
> protection where there are unprotected spaces adjacent or within. The big 
> difference is the word “extensive” in the EH2 definition. From what I have 
> seen below grow tables it is a very wet environment with most of the 
> combustibles being water and non-water filled PVC pipe. I’m not sure that 
> would rise to extensive. The other argument if below the tables can be 
> considereda “concealed space”. Since there is no NFPA definition, we need 
> to go to a dictionary definition. My dictionary say the definition of conceal 
> is “to hide from view”. Nothing that talks about physical separation. I think 
> this would meet that criteria.  
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
>   
>   
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Stonington, CT
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>   
>   
>
>
>   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > On May 13, 2024 at 10:07 AM,  mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com)>  
> > wrote:
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > The 3000 sq ft is specifically for unprotected concealed combustible 
> > spaces. So I don’t see how that could be used as you don’t have that from 
> > what you describe.   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Travis Mack, SET
> >
> >   
> >
> > M.E.P.CAD   |   
> >
> >   
> >
> > 181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074
> >
> >   
> >
> >  www.mepcad.com 
> > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mepcad.com_=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=SMKi3MpB_L04QTNOI8wsXTbQAi8Ov0kr5kJ9QWv4K58=Rt2Ku0kdmBZShB-fHbPlOHh8rfl-aQkPP6VbfAr-e7kT2fRmXYAjbMGp_kV4Nqy3=UpVuXPq25y_S_GAXByMhUQqOZrb0zMeyhfjGV8qVydo=)
> >|   m:   480.547.9348
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > AutoSPRINK|AutoSPRINK FAB|AutoSPRINK RVT|AlarmCAD
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > Book appointment time in my calendar
> >
> >   
> >
> >   https://calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad 
> > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__calendly.com_t-5Fmack-5Fmepcad=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=SMKi3MpB_L04QTNOI8wsXTbQAi8Ov0kr5kJ9QWv4K58=Rt2Ku0kdmBZShB-fHbPlOHh8rfl-aQkPP6VbfAr-e7kT2fRmXYAjbMGp_kV4Nqy3=Mqd76qng9bxij52cNbe4j_54BKlqyfyCL638vCVKos8=)
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > From:   Fpdcdesign  mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com)>
> >   Sent:  Monday, May 13, 2024 7:05:28 AM
> >   To:  Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers  
> >  > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>
> >   Subject:  [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
&

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Kerry Madigan]

Denver has been accepting OH2 for grow facilities for a long time. It 
doesn't matter if the tables are portable or not.


Kerry L

Kerry L. Madigan, PE

Principal, Sr. Fire Protection Engineer

**

*/VERITAS/*///Fire Engineering, Inc.///

12364 W. Alameda Pkwy, Suite 135

Lakewood, CO 80228

303-985-3300 ext 202

303-985-5594 fax

720-253-3549 cell

On 5/13/2024 5:48 AM, Fpdcdesign wrote:
I know that NFPA 420 is coming but I believe has not been issued yet. 
I have been asked to look at a new growing facility. NFPA 13 calls out 
agriculture facilities os OH2, which make sense for this occupancy. My 
question comes from the tables. The tables are portable so sprinklers 
are required underneath. However, does the 3000 sqft demand area for 
unprotected spaces come into play? I would like to do something that 
is at least close to what 420 will be recommending.


Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080  (ofc)
860-554-7054   (fax)
860-608-4559  (cell)

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Spencer Tomlinson]

I’m in the 2019 edition, but sections 9.5.5.3.1.5 and 9.5.5.3.2 may help 
provide guidance.  They do not up the hazard level due to an obstruction in 
place, I like the idea of taking into effect a shielded fire, especially with 
the size of some of these grow ops these days, but there are certain provisions 
that would suggest otherwise….

Spencer Tomlinson, PE
Owner, Fire Protection Engineer

[red logo]
   Cell: 620-955-7293

From: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 9:32 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

Travis, The definition of EH2 and section 19.3.3.1.5 both deal with protection 
where there are unprotected spaces adjacent or within. The big difference is 
the word “extensive” in the EH2 definition. From what I have seen below grow 
tables it is a very wet environment with most of the combustibles being water 
and non-water filled PVC pipe. I’m not sure that would rise to extensive. The 
other argument if below the tables can be considered  a “concealed space”. 
Since there is no NFPA definition, we need to go to a dictionary definition. My 
dictionary say the definition of conceal is “to hide from view”. Nothing that 
talks about physical separation. I think this would meet that criteria.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)



On May 13, 2024 at 10:07 AM, mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>> wrote:
The 3000 sq ft is specifically for unprotected concealed combustible spaces. So 
I don’t see how that could be used as you don’t have that from what you 
describe.


Travis Mack, SET

M.E.P.CAD |

181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074

www.mepcad.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mepcad.com_=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=SMKi3MpB_L04QTNOI8wsXTbQAi8Ov0kr5kJ9QWv4K58=Rt2Ku0kdmBZShB-fHbPlOHh8rfl-aQkPP6VbfAr-e7kT2fRmXYAjbMGp_kV4Nqy3=UpVuXPq25y_S_GAXByMhUQqOZrb0zMeyhfjGV8qVydo=>
 | m: 480.547.9348



AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD



Book appointment time in my calendar

https://calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__calendly.com_t-5Fmack-5Fmepcad=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=SMKi3MpB_L04QTNOI8wsXTbQAi8Ov0kr5kJ9QWv4K58=Rt2Ku0kdmBZShB-fHbPlOHh8rfl-aQkPP6VbfAr-e7kT2fRmXYAjbMGp_kV4Nqy3=Mqd76qng9bxij52cNbe4j_54BKlqyfyCL638vCVKos8=>


From: Fpdcdesign mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 7:05:28 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

Travis, What I have run into out here is that the grow tables are not fixed in 
place. Consequently, they become “furniture” and protection is not installed 
underneath. (I am trying to get that information). If they are not fixed, does 
the 3000 sqft area increase apply or do we go to EH2?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)



On May 13, 2024 at 9:25 AM, mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>> wrote:

What unprotected concealed combustible spaces are you referencing?  The 3000 sq 
ft is for that.  Typically with grow houses, we have put sprinklers under the 
racks of tables, if I am understanding correctly what you are describing.



These houses are definitely a unique protection scheme and it seems the ways of 
the growers changing things to maximize product growth is ever changing and 
does need a constant review.



I have seen some where the tables slid along a racking system.  It was similar 
in concept to movable rack storage.  Since we couldn’t put sprinklers below the 
table areas, the AHJ said to protect as a heavily shielded fire and do the 
overhead system as EH2.  I’m not sure if that is the best method, but it did 
get it through in that particular jurisdiction.





Travis Mack, SET

M.E.P.CAD | Instructor / Support

181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074

www.mepcad.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mepcad.com_=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=SMKi3MpB_L04QTNOI8wsXTbQAi8Ov0kr5kJ9QWv4K58=Rt2Ku0kdmBZShB-fHbPlOHh8rfl-aQkPP6VbfAr-e7kT2fRmXYAjbMGp_kV4Nqy3=UpVuXPq25y_S_GAXByMhUQqOZrb0zMeyhfjGV8qVydo=>
 | m: 480.547.9348| Whatspp: +14805479348

Email: t.m...@mepcad.com<mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>



AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD



From: Fpdcdesign mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Cannabis growing



I know that NFPA 420 is coming but I believe has not been issued yet. I have 
been asked to look at a new growing facility. 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Bill Jones]

Todd, the concealed spaces referenced in NFPA 13 are all regarding the 
construction of the building being protected.  The tables you describe would be 
defined as furniture and would not fit into the area of concealed spaces.  Just 
an AHJ point of view, but I believe supported strongly by the standard.

From: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 7:32 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing


⚠ CAUTION: External Email
Travis, The definition of EH2 and section 19.3.3.1.5 both deal with protection 
where there are unprotected spaces adjacent or within. The big difference is 
the word “extensive� in the EH2 definition. From what I have seen below grow 
tables it is a very wet environment with most of the combustibles being water 
and non-water filled PVC pipe. I’m not sure that would rise to extensive. The 
other argument if below the tables can be considered  a “concealed space�. 
Since there is no NFPA definition, we need to go to a dictionary definition. My 
dictionary say the definition of conceal is “to hide from view�. Nothing that 
talks about physical separation. I think this would meet that criteria.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)



On May 13, 2024 at 10:07 AM, mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>> wrote:
The 3000 sq ft is specifically for unprotected concealed combustible spaces. So 
I don’t see how that could be used as you don’t have that from what you 
describe.


Travis Mack, SET

M.E.P.CAD |

181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074

www.mepcad.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.mepcad.com/__;!!Lat9tvSZzw!hYW1c0quXj-tgkI7jtJeIADFs0UzZRCaNt6Klyp5YmmokALS2Z70wQ4QHeW7Vch8LNY7L4j3sJDp9A2MvacwyuUD$>
 | m: 480.547.9348



AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD



Book appointment time in my calendar

https://calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad__;!!Lat9tvSZzw!hYW1c0quXj-tgkI7jtJeIADFs0UzZRCaNt6Klyp5YmmokALS2Z70wQ4QHeW7Vch8LNY7L4j3sJDp9A2MvTXkCk-_$>


From: Fpdcdesign mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 7:05:28 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

Travis, What I have run into out here is that the grow tables are not fixed in 
place. Consequently, they become “furniture� and protection is not installed 
underneath. (I am trying to get that information). If they are not fixed, does 
the 3000 sqft area increase apply or do we go to EH2?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)



On May 13, 2024 at 9:25 AM, mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>> wrote:

What unprotected concealed combustible spaces are you referencing?  The 3000 sq 
ft is for that.  Typically with grow houses, we have put sprinklers under the 
racks of tables, if I am understanding correctly what you are describing.



These houses are definitely a unique protection scheme and it seems the ways of 
the growers changing things to maximize product growth is ever changing and 
does need a constant review.



I have seen some where the tables slid along a racking system.  It was similar 
in concept to movable rack storage.  Since we couldn’t put sprinklers below the 
table areas, the AHJ said to protect as a heavily shielded fire and do the 
overhead system as EH2.  I’m not sure if that is the best method, but it did 
get it through in that particular jurisdiction.





Travis Mack, SET

M.E.P.CAD | Instructor / Support

181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074

www.mepcad.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.mepcad.com/__;!!Lat9tvSZzw!hYW1c0quXj-tgkI7jtJeIADFs0UzZRCaNt6Klyp5YmmokALS2Z70wQ4QHeW7Vch8LNY7L4j3sJDp9A2MvacwyuUD$>
 | m: 480.547.9348| Whatspp: +14805479348

Email: t.m...@mepcad.com<mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>



AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD



From: Fpdcdesign mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Cannabis growing



I know that NFPA 420 is coming but I believe has not been issued yet. I have 
been asked to look at a new growing facility. NFPA 13 calls out agriculture 
facilities os OH2, which make sense for this occupancy. My question comes from 
the tables. The tables are portable so sprinklers are required underneath. 
However, does the 3000 sqft demand area for unprotected spaces come into play? 
I would like to do something that is at least close to what 420 will be 
recommending.



Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Fpdcdesign]

  
  

  Travis, The definition of EH2 and section 19.3.3.1.5 both deal with 
protection where there are unprotected spaces adjacent or within. The big 
difference is the word “extensive” in the EH2 definition. From what I have seen 
below grow tables it is a very wet environment with most of the combustibles 
being water and non-water filled PVC pipe. I’m not sure that would rise to 
extensive. The other argument if below the tables can be considereda 
“concealed space”. Since there is no NFPA definition, we need to go to a 
dictionary definition. My dictionary say the definition of conceal is “to hide 
from view”. Nothing that talks about physical separation. I think this would 
meet that criteria.  
  
  
  
Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
  
860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 13, 2024 at 10:07 AM,  mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
> The 3000 sq ft is specifically for unprotected concealed combustible spaces. 
> So I don’t see how that could be used as you don’t have that from what you 
> describe.   
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
>   
>
>   M.E.P.CAD   |   
>
>   
>
>   181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074
>
>   
>
>   www.mepcad.com (http://www.mepcad.com/)   |   m:   480.547.9348
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>   AutoSPRINK|AutoSPRINK FAB|AutoSPRINK RVT|AlarmCAD
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
> Book appointment time in my calendar
>
>   
>
>   https://calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad
>
>   
>   
> From:  Fpdcdesign  
>   Sent:  Monday, May 13, 2024 7:05:28 AM
>   To:  Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers  
> 
>   Subject:  [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>   Travis, What I have run into out here is that the grow tables are not fixed 
> in place. Consequently, they become “furniture” and protection is not 
> installed underneath. (I am trying to get that information). If they are not 
> fixed, does the 3000 sqft area increase apply or do we go to EH2?   
>   
>   
>   
> Todd G Williams, PE  
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>   
> Stonington, CT
>   
> 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
>   
> 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
>   
> 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>   
> >   
> > On May 13, 2024 at 9:25 AM,  mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com)>  
> > wrote:
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >
> > What unprotected concealed combustible spaces are you referencing?The 
> > 3000 sq ft is for that.Typically with grow houses, we have put 
> > sprinklers under the racks of tables, if I am understanding correctly what 
> > you are describing.   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > These houses are definitely a unique protection scheme and it seems the 
> > ways of the growers changing things to maximize product growth is ever 
> > changing and does need a constant review.
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > I have seen some where the tables slid along a racking system.It was 
> > similar in concept to movable rack storage.Since we couldn’t put 
> > sprinklers below the table areas, the AHJ said to protect as a heavily 
> > shielded fire and do the overhead system as EH2.I’m not sure if that is 
> > the best method, but it did get it through in that particular jurisdiction.
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > Travis Mack, SET
> >
> >   
> >
> > M.E.P.CAD| Instructor / Support
> >
> >   
> >
> > 181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074
> >
> >   
> >
> > www.mepcad.com (http://www.mepcad.com/)   |  m: 480.547.9348|  Whatspp: 
> > +14805479348
> >
> >   
> >
> > Email: t.m...@mepcad.com
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> > AutoSPRINK|AutoSPRINK FAB|AutoSPRINK RVT|AlarmCAD
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > From:   Fpdcdesign  
> >   Sent:  Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 AM
> >   To:  Sprinklerforum  
> >   Subject:  [Sprinklerforum] Cannabis growing
> >
> >

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Travis Mack]

The 3000 sq ft is specifically for unprotected concealed combustible spaces. So 
I don’t see how that could be used as you don’t have that from what you 
describe.


Travis Mack, SET

M.E.P.CAD |

181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074

www.mepcad.com<http://www.mepcad.com/> | m: 480.547.9348



AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD



Book appointment time in my calendar

https://calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad


From: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 7:05:28 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

Travis, What I have run into out here is that the grow tables are not fixed in 
place. Consequently, they become “furniture” and protection is not installed 
underneath. (I am trying to get that information). If they are not fixed, does 
the 3000 sqft area increase apply or do we go to EH2?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)


On May 13, 2024 at 9:25 AM, mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com>> wrote:


What unprotected concealed combustible spaces are you referencing?  The 3000 sq 
ft is for that.  Typically with grow houses, we have put sprinklers under the 
racks of tables, if I am understanding correctly what you are describing.



These houses are definitely a unique protection scheme and it seems the ways of 
the growers changing things to maximize product growth is ever changing and 
does need a constant review.



I have seen some where the tables slid along a racking system.  It was similar 
in concept to movable rack storage.  Since we couldn’t put sprinklers below the 
table areas, the AHJ said to protect as a heavily shielded fire and do the 
overhead system as EH2.  I’m not sure if that is the best method, but it did 
get it through in that particular jurisdiction.





Travis Mack, SET

M.E.P.CAD | Instructor / Support

181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074

www.mepcad.com<http://www.mepcad.com/> | m: 480.547.9348| Whatspp: +14805479348

Email: t.m...@mepcad.com



AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD



From: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Cannabis growing



I know that NFPA 420 is coming but I believe has not been issued yet. I have 
been asked to look at a new growing facility. NFPA 13 calls out agriculture 
facilities os OH2, which make sense for this occupancy. My question comes from 
the tables. The tables are portable so sprinklers are required underneath. 
However, does the 3000 sqft demand area for unprotected spaces come into play? 
I would like to do something that is at least close to what 420 will be 
recommending.



Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-554-7054  (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)

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

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Fpdcdesign]

  
  

  Travis, What I have run into out here is that the grow tables are not fixed 
in place. Consequently, they become “furniture” and protection is not installed 
underneath. (I am trying to get that information). If they are not fixed, does 
the 3000 sqft area increase apply or do we go to EH2?   
  
  
  
Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
  
860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 13, 2024 at 9:25 AM,  mailto:t.m...@mepcad.com)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> What unprotected concealed combustible spaces are you referencing?The 
> 3000 sq ft is for that.Typically with grow houses, we have put sprinklers 
> under the racks of tables, if I am understanding correctly what you are 
> describing.   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> These houses are definitely a unique protection scheme and it seems the ways 
> of the growers changing things to maximize product growth is ever changing 
> and does need a constant review.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> I have seen some where the tables slid along a racking system.It was 
> similar in concept to movable rack storage.Since we couldn’t put 
> sprinklers below the table areas, the AHJ said to protect as a heavily 
> shielded fire and do the overhead system as EH2.I’m not sure if that is 
> the best method, but it did get it through in that particular jurisdiction.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
>   
>
> M.E.P.CAD| Instructor / Support
>
>   
>
> 181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074
>
>   
>
> www.mepcad.com (http://www.mepcad.com/)   |  m: 480.547.9348|  Whatspp: 
> +14805479348
>
>   
>
> Email: t.m...@mepcad.com
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> AutoSPRINK|AutoSPRINK FAB|AutoSPRINK RVT|AlarmCAD
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:   Fpdcdesign  
>   Sent:  Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 AM
>   To:  Sprinklerforum  
>   Subject:  [Sprinklerforum] Cannabis growing
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> I know that NFPA 420 is coming but I believe has not been issued yet. I have 
> been asked to look at a new growing facility. NFPA 13 calls out agriculture 
> facilities os OH2, which make sense for this occupancy. My question comes 
> from the tables. The tables are portable so sprinklers are required 
> underneath. However, does the 3000 sqft demand area for unprotected spaces 
> come into play? I would like to do something that is at least close to what 
> 420 will be recommending.   
>
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
>   
>   
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Stonington, CT
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>  _ SprinklerForum 
> mailing list: 
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   
  
  
 
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe NFPA14 2019

[Chris Wilson]

Steve,
Yes there is a hose connection at the first floor landing of the remote stand 
pipe. Yes there is access to occupied first floor space via the exit passage 
and the remote stairway.
Thanks

Christopher S. Wilson SET
Project Design Manager
Treasure Valley Fire Protection
2731 S. Saturn Way
Boise, ID 83709
Phone:  208-362-1888
Fax: 208-362-2207

please note all TVFP email
addresses have changed
new email below

chr...@tvfpinc.com<mailto:chr...@tvfp.us>

From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:29 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe NFPA14 2019

Do you have a hose connection on the 1st floor landing of the remote standpipe 
stairwell in addition to the one at the exit passageway door?   And is there 
access to occupiable areas on the first floor from the passageway or stairwell?

Obviously, two or more hose connections supplied by a feed main on a single 
floor is a horizontal standpipe by definition, but it would seem to me that in 
this type of egress system that would be redundant or not of value depending on 
where a firefighter would be going with the water after connection to one or 
the other hose connection.

The foregoing does not represent any opinion or interpretation of the standard 
on behalf of NFPA or the NFPA 14 Technical Committee.

[cid:image001.jpg@01DAA509.E0D5AF00]
Steve Leyton, President
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: Chris Wilson [mailto:chr...@tvfpinc.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:42 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Standpipe NFPA14 2019


To all,
I have a 4 story building with 2 exit stairways I am installing a class I 
manual wet standpipe combination sprinkler system. The remote stair is on the 
interior of the building and has a rated exit passageway  on the first floor 
that is 73' long. I am placing all hose valves on the main floor landings and 
one a the exit door of the exit passage way.

I am planning on calculating 500 gpm from the remote stand pipe and 250 for the 
2nd standpipe. The exit passage way hose connection will be fed by a  2/12 
lateral pipe fed from the  4" horizontal supply to the remote standpipe as it 
pass by the exit passageway.

Do I need to include an additional 250 gpm in my calcs at the hose valve at the 
exit passageway?

Thanks
Christopher S. Wilson SET
Project Design Manager
Treasure Valley Fire Protection
2731 S. Saturn Way
Boise, ID 83709
Phone:  208-362-1888
Fax: 208-362-2207

please note all TVFP email
addresses have changed
new email below

chr...@tvfpinc.com<mailto:chr...@tvfp.us>


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Cannabis growing

[Travis Mack]

What unprotected concealed combustible spaces are you referencing?  The 3000 sq 
ft is for that.  Typically with grow houses, we have put sprinklers under the 
racks of tables, if I am understanding correctly what you are describing.

These houses are definitely a unique protection scheme and it seems the ways of 
the growers changing things to maximize product growth is ever changing and 
does need a constant review.

I have seen some where the tables slid along a racking system.  It was similar 
in concept to movable rack storage.  Since we couldn’t put sprinklers below the 
table areas, the AHJ said to protect as a heavily shielded fire and do the 
overhead system as EH2.  I’m not sure if that is the best method, but it did 
get it through in that particular jurisdiction.


Travis Mack, SET
M.E.P.CAD | Instructor / Support
181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074
www.mepcad.com | m: 480.547.9348| Whatspp: +14805479348
Email: t.m...@mepcad.com

AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD

From: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Cannabis growing

I know that NFPA 420 is coming but I believe has not been issued yet. I have 
been asked to look at a new growing facility. NFPA 13 calls out agriculture 
facilities os OH2, which make sense for this occupancy. My question comes from 
the tables. The tables are portable so sprinklers are required underneath. 
However, does the 3000 sqft demand area for unprotected spaces come into play? 
I would like to do something that is at least close to what 420 will be 
recommending.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe NFPA14 2019

[Rick Matsuda]

Gosh, 73-feet is a long distance to drag fire hose from the valve at the exit 
door along the length of the rated exit passageway. 
If there’s no occupancy openings in the length of the exit passageway, then 
maybe you could ask the AHJ if he wants a hose valve at the inside end of the 
exit passageway. 
If that’s the case, then I don’t think you need to add the additional 250-gpm. 
Just use 500 plus 250.
Just my opinion.
Rick Matsuda 

> On May 10, 2024, at 3:30 PM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> 
> Do you have a hose connection on the 1st floor landing of the remote 
> standpipe stairwell in addition to the one at the exit passageway door?   And 
> is there access to occupiable areas on the first floor from the passageway or 
> stairwell? 
>  
> Obviously, two or more hose connections supplied by a feed main on a single 
> floor is a horizontal standpipe by definition, but it would seem to me that 
> in this type of egress system that would be redundant or not of value 
> depending on where a firefighter would be going with the water after 
> connection to one or the other hose connection.
>  
> The foregoing does not represent any opinion or interpretation of the 
> standard on behalf of NFPA or the NFPA 14 Technical Committee.
>  
> 
> Steve Leyton, President 
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  www.protectiondesign.com 
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
> Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
>  
>  
>  
> From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chr...@tvfpinc.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:42 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Standpipe NFPA14 2019
>  
>  
> To all,
> I have a 4 story building with 2 exit stairways I am installing a class I 
> manual wet standpipe combination sprinkler system. The remote stair is on the 
> interior of the building and has a rated exit passageway  on the first floor 
> that is 73’ long. I am placing all hose valves on the main floor landings and 
> one a the exit door of the exit passage way.
>  
> I am planning on calculating 500 gpm from the remote stand pipe and 250 for 
> the 2nd standpipe. The exit passage way hose connection will be fed by a  
> 2/12 lateral pipe fed from the  4” horizontal supply to the remote standpipe 
> as it pass by the exit passageway.
>  
> Do I need to include an additional 250 gpm in my calcs at the hose valve at 
> the exit passageway?
>  
> Thanks
> Christopher S. Wilson SET
> Project Design Manager
> Treasure Valley Fire Protection
> 2731 S. Saturn Way
> Boise, ID 83709
> Phone:  208-362-1888
> Fax: 208-362-2207
>  
> please note all TVFP email
> addresses have changed
> new email below
>  
> chr...@tvfpinc.com
>  
> 
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe NFPA14 2019

[Steve Leyton]

Do you have a hose connection on the 1st floor landing of the remote standpipe 
stairwell in addition to the one at the exit passageway door?   And is there 
access to occupiable areas on the first floor from the passageway or stairwell?

Obviously, two or more hose connections supplied by a feed main on a single 
floor is a horizontal standpipe by definition, but it would seem to me that in 
this type of egress system that would be redundant or not of value depending on 
where a firefighter would be going with the water after connection to one or 
the other hose connection.

The foregoing does not represent any opinion or interpretation of the standard 
on behalf of NFPA or the NFPA 14 Technical Committee.

[cid:image003.jpg@01D685F2.A4401010]
Steve Leyton, President
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
www.protectiondesign.com
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training



From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chr...@tvfpinc.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:42 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Standpipe NFPA14 2019


To all,
I have a 4 story building with 2 exit stairways I am installing a class I 
manual wet standpipe combination sprinkler system. The remote stair is on the 
interior of the building and has a rated exit passageway  on the first floor 
that is 73' long. I am placing all hose valves on the main floor landings and 
one a the exit door of the exit passage way.

I am planning on calculating 500 gpm from the remote stand pipe and 250 for the 
2nd standpipe. The exit passage way hose connection will be fed by a  2/12 
lateral pipe fed from the  4" horizontal supply to the remote standpipe as it 
pass by the exit passageway.

Do I need to include an additional 250 gpm in my calcs at the hose valve at the 
exit passageway?

Thanks
Christopher S. Wilson SET
Project Design Manager
Treasure Valley Fire Protection
2731 S. Saturn Way
Boise, ID 83709
Phone:  208-362-1888
Fax: 208-362-2207

please note all TVFP email
addresses have changed
new email below

chr...@tvfpinc.com


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [External]Re: ESFR Sprinklers and Antifreeze Solutions

[Kyle . Montgomery]

That data sheet is 13 years old. Does that all still apply today?

-Kyle M

From: José Gregorio Prada Rodriguez 
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 7:29 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [External][Sprinklerforum] Re: ESFR Sprinklers and Antifreeze Solutions

You don't often get email from 
jose.pr...@gmail.com<mailto:jose.pr...@gmail.com>. Learn why this is 
important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
Hi Mr Anibal, Viking has a solution related with your issue

https://www.vikinggroupinc.com/sites/default/files/databook/freezerstorage/033004.pdf

I hope it can help you.

--

Saludos Cordiales,
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wmRPFJHMT8e4fQk_hNDybcHk3YSh_qYPi4n8Z_SbNkBc7OldVNoXRfI3ioPILY6wjDfNXwvFs]<https://www.joseprada.com/>
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wAN7spFVmN0ADwlyIp0DoYnIY9aRV7iT6fkykWB3cTdaiv8u44iOrt9AS2oecogCT921m3D8I]<https://wa.link/hao3sa>
Nota: En los actuales momento estoy fuera de Colombia, para llamarme por favor 
hazlo por Whatsapp. Muchas gracias.


El mié, 8 may 2024 a las 17:13, Jose Anibal Castillo 
(mailto:joseaniba...@gmail.com>>) escribió:
I hope are all doing well,

I am referencing Section 8.6.2.2 of the NFPA 13 (2022), which mentions that 
ESFR sprinklers can be used with premixed antifreeze solutions, provided they 
are listed. Based on this, would it be possible to protect a cold storage 
warehouse (refrigerated) using ESFR sprinklers along with the recommended 
tables if a listed sprinkler compatible with a premixed antifreeze solution is 
available? Has anyone implemented this solution before?. Due to certain 
constraints, using dry barrel sprinklers is not possible, and implementing dry 
pipe systems would require rack sprinklers, which are troublesome.

Additionally, I have been exploring the possibility of using heat tracing as an 
alternative, but so far, I have not found any viable options. Any insights or 
recommendations on this matter would be greatly appreciate

Best regards,
José



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

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: ESFR Sprinklers and Antifreeze Solutions

[Alan Brinson]

Dear José,

I think this email was not intended for me. 


Kind regards,
Alan

Alan Brinson
Executive Director
[cid:image001.png@01DAA227.446142E0]
brin...@eurosprinkler.org<mailto:brin...@eurosprinkler.org>
+44 7733 277 630
70 Upper Richmond Road, London SW15 2RP, UK



From: José Gregorio Prada Rodriguez 
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 3:29 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: ESFR Sprinklers and Antifreeze Solutions

Hi Mr Anibal, Viking has a solution related with your issue

https://www.vikinggroupinc.com/sites/default/files/databook/freezerstorage/033004.pdf

I hope it can help you.

--

Saludos Cordiales,
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wmRPFJHMT8e4fQk_hNDybcHk3YSh_qYPi4n8Z_SbNkBc7OldVNoXRfI3ioPILY6wjDfNXwvFs]<https://www.joseprada.com/>
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wAN7spFVmN0ADwlyIp0DoYnIY9aRV7iT6fkykWB3cTdaiv8u44iOrt9AS2oecogCT921m3D8I]<https://wa.link/hao3sa>
Nota: En los actuales momento estoy fuera de Colombia, para llamarme por favor 
hazlo por Whatsapp. Muchas gracias.


El mié, 8 may 2024 a las 17:13, Jose Anibal Castillo 
(mailto:joseaniba...@gmail.com>>) escribió:
I hope are all doing well,

I am referencing Section 8.6.2.2 of the NFPA 13 (2022), which mentions that 
ESFR sprinklers can be used with premixed antifreeze solutions, provided they 
are listed. Based on this, would it be possible to protect a cold storage 
warehouse (refrigerated) using ESFR sprinklers along with the recommended 
tables if a listed sprinkler compatible with a premixed antifreeze solution is 
available? Has anyone implemented this solution before?. Due to certain 
constraints, using dry barrel sprinklers is not possible, and implementing dry 
pipe systems would require rack sprinklers, which are troublesome.

Additionally, I have been exploring the possibility of using heat tracing as an 
alternative, but so far, I have not found any viable options. Any insights or 
recommendations on this matter would be greatly appreciate

Best regards,
José



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

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: ESFR Sprinklers and Antifreeze Solutions

[Jose Anibal Castillo]

thanks


José Anibal Castillo
Ingeniero


El El jue, 9 may 2024 a la(s) 9:30 a. m., José Gregorio Prada Rodriguez <
jose.pr...@gmail.com> escribió:

> Hi Mr Anibal, Viking has a solution related with your issue
>
>
> https://www.vikinggroupinc.com/sites/default/files/databook/freezerstorage/033004.pdf
>
>
> I hope it can help you.
>
> --
>
> Saludos Cordiales,
>
> 
> 
> *Nota: En los actuales momento estoy fuera de Colombia, para llamarme por
> favor hazlo por Whatsapp. Muchas gracias. *
>
>
>
> El mié, 8 may 2024 a las 17:13, Jose Anibal Castillo (<
> joseaniba...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> I hope are all doing well,
>>
>> I am referencing Section 8.6.2.2 of the NFPA 13 (2022), which mentions
>> that ESFR sprinklers can be used with premixed antifreeze solutions,
>> provided they are listed. Based on this, would it be possible to protect a
>> cold storage warehouse (refrigerated) using ESFR sprinklers along with the
>> recommended tables if a listed sprinkler compatible with a premixed
>> antifreeze solution is available? Has anyone implemented this solution
>> before?. Due to certain constraints, using dry barrel sprinklers is not
>> possible, and implementing dry pipe systems would require rack sprinklers,
>> which are troublesome.
>>
>> Additionally, I have been exploring the possibility of using heat tracing
>> as an alternative, but so far, I have not found any viable options. Any
>> insights or recommendations on this matter would be greatly appreciate
>>
>> Best regards,
>> José
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> SprinklerForum mailing list:
>>
>> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: ESFR Sprinklers and Antifreeze Solutions

[José Gregorio Prada Rodriguez]

Hi Mr Anibal, Viking has a solution related with your issue

https://www.vikinggroupinc.com/sites/default/files/databook/freezerstorage/033004.pdf


I hope it can help you.

--

Saludos Cordiales,



*Nota: En los actuales momento estoy fuera de Colombia, para llamarme por
favor hazlo por Whatsapp. Muchas gracias. *



El mié, 8 may 2024 a las 17:13, Jose Anibal Castillo (<
joseaniba...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> I hope are all doing well,
>
> I am referencing Section 8.6.2.2 of the NFPA 13 (2022), which mentions
> that ESFR sprinklers can be used with premixed antifreeze solutions,
> provided they are listed. Based on this, would it be possible to protect a
> cold storage warehouse (refrigerated) using ESFR sprinklers along with the
> recommended tables if a listed sprinkler compatible with a premixed
> antifreeze solution is available? Has anyone implemented this solution
> before?. Due to certain constraints, using dry barrel sprinklers is not
> possible, and implementing dry pipe systems would require rack sprinklers,
> which are troublesome.
>
> Additionally, I have been exploring the possibility of using heat tracing
> as an alternative, but so far, I have not found any viable options. Any
> insights or recommendations on this matter would be greatly appreciate
>
> Best regards,
> José
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Water Supply

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP]

You say there is an underground loop. Therefore at some point in the 
underground supply the flow splits and then recombines before the demand. This 
is modeled as a single equivalent underground section. If the loop has some 
isolation valves, then it would be prudent to check both cases where the 
underground flow cannot split in its travel to the demand. There are three 
supply conditions to be aware of. If might be that a minimal system design 
change can accommodate the worst underground supply condition. One ought to be 
aware of a reasonable foreseeable condition.

> 
>> On May 6, 2024 at 8:38 PM, mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> As a follow up to this, I ran the calcs both with an adjusted pressure and 
>> by creating the fictitious underground.
>> The made up underground with the fire pump as the source created a lower 
>> overall demand.
>> So, I'm more comfortable using the adjusted water pressure for the calcs.  
>> When a final set of utility plans is made available the calcs will be 
>> adjusted accordingly.  At this point I like the idea of going with the more 
>> stringent of the two ideas.
>> 
>> I appreciate all the help, and thanks Todd for pointing out the obvious fact 
>> that I missed about the static pressure.  
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Bob Knight, CET III
>> Fire by Knight, LLC
>> 208-318-3057
>> 
>> On 5/6/2024 3:18 PM, Fpdcdesign wrote:
>>> There is no friction loss at 0 gpm. The static at the riser will be your 
>>> churn pressure plus the elevation gain. 
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, you should include the mains as you describe them as part of 
>>> the calculation. 
>>> 
>>> Todd Williams 
>>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>>> Stonington, CT
>>> 860-608-4559
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 6, 2024 at 4:57 PM, mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I have a project where the complete underground plan has not been 
>>>> provided, yet.
>>>> What I do have is a fire pump house with a recent fire pump test.
>>>> The fire pump house is about 2,100 feet from the project site.  It is 
>>>> elevated about 54 feet higher as well.
>>>> I do have the underground loop around the building, so I was going to use 
>>>> the connection point at the loop for the underground from the pump house 
>>>> as the source point.
>>>> The pump test shows 152 psi @ 0 gpm and 101 psi @ 1500 gpm.
>>>> The elevation gain in pressure is 23.38 psi.
>>>> The friction loss through the 2,100 feet of pipe and 16 or so fittings and 
>>>> valves, totals 2,372 feet.
>>>> This came out to 21.24 psi of friction loss, assuming 800 gpm of flow 
>>>> including 250 gpm hose.
>>>> I'm adding the elevation gain and subtracting the friction loss from the 
>>>> pump test.
>>>> This leaves me with 154.14 psi @ 0 gpm and 103.14 psi @ 1500 gpm.
>>>> I'm just going to use the numbers from the pump test and re-verify 
>>>> everything at a future date.
>>>> Does this sound reasonable?
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Bob Knight, CET III
>>>> Fire by Knight, LLC
>>>> 208-318-3057
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>>>   Virus-free.www.avg.com 
>>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>>>  
>>>> _
>>>>  SprinklerForum mailing list: 
>>>> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
>>>>  
>>>> <https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>>>  To unsubscribe send an email to 
>>>> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>>>> <mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>> 
>>> _
>>> SprinklerForum mailing list:
>>> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
>>> <https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to 
>>> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>>> <mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> _ SprinklerForum 
>> mailing list: 
>> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
>> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> 
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concealed Sprinkler head box

[Mike Morey]

The Argco 12 head box with them staggered works ok, I think it’s only a couple 
bucks more than the 6 head box.

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager • Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991
email mmo...@shambaugh.com
[cid:image001.png@01DAA076.CCA680A0]

From: dbra...@olyfire.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Concealed Sprinkler head box

Trying to find a source for these. Standard head boxes do not fit concealed 
heads very well. Has anyone purchased something like this before? Thanks ‍ ‍ ‍ 
‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ 
‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ 
‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Trying to find a source for these. Standard head boxes do not fit concealed 
heads very well. Has anyone purchased something like this before? Thanks

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this message in 
error, please  immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, 
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly or 
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message 
if you are not the intended recipient.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concealed Sprinkler head box

[JD Gamble]

Buy the 14 head box from ASC engineering and stagger them.

Get Outlook for iOS

From: dbra...@olyfire.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 9:52:11 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Concealed Sprinkler head box


Trying to find a source for these. Standard head boxes do not fit concealed 
heads very well. Has anyone purchased something like this before? Thanks

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Water Supply

[Fpdcdesign]

  
  

 Not a problem, Bob. That came from the “Learn from experience” department.   
  
  
  
  
Todd Williams 

  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-608-4559
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 6, 2024 at 8:38 PM,  mailto:b...@firebyknight.com)>  
> wrote:
>   
>   
>   As a follow up to this, I ran the calcs both with an adjusted pressure and 
> by creating the fictitious underground.
>  The made up underground with the fire pump as the source created a lower 
> overall demand.
>  So, I'm more comfortable using the adjusted water pressure for the calcs.
> When a final set of utility plans is made available the calcs will be 
> adjusted accordingly.At this point I like the idea of going with the more 
> stringent of the two ideas.
>   
>  I appreciate all the help, and thanks Todd for pointing out the obvious fact 
> that I missed about the static pressure.   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> Thank you,
>  Bob Knight, CET III
>   Fire by Knight, LLC
>   208-318-3057
> 
> On 5/6/2024 3:18 PM, Fpdcdesign wrote:
>   
> > 
> > There is no friction loss at 0 gpm. The static at the riser will be your 
> > churn pressure plus the elevation gain.   
> >   
> >
> >  In my opinion, you should include the mains as you describe them as part 
> > of the calculation. 
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> > Todd Williams 
> > Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> >   
> > Stonington, CT
> >   
> > 860-608-4559
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> > >   
> > > On May 6, 2024 at 4:57 PM,  mailto:b...@firebyknight.com)>  
> > > wrote:
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   I have a project where the complete underground plan has not been 
> > > provided, yet.
> > >  What I do have is a fire pump house with a recent fire pump test.
> > >  The fire pump house is about 2,100 feet from the project site.It is 
> > > elevated about 54 feet higher as well.
> > >  I do have the underground loop around the building, so I was going to 
> > > use the connection point at the loop for the underground from the pump 
> > > house as the source point.
> > >  The pump test shows 152 psi @ 0 gpm and 101 psi @ 1500 gpm.
> > >  The elevation gain in pressure is 23.38 psi.
> > >  The friction loss through the 2,100 feet of pipe and 16 or so fittings 
> > > and valves, totals 2,372 feet.
> > >  This came out to 21.24 psi of friction loss, assuming 800 gpm of flow 
> > > including 250 gpm hose.
> > >  I'm adding the elevation gain and subtracting the friction loss from the 
> > > pump test.
> > >  This leaves me with 154.14 psi @ 0 gpm and 103.14 psi @ 1500 gpm.
> > >  I'm just going to use the numbers from the pump test and re-verify 
> > > everything at a future date.
> > >  Does this sound reasonable?
> > >   
> > >   
> > > --
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > > Thank you,
> > >  Bob Knight, CET III
> > >   Fire by Knight, LLC
> > >   208-318-3057
> > > 
> > >
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >  Virus-free.www.avg.com 
> > > (http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient)
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >  _ SprinklerForum 
> > > mailing list:   
> > > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> > >   To unsubscribe send an email to  
> > > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > > (mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> > >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >  _ SprinklerForum 
> > mailing list:  
> > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> >  To unsubscribe send an email to  
> > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > (mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org)   
>
>   
>  _ SprinklerForum 
> mailing list: 
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org  
>   
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Water Supply

[Bob Knight]

As a follow up to this, I ran the calcs both with an adjusted pressure 
and by creating the fictitious underground.
The made up underground with the fire pump as the source created a lower 
overall demand.
So, I'm more comfortable using the adjusted water pressure for the 
calcs.  When a final set of utility plans is made available the calcs 
will be adjusted accordingly.  At this point I like the idea of going 
with the more stringent of the two ideas.


I appreciate all the help, and thanks Todd for pointing out the obvious 
fact that I missed about the static pressure.


/Thank you,
Bob Knight, CET III//
/*/Fire by Knight, LLC/*/
//208-318-3057/
FIREBYKNIGHT
On 5/6/2024 3:18 PM, Fpdcdesign wrote:
There is no friction loss at 0 gpm. The static at the riser will be 
your churn pressure plus the elevation gain.


In my opinion, you should include the mains as you describe them as 
part of the calculation.


Todd Williams
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-608-4559


On May 6, 2024 at 4:57 PM, mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>> 
wrote:


I have a project where the complete underground plan has not been 
provided, yet.

What I do have is a fire pump house with a recent fire pump test.
The fire pump house is about 2,100 feet from the project site.  It is 
elevated about 54 feet higher as well.
I do have the underground loop around the building, so I was going to 
use the connection point at the loop for the underground from the 
pump house as the source point.

The pump test shows 152 psi @ 0 gpm and 101 psi @ 1500 gpm.
The elevation gain in pressure is 23.38 psi.
The friction loss through the 2,100 feet of pipe and 16 or so 
fittings and valves, totals 2,372 feet.
This came out to 21.24 psi of friction loss, assuming 800 gpm of flow 
including 250 gpm hose.
I'm adding the elevation gain and subtracting the friction loss from 
the pump test.

This leaves me with 154.14 psi @ 0 gpm and 103.14 psi @ 1500 gpm.
I'm just going to use the numbers from the pump test and re-verify 
everything at a future date.

Does this sound reasonable?

--

/Thank you,
Bob Knight, CET III//
/*/Fire by Knight, LLC/*/
//208-318-3057/
FIREBYKNIGHT

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_ 
SprinklerForum mailing list: 
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org


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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Water Supply

[Bob Knight]

I don't know where the mains will be. There is no location yet, I have 
only guessed at what I think they will do.
They haven't located where hydrants will be.  All I have is the loop 
around the building and that there will be piping from the pump house.


/Thank you,
Bob Knight, CET III//
/*/Fire by Knight, LLC/*/
//208-318-3057/
FIREBYKNIGHT
On 5/6/2024 3:18 PM, Fpdcdesign wrote:
There is no friction loss at 0 gpm. The static at the riser will be 
your churn pressure plus the elevation gain.


In my opinion, you should include the mains as you describe them as 
part of the calculation.


Todd Williams
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-608-4559


On May 6, 2024 at 4:57 PM, mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>> 
wrote:


I have a project where the complete underground plan has not been 
provided, yet.

What I do have is a fire pump house with a recent fire pump test.
The fire pump house is about 2,100 feet from the project site.  It is 
elevated about 54 feet higher as well.
I do have the underground loop around the building, so I was going to 
use the connection point at the loop for the underground from the 
pump house as the source point.

The pump test shows 152 psi @ 0 gpm and 101 psi @ 1500 gpm.
The elevation gain in pressure is 23.38 psi.
The friction loss through the 2,100 feet of pipe and 16 or so 
fittings and valves, totals 2,372 feet.
This came out to 21.24 psi of friction loss, assuming 800 gpm of flow 
including 250 gpm hose.
I'm adding the elevation gain and subtracting the friction loss from 
the pump test.

This leaves me with 154.14 psi @ 0 gpm and 103.14 psi @ 1500 gpm.
I'm just going to use the numbers from the pump test and re-verify 
everything at a future date.

Does this sound reasonable?

--

/Thank you,
Bob Knight, CET III//
/*/Fire by Knight, LLC/*/
//208-318-3057/
FIREBYKNIGHT

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_ 
SprinklerForum mailing list: 
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org


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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [External]Re: Water Supply

[Kyle . Montgomery]

Agreed; just include that underground in your calculations.

-Kyle M

From: Skyler Bilbo 
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [External][Sprinklerforum] Re: Water Supply

Bob,

Based on the information you provided, if it were me, I would include the 2100 
feet of underground piping and fittings in the calcs and make the actual fire 
pump location your source node.  Since pressure loss is exponentially related 
to flow rate, your scenario would likely be OK for anything less than an actual 
demand of 800 GPM, but could be severely lacking if your actual flow demand 
ends up higher than the 800 GPM you selected.  There is more information 
required to make a complete recommendation, but hopefully this is helpful.

It should also be mentioned that based on the information you provided, the 
pressure that is in the underground piping under normal conditions when the 
jockey pump is on could be greater than 175 psi (use the jockey off pressure + 
pressure increase due to elevation).  This may require special considerations 
for your pipe/fitting/equipment selection to handle the higher pressures.


Thanks,
Skyler Bilbo
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4ypz1ksMJ3EkM_lvlFpvE7Es0BKHztyDLd8192CCAmeOi-AUa-PgQ7QQY-WJuWAGEB3ctSbfrljwe-Q]
1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com<mailto:sbi...@wenteplumbing.com>
www.wenteplumbing.com<http://www.wenteplumbing.com/>


On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 3:57 PM Bob Knight 
mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>> wrote:
I have a project where the complete underground plan has not been provided, yet.
What I do have is a fire pump house with a recent fire pump test.
The fire pump house is about 2,100 feet from the project site.  It is elevated 
about 54 feet higher as well.
I do have the underground loop around the building, so I was going to use the 
connection point at the loop for the underground from the pump house as the 
source point.
The pump test shows 152 psi @ 0 gpm and 101 psi @ 1500 gpm.
The elevation gain in pressure is 23.38 psi.
The friction loss through the 2,100 feet of pipe and 16 or so fittings and 
valves, totals 2,372 feet.
This came out to 21.24 psi of friction loss, assuming 800 gpm of flow including 
250 gpm hose.
I'm adding the elevation gain and subtracting the friction loss from the pump 
test.
This leaves me with 154.14 psi @ 0 gpm and 103.14 psi @ 1500 gpm.
I'm just going to use the numbers from the pump test and re-verify everything 
at a future date.
Does this sound reasonable?
--
Thank you,
Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057
[FIREBYKNIGHT]

[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>

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

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Water Supply

[Skyler Bilbo]

Bob,

Based on the information you provided, if it were me, I would include the
2100 feet of underground piping and fittings in the calcs and make the
actual fire pump location your source node.  Since pressure loss is
exponentially related to flow rate, your scenario would likely be OK for
anything less than an actual demand of 800 GPM, but could be
severely lacking if your actual flow demand ends up higher than the 800 GPM
you selected.  There is more information required to make a complete
recommendation, but hopefully this is helpful.

It should also be mentioned that based on the information you provided, the
pressure that is in the underground piping under normal conditions when the
jockey pump is on could be greater than 175 psi (use the jockey off
pressure + pressure increase due to elevation).  This may require special
considerations for your pipe/fitting/equipment selection to handle the
higher pressures.


Thanks,
Skyler Bilbo

1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com
www.wenteplumbing.com


On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 3:57 PM Bob Knight  wrote:

> I have a project where the complete underground plan has not been
> provided, yet.
> What I do have is a fire pump house with a recent fire pump test.
> The fire pump house is about 2,100 feet from the project site.  It is
> elevated about 54 feet higher as well.
> I do have the underground loop around the building, so I was going to use
> the connection point at the loop for the underground from the pump house as
> the source point.
> The pump test shows 152 psi @ 0 gpm and 101 psi @ 1500 gpm.
> The elevation gain in pressure is 23.38 psi.
> The friction loss through the 2,100 feet of pipe and 16 or so fittings and
> valves, totals 2,372 feet.
> This came out to 21.24 psi of friction loss, assuming 800 gpm of flow
> including 250 gpm hose.
> I'm adding the elevation gain and subtracting the friction loss from the
> pump test.
> This leaves me with 154.14 psi @ 0 gpm and 103.14 psi @ 1500 gpm.
> I'm just going to use the numbers from the pump test and re-verify
> everything at a future date.
> Does this sound reasonable?
>
> --
>
>
> *Thank you, Bob Knight, CET III*
> *Fire by Knight, LLC*
> *208-318-3057*
> [image: FIREBYKNIGHT]
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free.www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-7753638142420371045_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Water Supply

[Fpdcdesign]

 
 

 There is no friction loss at 0 gpm. The static at the riser will be your churn 
pressure plus the elevation gain.  
 

 In my opinion, you should include the mains as you describe them as part of 
the calculation.

 
 
 
Todd Williams

 
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-608-4559
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On May 6, 2024 at 4:57 PM,  mailto:b...@firebyknight.com)>  
> wrote:
>  
>  
>   I have a project where the complete underground plan has not been provided, 
> yet.
>  What I do have is a fire pump house with a recent fire pump test.
>  The fire pump house is about 2,100 feet from the project site.It is 
> elevated about 54 feet higher as well.
>  I do have the underground loop around the building, so I was going to use 
> the connection point at the loop for the underground from the pump house as 
> the source point.
>  The pump test shows 152 psi @ 0 gpm and 101 psi @ 1500 gpm.
>  The elevation gain in pressure is 23.38 psi.
>  The friction loss through the 2,100 feet of pipe and 16 or so fittings and 
> valves, totals 2,372 feet.
>  This came out to 21.24 psi of friction loss, assuming 800 gpm of flow 
> including 250 gpm hose.
>  I'm adding the elevation gain and subtracting the friction loss from the 
> pump test.
>  This leaves me with 154.14 psi @ 0 gpm and 103.14 psi @ 1500 gpm.
>  I'm just going to use the numbers from the pump test and re-verify 
> everything at a future date.
>  Does this sound reasonable?
>  
>  
> --
>  
>  
>  
> Thank you,
>  Bob Knight, CET III
>   Fire by Knight, LLC
>   208-318-3057
>
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>  
>  Virus-free.www.avg.com 
> (http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  _ SprinklerForum 
> mailing list: 
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>  
 
 
 
 
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Seismic data outside the US

[BRUCE VERHEI]

Yes, definitely earthquake country. The Managua Earthquake even helped trigger 
the downfall of the Samoza family regime. It doesn’t make you popular when the 
American Red Cross and the U.S. Air Force fly down blood, and you immediately 
put it on another aircraft, fly it back to the U.S. and sell it. 

 

> On 05/01/2024 10:40 AM PDT Victoria Valentine  
> wrote:
>  
>  
> Ben et al,
>  
> Seismic needs to be approached as part of the building package.  It is 
> important to know what they are using to protect the building (e.g. ASCE 7) 
> so that the system works with the structure.  It would also be important to 
> tie the seismic coefficient (CP) from NFPA 13 to specific editions.  As Ken 
> noted, the newest formula relates the seismic coefficient to the SDS; the 
> information that goes into that equation is from the ASCE 7-22 edition.  If 
> the building is being constructed under ASCE 7-16, I would recommend using 
> the information from NFPA 13, 2019 edition that still correlates to SS.
>  
> Now, back to the original question of where to locate the information.  The 
> source for this would come from the building code or authority having 
> jurisdiction.  You referenced FM 2-1, if this is an FM project, FM will be 
> able to guide you to the source acceptable to them.  Otherwise, the local 
> authority is likely the best resource.  For example, Mexico writes values 
> into their building code to be used.  
>  
> Unfortunately, I do not have specific details for Guatemala.  You may be able 
> to reach out to someone involved with LATAM 
> (https://latampci.com/en/background/), which is an organization focused on 
> fire protection and fire sprinkler systems across Latin America, who can 
> provide more specific information for Guatemala.  
>  
> Thanks,
> Victoria
> ***
> Victoria B. Valentine, P.E., FSFPE
> valent...@firesprinkler.org mailto:valent...@firesprinkler.org
> (240) 813-4373 tel:(240)813-4373
>  
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
> 1410 East Renner Road, Suite 150
> Richardson, TX 75082
> 
> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 12:18 PM Steve Leyton  mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > This piqued my interest, so I did a quick search with a couple of different 
> > phrases and I found… nothing.   However, I did learn that since 1976 
> > Guatemala has had several major earthquakes ranging from M6.8-7.5, so it’s 
> > ACTIVE.  They have several major faults that get pressed on both the 
> > Pacific and Caribbean sides, 3 active volcanos and seems like it’s 
> > generally very nasty, seismically speaking.  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Absent known/published force factor values, if I was pressed I would look 
> > to where we’ve historically had similar quakes (i.e. 7.0+) and the two 
> > regions I’d benchmark are Prince William Sound, Alaska and the San 
> > Francisco Bay area.   We actually had a 7.2 about 2 hours east of San Diego 
> > in 2010 (Calexico) but that region isn’t rated as high as others.  I think 
> > using the highest value you can find from USGS is a solid Plan B.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > My opinion only,
> > 
> > Steve L.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: Ben Young mailto:derblitzkrie...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2024 9:04 AM
> > To: 321 via Sprinklerforum  > mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Seismic data outside the US
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Does anyone know where I can find seismic data, specifically for Guatemala?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I found FM Global 2-1 and its maps give you the 50 year zone, which gives 
> > Sd1 and Sds, but I need Ss for doing the seismic braces.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Don't know how to get from Sd1 and Sds to Ss though, if that's even 
> > possible.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Any pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Benjamin Young
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > SprinklerForum mailing list:
> > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to 
> > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > 
> 
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> 

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Seismic data outside the US

[Victoria Valentine]

Ben et al,

Seismic needs to be approached as part of the building package.  It is
important to know what they are using to protect the building (e.g. ASCE 7)
so that the system works with the structure.  It would also be important to
tie the seismic coefficient (CP) from NFPA 13 to specific editions.  As Ken
noted, the newest formula relates the seismic coefficient to the SDS; the
information that goes into that equation is from the ASCE 7-22 edition.  If
the building is being constructed under ASCE 7-16, I would recommend using
the information from NFPA 13, 2019 edition that still correlates to SS.

Now, back to the original question of where to locate the information.  The
source for this would come from the building code or authority having
jurisdiction.  You referenced FM 2-1, if this is an FM project, FM will be
able to guide you to the source acceptable to them.  Otherwise, the local
authority is likely the best resource.  For example, Mexico writes values
into their building code to be used.

Unfortunately, I do not have specific details for Guatemala.  You may be
able to reach out to someone involved with LATAM (
https://latampci.com/en/background/), which is an organization focused on
fire protection and fire sprinkler systems across Latin America, who can
provide more specific information for Guatemala.

Thanks,
Victoria
*
*Victoria B. Valentine, P.E., FSFPE*
valent...@firesprinkler.org
(240) 813-4373

American Fire Sprinkler Association
1410 East Renner Road, Suite 150
Richardson, TX 75082


On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 12:18 PM Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> This piqued my interest, so I did a quick search with a couple of
> different phrases and I found… nothing.   However, I did learn that since
> 1976 Guatemala has had several major earthquakes ranging from M6.8-7.5, so
> it’s ACTIVE.  They have several major faults that get pressed on both the
> Pacific and Caribbean sides, 3 active volcanos and seems like it’s
> generally very nasty, seismically speaking.
>
>
>
> Absent known/published force factor values, if I was pressed I would look
> to where we’ve historically had similar quakes (i.e. 7.0+) and the two
> regions I’d benchmark are Prince William Sound, Alaska and the San
> Francisco Bay area.   We actually had a 7.2 about 2 hours east of San Diego
> in 2010 (Calexico) but that region isn’t rated as high as others.  I think
> using the highest value you can find from USGS is a solid Plan B.
>
>
>
> My opinion only,
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ben Young 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 01, 2024 9:04 AM
> *To:* 321 via Sprinklerforum 
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Seismic data outside the US
>
>
>
> Does anyone know where I can find seismic data, specifically for
> Guatemala?
>
>
>
> I found FM Global 2-1 and its maps give you the 50 year zone, which gives
> Sd1 and Sds, but I need Ss for doing the seismic braces.
>
>
>
> Don't know how to get from Sd1 and Sds to Ss though, if that's even
> possible.
>
>
>
> Any pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Benjamin Young
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Seismic data outside the US

[Prahl, Craig]

When doing international work it’s always a good idea to partner with a local 
engineer/architect.

Here’s a link to some info specific to Guatemala.

Seismic Code Evaluation Form - Guatemala 
(eird.org)<https://www.eird.org/cd/acs/English/CodeEval/SpaSpeak/Seismic/GUATsce.pdf>

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | 
www.jacobs.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.jacobs.com/__;!!KZTdOCjhgt4hgw!-_khxU8gU0_6jc895I7kRbnU8JghRDsWgqOblZ4jr7Qp2IVbR30VYw_hWvNFtphnl0uWpB9KIvbYi1pvZz4$>
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS


From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Seismic data outside the US

This piqued my interest, so I did a quick search with a couple of different 
phrases and I found… nothing.   However, I did learn that since 1976 Guatemala 
has had several major earthquakes ranging from M6.8-7.5, so it’s ACTIVE.  They 
have several major faults that get pressed on both the Pacific and Caribbean 
sides, 3 active volcanos and seems like it’s generally very nasty, seismically 
speaking.

Absent known/published force factor values, if I was pressed I would look to 
where we’ve historically had similar quakes (i.e. 7.0+) and the two regions I’d 
benchmark are Prince William Sound, Alaska and the San Francisco Bay area.   We 
actually had a 7.2 about 2 hours east of San Diego in 2010 (Calexico) but that 
region isn’t rated as high as others.  I think using the highest value you can 
find from USGS is a solid Plan B.

My opinion only,
Steve L.

From: Ben Young mailto:derblitzkrie...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2024 9:04 AM
To: 321 via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Seismic data outside the US

Does anyone know where I can find seismic data, specifically for Guatemala?

I found FM Global 2-1 and its maps give you the 50 year zone, which gives Sd1 
and Sds, but I need Ss for doing the seismic braces.

Don't know how to get from Sd1 and Sds to Ss though, if that's even possible.

Any pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.

Thanks,


Benjamin Young



NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Seismic data outside the US

[Steve Leyton]

This piqued my interest, so I did a quick search with a couple of different 
phrases and I found… nothing.   However, I did learn that since 1976 Guatemala 
has had several major earthquakes ranging from M6.8-7.5, so it’s ACTIVE.  They 
have several major faults that get pressed on both the Pacific and Caribbean 
sides, 3 active volcanos and seems like it’s generally very nasty, seismically 
speaking.

Absent known/published force factor values, if I was pressed I would look to 
where we’ve historically had similar quakes (i.e. 7.0+) and the two regions I’d 
benchmark are Prince William Sound, Alaska and the San Francisco Bay area.   We 
actually had a 7.2 about 2 hours east of San Diego in 2010 (Calexico) but that 
region isn’t rated as high as others.  I think using the highest value you can 
find from USGS is a solid Plan B.

My opinion only,
Steve L.

From: Ben Young 
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2024 9:04 AM
To: 321 via Sprinklerforum 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Seismic data outside the US

Does anyone know where I can find seismic data, specifically for Guatemala?

I found FM Global 2-1 and its maps give you the 50 year zone, which gives Sd1 
and Sds, but I need Ss for doing the seismic braces.

Don't know how to get from Sd1 and Sds to Ss though, if that's even possible.

Any pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.

Thanks,


Benjamin Young

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Seismic data outside the US

[Ken Wagoner]

  
  
Ben,
  
  I believe if you carefully review the TIA to -13, #22-8, it now
  uses the value of Sds to figure up the eventual Cp value.  You
  simply multiply the Sds by 0.754 to get the Cp.  13 no longer
  refers to the Ss value.
  
  As I am a current member of the hanging and bracing committee,
  please see the disclaimer below.
  
  sincerely.

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

   
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal
  Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion
  expressed is the personal opinion of the author and does not
  necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its
  Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither
  intended, nor should it be relied upon, to provide professional
  consultation or services. It should be noted that the above is my
  opinion as a member of the NFPA Automatic Sprinkler System Hanging
  and Bracing Committee and the Hanging and Bracing for Fire
  Suppression Systems Committee in accordance with the NFPA
  Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not
  be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the
  NFPA or its Committees   On 5/1/2024 11:03 AM, Ben Young
wrote:

  
  
Does
  anyone know where I can find seismic data, specifically for
  Guatemala? 



I found
  FM Global 2-1 and its maps give you the 50 year zone, which
  gives Sd1 and Sds, but I need Ss for doing the seismic braces.


Don't
  know how to get from Sd1 and Sds to Ss though, if that's even
  possible.


Any
  pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.


Thanks,



  
Benjamin Young
  

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


  

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13R residential system - Exposed CPVC

[Greg McGahan]

Dapr,
The Installation Guidelines of the CPVC will give you the criteria for 
installing CPVC exposed rather than 13R.


Greg McGahan

Genesis Fire Services, LLC.





From: Dapr Jones 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 10:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] NFPA 13R residential system - Exposed CPVC

A multi-family fit up project will have existing to remain upper floor and new 
first floor apt. units. Currently the building is not sprinkled and will have a 
new sprinkler system.

The contractor wants to run the new sprinkler pipe exposed using CPVC in the 
existing upper level units.

NFPA 13R doesn't seem to prohibit this as Table 5.2.1 does include CPVC (ASTM 
F442/F442M).

I'd like to get your thoughts on this and see if you've come across it.

Thanks

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[Kyle . Montgomery]

I’d love for someone to explain a little more about how this works. It doesn’t 
make sense to me that water would “circulate back” to the truck through the 
hoses. All the hoses are on the discharge side of the pumper truck’s pump, 
right?

It seems to me that the more likely scenario is that maybe the pressure is 
leaking past the check valve on the discharge side of the fire pump (the one in 
the building, not the truck). But maybe I just don’t understand how pumper 
trucks and FDCs work.

-Kyle M

From: Brian Harris 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 5:35 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Yessir! That’s exactly what happened. Snoots are being installed as we speak. 
Thank you!

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: matthew.will...@ferguson.com<mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com> 
mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 8:32 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

If you did not put in “check snoots’, or check valves behind each in this 
configuration, then the water is circulating back thru these to the truck.

R/
Matt

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

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET
Engineering Manager – Southwest Region
FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC
C: 307-236-8249
matthew.will...@ferguson.com<mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com>
www.FergusonFire.com<http://www.fergusonfire.com/>


From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 4:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Don-
The truck is hooked up to a private hydrant downstream of the BFP and located 
next to the yard FDC. The FDC is on a dedicated line back to the building, 
tying in downstream of the pump discharge.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Don Casey mailto:don.ca...@mississauga.ca>>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:45 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Where are they drawing the water from?


On Apr 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>> wrote:


[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.]

I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what 
you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you 
have told us next to nothing so far.

Thank you.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, 
bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com<mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com> wrote:

AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 
2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now 
they’re thinking water is circulating through these valves back to the fire 
truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,QdrGtBJFnnMBq_MxxAdgeDYtz-kB_ImE1v644LM95k3pSsbZhpAHkfzIxbBAEvQOzAsUrBdDYj-raGtp4ztl31D075dEqruopd_bL_eyWLv3BqFlGtN8gw,,=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,F04Y1ZsNJgEjoZu26JrpArvpNnpn1VQia8Y3DEJHhsrTlB4WnFHgA8B3i090VyRlIGM0B5CwQ8xn5n1odIP1gauEpZQcxaN4zdCw95t6VA,,=1_add=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
http

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[John Denhardt]

I got it. John August Denhardt, P.E.Vice-President Engineering and Technical ServicesAmerican Fire Sprinkler Association 301-343-1457On Apr 19, 2024, at 14:40, matthew.will...@ferguson.com wrote:







“Check” is in the mail.  < DID YOU GET IT?!?!?

 

Please rate our customer
 service
 
Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET
Engineering Manager – Southwest Region
FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC
C: 307-236-8249
matthew.will...@ferguson.com
www.FergusonFire.com
 

 


From: Brian Harris 

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 6:35 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?


 
Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click links or open attachments unless
 you recognize and trust the sender. 




Yessir! That’s exactly what happened. Snoots are being installed as we speak. Thank you!
 

Thank you,
 
Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

 


From:
matthew.will...@ferguson.com <matthew.will...@ferguson.com>

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 8:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?


 
If you did not put in “check snoots’, or check valves behind each in this configuration, then the water is circulating back thru these to the truck.
 
R/
Matt
 

Please rate
 our customer service
 
Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET
Engineering Manager – Southwest Region
FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC
C: 307-236-8249
matthew.will...@ferguson.com
www.FergusonFire.com
 

 


From: Brian Harris <bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 4:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?


 
Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click links or open attachments unless
 you recognize and trust the sender. 




Don-
The truck is hooked up to a private hydrant downstream of the BFP and located next to the yard FDC. The FDC is on a dedicated line back to the building, tying in downstream of the pump discharge.
 

Thank you,
 
Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

 


From: Don Casey <don.ca...@mississauga.ca>

Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:45 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?


 
Where are they drawing the water from?

 


 

On Apr 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP <aksei...@gmail.com> wrote:




 




[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.]





I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you have told us next to nothing so far.


 


Thank you.


 


Allan Seidel


St. Louis, MO

 


On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, 
bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com wrote:

 

AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now they’re thinking water is
 circulating through these valves back to the fire truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?

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



 



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





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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[matthew.willis1]

“Check” is in the mail.  < DID YOU GET IT?!?!? 

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

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET
Engineering Manager – Southwest Region
FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC
C: 307-236-8249
matthew.will...@ferguson.com<mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com>
www.FergusonFire.com<http://www.fergusonfire.com/>


From: Brian Harris 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 6:35 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Yessir! That’s exactly what happened. Snoots are being installed as we speak. 
Thank you!

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: matthew.will...@ferguson.com<mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com> 
mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 8:32 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

If you did not put in “check snoots’, or check valves behind each in this 
configuration, then the water is circulating back thru these to the truck.

R/
Matt

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

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET
Engineering Manager – Southwest Region
FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC
C: 307-236-8249
matthew.will...@ferguson.com<mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com>
www.FergusonFire.com<http://www.fergusonfire.com/>


From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 4:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Don-
The truck is hooked up to a private hydrant downstream of the BFP and located 
next to the yard FDC. The FDC is on a dedicated line back to the building, 
tying in downstream of the pump discharge.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Don Casey mailto:don.ca...@mississauga.ca>>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:45 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Where are they drawing the water from?


On Apr 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>> wrote:


[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.]

I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what 
you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you 
have told us next to nothing so far.

Thank you.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, 
bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com<mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com> wrote:

AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 
2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now 
they’re thinking water is circulating through these valves back to the fire 
truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,QdrGtBJFnnMBq_MxxAdgeDYtz-kB_ImE1v644LM95k3pSsbZhpAHkfzIxbBAEvQOzAsUrBdDYj-raGtp4ztl31D075dEqruopd_bL_eyWLv3BqFlGtN8gw,,=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,F04Y1ZsNJgEjoZu26JrpArvpNnpn1VQia8Y3DEJHhsrTlB4WnFHgA8B3i090VyRlIGM0B5CwQ8xn5n1odIP1gauEpZQcxaN4zdCw95t6VA,,=1_add=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mail

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[Brian Harris]

Yessir! That’s exactly what happened. Snoots are being installed as we speak. 
Thank you!

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: matthew.will...@ferguson.com 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 8:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

If you did not put in “check snoots’, or check valves behind each in this 
configuration, then the water is circulating back thru these to the truck.

R/
Matt

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

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET
Engineering Manager – Southwest Region
FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC
C: 307-236-8249
matthew.will...@ferguson.com<mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com>
www.FergusonFire.com<http://www.fergusonfire.com/>


From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 4:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Don-
The truck is hooked up to a private hydrant downstream of the BFP and located 
next to the yard FDC. The FDC is on a dedicated line back to the building, 
tying in downstream of the pump discharge.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Don Casey mailto:don.ca...@mississauga.ca>>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:45 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Where are they drawing the water from?


On Apr 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>> wrote:


[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.]

I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what 
you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you 
have told us next to nothing so far.

Thank you.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, 
bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com<mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com> wrote:

AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 
2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now 
they’re thinking water is circulating through these valves back to the fire 
truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,QdrGtBJFnnMBq_MxxAdgeDYtz-kB_ImE1v644LM95k3pSsbZhpAHkfzIxbBAEvQOzAsUrBdDYj-raGtp4ztl31D075dEqruopd_bL_eyWLv3BqFlGtN8gw,,=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,F04Y1ZsNJgEjoZu26JrpArvpNnpn1VQia8Y3DEJHhsrTlB4WnFHgA8B3i090VyRlIGM0B5CwQ8xn5n1odIP1gauEpZQcxaN4zdCw95t6VA,,=1_add=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[matthew.willis1]

If you did not put in “check snoots’, or check valves behind each in this 
configuration, then the water is circulating back thru these to the truck.

R/
Matt

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

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET
Engineering Manager – Southwest Region
FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC
C: 307-236-8249
matthew.will...@ferguson.com<mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com>
www.FergusonFire.com<http://www.fergusonfire.com/>


From: Brian Harris 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 4:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Don-
The truck is hooked up to a private hydrant downstream of the BFP and located 
next to the yard FDC. The FDC is on a dedicated line back to the building, 
tying in downstream of the pump discharge.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Don Casey mailto:don.ca...@mississauga.ca>>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:45 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Where are they drawing the water from?


On Apr 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>> wrote:


[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.]

I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what 
you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you 
have told us next to nothing so far.

Thank you.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, 
bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com<mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com> wrote:

AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 
2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now 
they’re thinking water is circulating through these valves back to the fire 
truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,QdrGtBJFnnMBq_MxxAdgeDYtz-kB_ImE1v644LM95k3pSsbZhpAHkfzIxbBAEvQOzAsUrBdDYj-raGtp4ztl31D075dEqruopd_bL_eyWLv3BqFlGtN8gw,,=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,F04Y1ZsNJgEjoZu26JrpArvpNnpn1VQia8Y3DEJHhsrTlB4WnFHgA8B3i090VyRlIGM0B5CwQ8xn5n1odIP1gauEpZQcxaN4zdCw95t6VA,,=1_add=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[Brian Harris]

Don-
The truck is hooked up to a private hydrant downstream of the BFP and located 
next to the yard FDC. The FDC is on a dedicated line back to the building, 
tying in downstream of the pump discharge.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Don Casey 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 7:45 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

Where are they drawing the water from?



On Apr 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>> wrote:


[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.]

I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what 
you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you 
have told us next to nothing so far.

Thank you.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO


On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, 
bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com<mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com> wrote:

AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 
2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now 
they’re thinking water is circulating through these valves back to the fire 
truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,QdrGtBJFnnMBq_MxxAdgeDYtz-kB_ImE1v644LM95k3pSsbZhpAHkfzIxbBAEvQOzAsUrBdDYj-raGtp4ztl31D075dEqruopd_bL_eyWLv3BqFlGtN8gw,,=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,F04Y1ZsNJgEjoZu26JrpArvpNnpn1VQia8Y3DEJHhsrTlB4WnFHgA8B3i090VyRlIGM0B5CwQ8xn5n1odIP1gauEpZQcxaN4zdCw95t6VA,,=1_add=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[Brian Harris]

Allan-
Thanks for your time, have a great day.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 6:29 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what 
you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you 
have told us next to nothing so far.

Thank you.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO


On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, 
bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com<mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com> wrote:

AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 
2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now 
they’re thinking water is circulating through these valves back to the fire 
truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?

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


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[Don Casey]

Where are they drawing the water from?



On Apr 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, AKS-Gmail-IMAP  wrote:



[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.]


I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what 
you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you 
have told us next to nothing so far.

Thank you.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, 
bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com wrote:


AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 
2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now 
they’re thinking water is circulating through these valves back to the fire 
truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?

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


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

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Back Feeding Through the FDC?

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP]

I have an odd request. How about you taking some time to describe exactly what 
you are referring to so that we do not have to guess every aspect. Assume you 
have told us next to nothing so far.

Thank you.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com wrote:
> 
> AHJ had us remove a 5” Storz and replace it with a custom header that has (4) 
> 2-1/2” hose valves for the FDC. Standpipe test has failed 3 times and now 
> they’re thinking water is circulating through these valves back to the fire 
> truck. Anybody ever run into something like that?
> 
> 
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Riser in a rated stair enclosure

[Steven Jenkins]

A separate ”riser/backflow room” that has a door opening onto the stair 
enclosure (even a rated door) could be problematic per the building code.

2018 IBC 1023.4 limits the types of spaces that can open directly to interior 
exit stairways.

From: å...  
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 7:31 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Riser in a rated stair enclosure

 SCDLLR NOTICE (M365) 

•  This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
•  Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in e-mail 
text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.
Rated chase for sprinkler piping and/or riser appurtenances within a rated 
stairway is excessive protection per past norms of practice.
I would tolerate sprinkler pipe and appurtenances in a stairway, provided 
egress AND maintenance clearances.
Risk tolerance has declined over the years, but this ask might originate from 
motivations that have not delinced over the years.

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


The meaning of life is to find your gift.  The purpose of life is to give it 
away - picasso



On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:48 PM Hinson, Ryan 
mailto:rhin...@burnsmcd.com>> wrote:
Placement/coordination within the stairwell is also important since the riser 
location cannot encroach into the minimum egress width or height required 
through the stairwell.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Associate Fire Protection Engineer \ Upper Midwest Region
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com<mailto:rhin...@burnsmcd.com>  \  
burnsmcd.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.burnsmcd.com%2f=E,1,Mcj_Al8hjmfFBEV5_U05JpEBZ_o27vDB6iurmR9u1bDX6w4DxY5YBgDW0njpL0u8nOdkqZsMaWWArBUcPbYJMog3HfySg-yrzv-kQ-q7HKXsdKFMQw,,=1>
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 3:57 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Riser in a rated stair enclosure

Of a separate riser ROOM for backflow, etc.   Definitely not saying that you 
need a chase within the stair shaft, just that you’re not allowed to use the 
under-landing space for a “riser room”.

Steve

From: Prahl, Craig mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 1:48 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Riser in a rated stair enclosure

I’ve never seen a requirement for a 1 or 2-hr enclosure of a riser in a stair.  
The stair towers I’ve encountered are typically rated 2-hrs and the combination 
sprinkler/standpipe riser located under the first landing or off to the unused 
side of the ground level has never been rejected by an AHJ.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | 
www.jacobs.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.jacobs.com/__;!!KZTdOCjhgt4hgw!-_khxU8gU0_6jc895I7kRbnU8JghRDsWgqOblZ4jr7Qp2IVbR30VYw_hWvNFtphnl0uWpB9KIvbYi1pvZz4$>
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS


From: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 4:30 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Riser in a rated stair enclosure

Right, as long as your “riser/backflow room” is separated from the rest of the 
stair shaft.   And it might have to be 2-hour rated, not just 1-hour.

To the question of the sprinkler riser, there isn’t any restriction in the 
code, except for the obvious provisions for fire-stopping penetrations.

Steve L.

From: Anthony Carrizosa 
mailto:anth...@archerconstruction.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 1:22 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Riser in a rated stair enclosure

We do backflows and risers in stairs all the time, typically below the 
intermediate landing, as long as it’s a minimum 1 hour construction then it has 
been ok with most jurisdictions. Remember standpipes and floor controls are 
typically in stairs as a standard.

Anthony Carrizosa
Project Manager | Fire Protection
7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032
Cell: 206-679-5283 | Office Dir: 253-341-4593
[cid:image001.jpg@01DA9008.87388FA0]
https://archercon

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[Ron Greenman]

I would guess that anyone here who knew George misses him. And in the
spirit of George, anyone reading this who finds the forum useful and is not
a member of AFSA ought to join before the day is done. And also join your
local chapter.


On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 10:10 AM  wrote:

> We need a ‘smiley face’ button on the forum for times like this.  I miss
> George
>
>
>
> Cliff Whitfield, SET
>
> President
>
>
>
> Fire Design, Inc.
>
> 940 Summerbrooke Dr
>
> Tallahassee, FL 32312
>
> Ph: 828-284-4772
>
> [image: Description: New FDI Logo-4.jpg]
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Mote 
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2024 12:03 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve
>
>
>
> Thanks for the help to all who replied. Tom, I always get a little
> nostalgic around this time of year. GLC was hands down the best boss I ever
> worked for. The job in question is for Rowe, something came up and they
> asked me to unretire for a month or two, so I have.
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> --
>
> *From:* tduro...@comcast.net 
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2024 9:37:06 AM
> *To:* 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve
>
>
>
> I had some difficulty in commissioning an 8” ClaVal we installed on a 1500
> gpm pump in Cranston a few years ago.  We took out the inside test header
> and installed the SCV in it’s place an piped the suction line in ¼” soft
> copper.  Joe from ClaVal had retired (too bad) but we managed to get a hold
> of a knowledgeable outside tech who helped us out.  Seemed the ‘preferred’
> location was between the discharge and pump check (not after) and the
> sensing line be ½” right from the suction gauge tap (1/4”) to the operator
> inlet (1/8”).  Once we changed that, it worked perfectly.  Happy birthday
> GLC.
>
> Go Red Sox.
>
>
>
> *From:* Merle Hittle 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2024 2:13 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve
>
>
>
> It is required to be an OS and located between the suction flange and
> the fire pump bypass.  No preference on manufacturer other than complying
> with the specifications.
>
>
>
> Merle
>
>
>
> *From:* rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com <
> rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2024 11:11 AM
> *To:* 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Suction Control Valve
>
>
>
> I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time.
> I’m assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or
> after the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model;
> this one is an 8”. First time in 45 years of doing this.
>
>
>
> Richard L. Mote CET
>
> Rimrock Design Services, LLC
>
> Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> Mobile 570-541-2685
>
> EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
>
> WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com
>
>
>
> Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> Content cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information
> could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
> incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
> liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message,
> which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required
> please request a hard-copy version.
>
> Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> Content cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information
> could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[cliff]

We need a ‘smiley face’ button on the forum for times like this.  I miss
George



Cliff Whitfield, SET

President



Fire Design, Inc.

940 Summerbrooke Dr

Tallahassee, FL 32312

Ph: 828-284-4772





From: Richard Mote 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 12:03 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve



Thanks for the help to all who replied. Tom, I always get a little nostalgic
around this time of year. GLC was hands down the best boss I ever worked
for. The job in question is for Rowe, something came up and they asked me to
unretire for a month or two, so I have.



Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

  _

From: tduro...@comcast.net <mailto:tduro...@comcast.net>
mailto:tduro...@comcast.net> >
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 9:37:06 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers'
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve



I had some difficulty in commissioning an 8” ClaVal we installed on a 1500
gpm pump in Cranston a few years ago.  We took out the inside test header
and installed the SCV in it’s place an piped the suction line in ¼” soft
copper.  Joe from ClaVal had retired (too bad) but we managed to get a hold
of a knowledgeable outside tech who helped us out.  Seemed the ‘preferred’
location was between the discharge and pump check (not after) and the
sensing line be ½” right from the suction gauge tap (1/4”) to the operator
inlet (1/8”).  Once we changed that, it worked perfectly.  Happy birthday
GLC.

Go Red Sox.



From: Merle Hittle mailto:mhit...@txfs.us> >
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve



It is required to be an OS and located between the suction flange and the
fire pump bypass.  No preference on manufacturer other than complying with
the specifications.



Merle



From: rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:11 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers'
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Suction Control Valve



I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time. I’m
assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or after
the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model; this one
is an 8”. First time in 45 years of doing this.



Richard L. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services, LLC

Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>

WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com



Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Content
cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result
of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a
hard-copy version.

Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Content
cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result
of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a
hard-copy version.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[Richard Mote]

Thanks for the help to all who replied. Tom, I always get a little nostalgic 
around this time of year. GLC was hands down the best boss I ever worked for. 
The job in question is for Rowe, something came up and they asked me to 
unretire for a month or two, so I have.

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

From: tduro...@comcast.net 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 9:37:06 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve


I had some difficulty in commissioning an 8” ClaVal we installed on a 1500 gpm 
pump in Cranston a few years ago.  We took out the inside test header and 
installed the SCV in it’s place an piped the suction line in ¼” soft copper.  
Joe from ClaVal had retired (too bad) but we managed to get a hold of a 
knowledgeable outside tech who helped us out.  Seemed the ‘preferred’ location 
was between the discharge and pump check (not after) and the sensing line be ½” 
right from the suction gauge tap (1/4”) to the operator inlet (1/8”).  Once we 
changed that, it worked perfectly.  Happy birthday GLC.

Go Red Sox.



From: Merle Hittle 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve



It is required to be an OS and located between the suction flange and the 
fire pump bypass.  No preference on manufacturer other than complying with the 
specifications.



Merle



From: 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com> 
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:11 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Suction Control Valve



I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time. I’m 
assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or after 
the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model; this one is 
an 8”. First time in 45 years of doing this.



Richard L. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services, LLC

Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>

WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com



Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message. Content cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is 
required please request a hard-copy version.

Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message. Content cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is 
required please request a hard-copy version.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[tduross1]

I had some difficulty in commissioning an 8” ClaVal we installed on a 1500
gpm pump in Cranston a few years ago.  We took out the inside test header
and installed the SCV in it’s place an piped the suction line in ¼” soft
copper.  Joe from ClaVal had retired (too bad) but we managed to get a hold
of a knowledgeable outside tech who helped us out.  Seemed the ‘preferred’
location was between the discharge and pump check (not after) and the
sensing line be ½” right from the suction gauge tap (1/4”) to the operator
inlet (1/8”).  Once we changed that, it worked perfectly.  Happy birthday
GLC.

Go Red Sox.

 

From: Merle Hittle  
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

 

It is required to be an OS and located between the suction flange and the
fire pump bypass.  No preference on manufacturer other than complying with
the specifications.

 

Merle

 

From: rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:11 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers'
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Suction Control Valve

 

I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time. I’m
assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or after
the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model; this one
is an 8”. First time in 45 years of doing this.

 

Richard L. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services, LLC

Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com> 

WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com

 

Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Content
cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result
of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a
hard-copy version. 

Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Content
cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result
of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a
hard-copy version. 


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Steel Grating

[Bob Knight]

Yes, there is a roof deck above that is sprinklered.  I have put 
sprinklers below the grating using shields on the sprinklers.  Just 
second guessing myself.


/Thank you,
Bob Knight, CET III//
/*/Fire by Knight, LLC/*/
//208-318-3057/
FIREBYKNIGHT
On 4/12/2024 4:41 PM, Bob Knight wrote:
I have an area that has Steel Grating that is 1/4" x 1-1/2".  The 
openings are 15/16" x 3 3/4".
When A.3.3.41.2(2) {2019 ED} states "the thickness of the ceiling 
material does not exceed the least dimension of the openings", is this 
referring to the depth of the member (1 1/2") or the width between 
openings (15/16") or the actual thickness on the material (1/4")?


It's late on a Friday and I'm tired.  Thanks for the help.
--

/Thank you,
Bob Knight, CET III//
/*/Fire by Knight, LLC/*/
//208-318-3057/
FIREBYKNIGHT

 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Steel Grating

[Worley, Tom]

Sounds to me like the thickness of the material nor the depth of the material 
can exceed the least dimension of the opening.  Are your sprinklers above the 
grating?


9.3.10*
 Open-Grid Ceilings.

Open-grid ceilings shall only be installed beneath sprinklers where one of the 
following is met:

  *   (1)

Open-grid ceilings in which the openings are 1⁄4 in. (6 mm) or larger in the 
least dimension, where the thickness or depth of the material does not exceed 
the least dimension of the opening, and where such openings constitute 70 
percent of the area of the ceiling material. The spacing of the sprinklers over 
the open-grid ceiling shall then comply with the following:

 *   (a)

In light hazard occupancies where sprinkler spacing (either spray or old-style 
sprinklers) is less than 10 ft × 10 ft (3 m × 3 m), a minimum clearance of at 
least 18 in. (450 mm) shall be provided between the sprinkler deflectors and 
the upper surface of the open-grid ceiling. Where spacing is greater than 10 ft 
× 10 ft (3 m × 3 m) but less than 10 ft × 12 ft (3 m × 3.7 m), a clearance of 
at least 24 in. (600 mm) shall be provided from spray sprinklers and at least 
36 in. (900 mm) from old-style sprinklers. Where spacing is greater than 10 ft 
× 12 ft (3 m × 3.7 m), a clearance of at least 48 in. (1.2 m) shall be provided.

 *   (b)

In ordinary hazard occupancies, open-grid ceilings shall be permitted to be 
installed beneath spray sprinklers only. Where sprinkler spacing is less than 
10 ft × 10 ft (3 m × 3 m), a minimum clearance of at least 24 in. (600 mm) 
shall be provided between the sprinkler deflectors and the upper surface of the 
open-grid ceiling. Where spacing is greater than 10 ft × 10 ft (3 m × 3 m), a 
clearance of at least 36 in. (900 m) shall be provided.

  *   (2)

Other types of open-grid ceilings shall be permitted to be installed beneath 
sprinklers where they are listed for such service and are installed in 
accordance with instructions contained in each package of ceiling material.





From: Bob Knight 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Steel Grating

I have an area that has Steel Grating that is 1/4" x 1-1/2".  The openings are 
15/16" x 3 3/4".
When A.3.3.41.2(2) {2019 ED} states "the thickness of the  ceiling material 
does not exceed the least dimension of the openings", is this referring to the 
depth of the member (1 1/2") or the width between openings (15/16") or the 
actual thickness on the material (1/4")?

It's late on a Friday and I'm tired.  Thanks for the help.
--

Thank you,
Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057
[FIREBYKNIGHT]

[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]
Virus-free.www.avg.com

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Plastisol liquid PVC

[Steve Leyton]

Thanks Todd.  Nine 55’s of 3B on the floor don’t bother me and they keep about 
a thousand lure bodies on hand at any given time.   The finished products are 
bagged and header cards  attached by hand on work tables, a small-scale 
operation.   So I think I can safely call it Group A up to 5’…

SL



From: Fpdcdesign 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 12:32 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Plastisol liquid PVC

Steve, a quick search found a couple of different MSDS. The older ones showed 
as you said but some newer ones called it a IIIB flammable liquid. I would 
suggest contact the supplier and get the latest MSDS.

Todd Williams
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-608-4559



On Apr 12, 2024 at 2:59 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> 
wrote:
Happy Friday Forumites:

I’m doing an assessment for a client who’s being compelled to upgrade their 
DCDA to an RPDA in an area that is served by a public water system zone that 
has dropped significantly in working pressure since the time the subject 
building was certified for occupancy.   Typically in this scenario, the City of 
San Diego requires that you prove that the residual pressure and flow on the 
calc’ card can still be met after additional pressure loss is taken for the RP 
device, but in this case it cannot.   So we’re looking at it from a 
protect-to-suit standpoint so that the owner and tenants can at least maintain 
ongoing operations.  Ran into a fishing lure manufacturer in one of the suites 
and they make swim baits from Plastisol, which is essentially liquid PVC, 
60-100% depending on application.The fire and ignition info on a standard 
form MSDS states “Not applicable” for the metrics we use to evaluate flammable 
liquid class, so I’m wondering if anyone has experience classifying this liquid 
(there are 9x 55 gallon drums in the suite) and what the flash point and 
commodity classification might be once it’s been baked into fake sardines and 
whatnot?   I’m assuming its Group A since it’s PVC and semi-solid at that point.


[cid:image001.jpg@01DA8CD7.489F2EE0]
Steve Leyton, President
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


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

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Plastisol liquid PVC

[Fpdcdesign]

  
  

 Steve, a quick search found a couple of different MSDS. The older ones showed 
as you said but some newer ones called it a IIIB flammable liquid. I would 
suggest contact the supplier and get the latest MSDS.   
  
  
  
  
Todd Williams 

  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-608-4559
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Apr 12, 2024 at 2:59 PM,   (mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> Happy Friday Forumites:
>   
>  I’m doing an assessment for a client who’s being compelled to upgrade their 
> DCDA to an RPDA in an area that is served by a public water system zone that 
> has dropped significantly in working pressure since the time the subject 
> building was certified for occupancy.  Typically in this scenario, the 
> City of San Diego requires that you prove that the residual pressure and flow 
> on the calc’ card can still be met after additional pressure loss is taken 
> for the RP device, but in this case it cannot.  So we’re looking at it 
> from a protect-to-suit standpoint so that the owner and tenants can at least 
> maintain ongoing operations.Ran into a fishing lure manufacturer in one 
> of the suites and they make swim baits from Plastisol, which is essentially 
> liquid PVC, 60-100% depending on application. The fire and ignition 
> info on a standard form MSDS states “Not applicable” for the metrics we use 
> to evaluate flammable liquid class, so I’m wondering if anyone has experience 
> classifying this liquid (there are 9x 55 gallon drums in the suite) and what 
> the flash point and commodity classification might be once it’s been baked 
> into fake sardines and whatnot?  I’m assuming its Group A since it’s PVC 
> and semi-solid at that point. 
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>
>
>   
>
>Steve Leyton, President
>  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
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>  _ SprinklerForum 
> mailing list: 
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   
  
  
 
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[Jay Potvin]

We work in a jurisdiction that requires these on all fire pump installation,  
they are installed on the discharge before the check valve and the there is a 
sensing line piped back to the suction side of the pump, usually into the OS 
½" plug with copper or brass.


[https://maksoninc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Makson-Email-Signature-Logo.jpg]
Click Here for Licensing Information<http://www.maksoninc.com/licenses/>

Jay Potvin
Operations Manager
1306 Speedway Blvd
Salisbury, NC 28146
NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS

Office: 704.636.5505
Direct: 704.960.1636
Mobile: 704.239.7846
Fax: 704.636.5504
Email: jay.pot...@maksonfp.com
Web: https://maksonfp.com

From: Merle Hittle 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve


EXTERNAL SENDER WARNING. This message was sent from outside your organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source 
of this email and know the content is safe.


It is required to be an OS and located between the suction flange and the 
fire pump bypass.  No preference on manufacturer other than complying with the 
specifications.

Merle

From: 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com> 
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:11 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Suction Control Valve

I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time. I'm 
assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or after 
the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model; this one is 
an 8". First time in 45 years of doing this.

Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
WEB: 
www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com=DwMFAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=_Xl1CWMOAGpkCwW3O_Mz3EaG1ZjU3NikPc9OU10sWAc=uO_7pPkCAl3Hh1uyhBUqy2Pvk_vmGGaS72S5vjfcKDqngl6EMNbVD9DaQKz9LAM-=EKljf3WzW_m_MhQUsC567obXi1loC3gYCZQw-_gsdwE=>

Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message. Content cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is 
required please request a hard-copy version.
Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message. Content cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is 
required please request a hard-copy version.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[Merle Hittle]

It is required to be an OS and located between the suction flange and the 
fire pump bypass.  No preference on manufacturer other than complying with the 
specifications.

Merle

From: rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:11 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Suction Control Valve

I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time. I'm 
assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or after 
the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model; this one is 
an 8". First time in 45 years of doing this.

Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com

Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message. Content cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is 
required please request a hard-copy version.
Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message. Content cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore 
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is 
required please request a hard-copy version.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[Worley, Tom]

Suction control goes after the pump, before the check.   Has a sensing line to 
the gate valve before the pump that controls it. We use ClaVal

On Apr 12, 2024 12:12 PM, rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time. I’m 
assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or after 
the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model; this one is 
an 8”. First time in 45 years of doing this.

Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[Travis Mack]

Check your data sheets.  If these are the same ones I'm thinking of, it goes on 
the discharge side of the fire pump.  The data sheet will be very clear on it.

Look at page 3 of 3 in this link: 
https://www.zurn.com/media-library/web_documents/pdfs/specsheets/acv-zw215fp-pdf

Travis Mack, SET
M.E.P.CAD | Instructor / Support
181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074
www.mepcad.com | m: 480.547.9348| Whatspp: +14805479348
Email: t.m...@mepcad.com

AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD

From: rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 9:11 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Suction Control Valve

I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time. I'm 
assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or after 
the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model; this one is 
an 8". First time in 45 years of doing this.

Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Main floor hose valve location.

[Fpdcdesign]

 
 

 Me too. I think I remember you from then.  
 
 
 
 
Todd Williams

 
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-608-4559
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Mar 29, 2024 at 2:28 PM,  mailto:dhavensh...@yahoo.com)>  
> wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>  
> Yes, Todd.Back in the Boston District Office, some 40-plus years ago.
>  
>
>  
> Regards,
>  
>
>  
> Dwight Havens
>  
> Pre-planning Engineer
>  
> Round Lake Fire Department
>  
>
>  
> Still volunteering, now in Malta, NY.
>  
>
>
>  
>  
> On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 10:23:44 AM EDT, Fpdcdesign  
>   wrote:
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>  Dwight,
>  
>
>  
> That is pretty much what I have said. I am proposing adding a hose valve in a 
> common area and submit to the AHJ to add this arrangement in their fire 
> planning.  
>  
>
>  From a practical standpoint, the FD would fight a firein the main 
> occupied areas from the hydrant across the street. If you saw the building, 
> you would get it.
>
>  
> BTW, did you work for FM Boston Office many decades ago?  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>  
>  
> >  
> > On Mar 28, 2024 at 10:41 AM,   > (mailto:dhavensh...@yahoo.com)>  wrote:
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >
> >  
> > Todd,
> >  
> >
> >  
> > As a retired AHJ, my opinion would be that you do not need the hose valves 
> > on the first-floor standpipe risers for fighting a fire on the first floor, 
> > since access to the first floor is not gained through the stairwells.
> >  
> >
> >  
> > However, you'd need to pass that by the fire chief of the department 
> > responsible for providing that service, and the permitting authority for 
> > the installation for approval. One of the last things that you want to do 
> > is create a condition that is not expected by the fire department, so such 
> > an arrangement needs to be incorporated into the building preplan.
> >  
> >
> >  
> > As a firefighter, I would expect that hose outlet to be there (on the first 
> > floor in the stairwell).We use it for fighting fires on the second 
> > floor, and as an alternate method of supplying the standpipes if for some 
> > reason the fire department connection is dysfunctional.
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >  
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >
> >   I am working on a small 4 story building where we are required to install 
> > a standpipe (as well as a full 13 sprinkler system). The first floor 
> > consists of a conference area, office space and various mechanical and 
> > storage rooms. The conference space and office area have direct access to 
> > the outside, but there is no communicating space between them. The 2 
> > stairways lead to an outside access only. The elevator lobby has an outside 
> > door but does not connect to the stairways or conference and office spaces. 
> > The total footprint of the building is less than 3000 sqft.  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >   Where do you put the hose valve on the 1st floor?
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > Todd G Williams, PE 
> > Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> >  
> > Stonington, CT
> >  
> > 860-535-2080  (ofc)
> >  
> > 860-554-7054 (fax)
> >  
> > 860-608-4559  (cell)
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  _
> >  SprinklerForum mailing list:
> >   
> > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> >  To unsubscribe send an email to  
> > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > (mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> >
> >  
> >  
> >  _ SprinklerForum 
> > mailing list: 
> > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >  
> >  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  _
>  SprinklerForum mailing list:
>   https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to  
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> (mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org)
> _ SprinklerForum 
> mailing list: 
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org  
>   
_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Floor Control Valves

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP]

Sometimes this comes down to a building code requirement that the water flow 
alarm must indicate which floor level is flowing. Then there can all sorts of 
nuances that come into play that depends on exactly what types of sprinkle 
system components are installed at each floor level and what has been designed 
into the system to mitigate operational issues.

There is also one other aspect that could be going on with the proposed system 
piping for the floors above the ground floor. The sprinkler contractor might be 
trying to birdcage the design in which case it would be impossible to indicate 
flow per floor or isolate any part of the system. Birdcage is where the 
sprinkler piping branch lines rises vertically within the walls.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO  

> On Apr 9, 2024, at 6:56 AM, chris.jo...@ci.urbana.oh.us wrote:
> 
> I have a 3 story older building being renovated with sprinkler system being 
> added. My question is can AHJ require a floor control valve to be added to 
> each floor. Plans only show 1 floor control valve for the first floor. 1st 
> floor being business, 2nd and 3rd floor being residential and attic space 
> being sprinklered also. Concern of freeze and break in attic on older 
> building and to be able to isolate a floor after a fire.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Chris Jones, Fire Marshal
> 
> Urbana Fire Division
> 
> 
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Floor Control Valves

[Gregg Fontes]

What is the total square footage of the building?  If it is under 52,000 sq. 
ft. per 13 2016 8.2.4.3 they are not required.

Thanks,
Gregg Fontes
Lead Estimator
O: 209-334-9119
gr...@cen-calfire.com

[image001.jpg]

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: chris.jo...@ci.urbana.oh.us 
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2024 4:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Floor Control Valves


I have a 3 story older building being renovated with sprinkler system being 
added. My question is can AHJ require a floor control valve to be added to each 
floor. Plans only show 1 floor control valve for the first floor. 1st floor 
being business, 2nd and 3rd floor being residential and attic space being 
sprinklered also. Concern of freeze and break in attic on older building and to 
be able to isolate a floor after a fire.



Thanks

Chris Jones, Fire Marshal

Urbana Fire Division

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Floor Control Valves

[Prahl, Craig]

A floor Control Valve at each level is an NFPA 13 Requirement.  Either they’re 
installed or the system doesn’t pass inspection and no C of O.

A FCV at each level just makes sense when it comes to future servicing of the 
system and not having to drain down all levels for a simple repair.

A change order is due outlining the written requirement.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | 
www.jacobs.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.jacobs.com/__;!!KZTdOCjhgt4hgw!-_khxU8gU0_6jc895I7kRbnU8JghRDsWgqOblZ4jr7Qp2IVbR30VYw_hWvNFtphnl0uWpB9KIvbYi1pvZz4$>
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS


From: Rick Matsuda 
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 9:00 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Floor Control Valves

Maybe you can “convince” the owner to install four control valves, one for each 
floor and one for the attic.
Tell him that if the system has only one control valve and it has to be shut 
off for any reason, then he will be required to evacuate the entire building or 
pay for a “fire watch” on each floor until the system is returned to service.

I don’t know if there is any code justification for this reasoning…it’s just my 
off-the-wall thought.
Rick Matsuda

On Apr 9, 2024, at 7:52 AM, 
bcap...@firesprinkler.org<mailto:bcap...@firesprinkler.org> wrote:

A lot depends on the year of the standard being applied, but YES an AHJ can 
(and should) require things that make sense for his/her community and the 
methods used or planned for fire and EMS responses.  In this case, you are on 
solid footing because NFPA 13 (2019 edition) section 16.9.11.1 requires floor 
control valves in multistory buildings exceeding two stories in height.

This requirement was added to NFPA 13 in the 2013 edition (section 8.16.1.5)




[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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/firesprinkler.org/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!CCUYhDtfWTlgR_5LUvsZubHFnZX7RjBvVjzbuNpHai-0HQgnxKeuITDo-6r11npheB_4kcQQHhi5byOM1nXm$>
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/facebook_sig.png]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!CCUYhDtfWTlgR_5LUvsZubHFnZX7RjBvVjzbuNpHai-0HQgnxKeuITDo-6r11npheB_4kcQQHhi5b5y_I45n$>
  
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/twitter_sig.png] 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!CCUYhDtfWTlgR_5LUvsZubHFnZX7RjBvVjzbuNpHai-0HQgnxKeuITDo-6r11npheB_4kcQQHhi5b26u9rXz$>
   
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/linkedin_sig.png]
 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!CCUYhDtfWTlgR_5LUvsZubHFnZX7RjBvVjzbuNpHai-0HQgnxKeuITDo-6r11npheB_4kcQQHhi5b4fQt9rY$>
   
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/instagram_sig.png]
 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!CCUYhDtfWTlgR_5LUvsZubHFnZX7RjBvVjzbuNpHai-0HQgnxKeuITDo-6r11npheB_4kcQQHhi5b_cSQsbk$>

Top-Notch Training for ITM Technicians!

AFSA has taken ITM) training to the next level with three new courses: 
Beginning 
ITM<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.firesprinkler.org/programs/beginning-itm-workshop/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!CCUYhDtfWTlgR_5LUvsZubHFnZX7RjBvVjzbuNpHai-0HQgnxKeuITDo-6r11npheB_4kcQQHhi5b6f7Y_3K$>,
 Intermediate 
ITM<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.firesprinkler.org/programs/intermediate-itm-workshop/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!CCUYhDtfWTlgR_5LUvsZubHFnZX7RjBvVjzbuNpHai-0HQgnxKeuITDo-6r11npheB_4kcQQHhi5b8EEAxVv$>,
 and Fire Pump 
ITM<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.firesprinkler.org/programs/fire-pump-itm-workshop/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!CCUYhDtfWTlgR_5LUvsZubHFnZX7RjBvVjzbuNpHai-0HQgnxKeuITDo-6r11npheB_4kcQQHhi5b0ZnQ44r$>.
 Each workshop offers CEUs, CPDs, and contact hours. Expand your business and 
increase your employees’ knowledge and skill set with these training 
opportunities!

From: chris.jo...@ci.urbana.oh.us<mailto:chris.jo...@ci.urbana.oh.us> 
mailto:chris.jo...@ci.urbana.oh.us>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 6:57 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Floor Control Valves


I have a 3 story older building being renovated with sprinkler system being 
added. My question is can AHJ require a floor control valve to be added to each 
floor. Plans only show 1 floor control valve for the first floor. 1st floor 
being business, 2nd and 3rd floor being residential an

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Floor Control Valves

[Rick Matsuda]

Maybe you can “convince” the owner to install four control valves, one for each 
floor and one for the attic. 
Tell him that if the system has only one control valve and it has to be shut 
off for any reason, then he will be required to evacuate the entire building or 
pay for a “fire watch” on each floor until the system is returned to service. 

I don’t know if there is any code justification for this reasoning…it’s just my 
off-the-wall thought.  
Rick Matsuda 

> On Apr 9, 2024, at 7:52 AM, bcap...@firesprinkler.org wrote:
> 
> 
> A lot depends on the year of the standard being applied, but YES an AHJ can 
> (and should) require things that make sense for his/her community and the 
> methods used or planned for fire and EMS responses.  In this case, you are on 
> solid footing because NFPA 13 (2019 edition) section 16.9.11.1 requires floor 
> control valves in multistory buildings exceeding two stories in height.
>  
> This requirement was added to NFPA 13 in the 2013 edition (section 8.16.1.5)
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> Bob Caputo, CFPS
> President
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
> c: 760-908-7753
> p:
> 214-349-5965 ext124 
> w:
> firesprinkler.org  
>   
>  
> Top-Notch Training for ITM Technicians!
> 
> AFSA has taken ITM) training to the next level with three new courses: 
> Beginning ITM, Intermediate ITM, and Fire Pump ITM. Each workshop offers 
> CEUs, CPDs, and contact hours. Expand your business and increase your 
> employees’ knowledge and skill set with these training opportunities!
>  
> From: chris.jo...@ci.urbana.oh.us  
> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 6:57 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Floor Control Valves
>  
> I have a 3 story older building being renovated with sprinkler system being 
> added. My question is can AHJ require a floor control valve to be added to 
> each floor. Plans only show 1 floor control valve for the first floor. 1st 
> floor being business, 2nd and 3rd floor being residential and attic space 
> being sprinklered also. Concern of freeze and break in attic on older 
> building and to be able to isolate a floor after a fire.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Chris Jones, Fire Marshal
> 
> Urbana Fire Division
> 
> 
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Floor Control Valves

[bcaputo]

A lot depends on the year of the standard being applied, but YES an AHJ can
(and should) require things that make sense for his/her community and the
methods used or planned for fire and EMS responses.  In this case, you are
on solid footing because NFPA 13 (2019 edition) section 16.9.11.1 requires
floor control valves in multistory buildings exceeding two stories in
height.

 

This requirement was added to NFPA 13 in the 2013 edition (section 8.16.1.5)


 

 

 

 


   


Bob Caputo, CFPS


President


American Fire Sprinkler Association

c: 760-908-7753


p:

214-349-5965 ext124 


w:

  firesprinkler.org  


 

 

 

Top-Notch Training for ITM Technicians!

AFSA has taken ITM) training to the next level with three new courses:
 Beginning
ITM,  
Intermediate ITM, and
 Fire Pump
ITM. Each workshop offers CEUs, CPDs, and contact hours. Expand your
business and increase your employees' knowledge and skill set with these
training opportunities!

 

From: chris.jo...@ci.urbana.oh.us  
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 6:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Floor Control Valves

 

I have a 3 story older building being renovated with sprinkler system being
added. My question is can AHJ require a floor control valve to be added to
each floor. Plans only show 1 floor control valve for the first floor. 1st
floor being business, 2nd and 3rd floor being residential and attic space
being sprinklered also. Concern of freeze and break in attic on older
building and to be able to isolate a floor after a fire. 

 

Thanks 

Chris Jones, Fire Marshal

Urbana Fire Division 


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Protecting underground storage of explosives.

[Prahl, Craig]

So, to get into greater detail, Ammonium Nitrate by itself is a class 2 
oxidizer.  Only when they come in contact with organic materials can they start 
a fire.   Otherwise, it is not a flammable or combustible.  It accelerates 
burning and under specific conditions can create an explosion when combined 
with other agents.

Diesel fuel is either a class IIIA or II depending on the additives.  Verify 
via SDS.

Quantities of materials come into play when if comes to the occupancy 
classification of the space.  More than 250 gallons of ammonium nitrate in a 
non-sprinklered area and you’re into a H-3 occupancy.  H3 will require 
sprinkler protection as well as secondary containment for liquid spill and 
sprinkler discharge.

Diesel fuel if Class II or IIIA will also have limits and could push the space 
into a H3 occupancy.

However, this one gets a bit tricky as some might argue that in a mine the 
building code doesn’t apply since there is no building.  This becomes a 
conversation with the owner and the responding fire department as to how the 
area should be addressed from a code perspective.  The local building code 
official might not even have any jurisdiction over this operation.


Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | 
www.jacobs.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.jacobs.com/__;!!KZTdOCjhgt4hgw!-_khxU8gU0_6jc895I7kRbnU8JghRDsWgqOblZ4jr7Qp2IVbR30VYw_hWvNFtphnl0uWpB9KIvbYi1pvZz4$>
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS


From: Ron Greenman 
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 7:04 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Protecting underground storage of 
explosives.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IFC2018/CHAPTER-56-EXPLOSIVES-AND-FIREWORKS?site_type=public<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/codes.iccsafe.org/content/IFC2018/CHAPTER-56-EXPLOSIVES-AND-FIREWORKS?site_type=public__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!HcoNsBHu1Kt7gDx9eIsIlgC7kQ0B1QsdtYW10ciYB40ZfDiIEMRpBgT8My0j_cMinCaHcEjjLt41ThaNNxWE-ws$>

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 1:20 PM Prahl, Craig 
mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>> wrote:
Munitions and explosives are typically protected via separation.  On military 
projects, storage areas such as these are either semi-subterranean (partially 
earthen covered bunker), or just physically separated from other structures by 
several hundred feet.

I do hope the components are adequately separated.

Fire is usually not an issue in these spaces since there should be very 
stringent controls on ignition sources.  So, we don’t waste money on sprinklers 
or other types of suppression systems.  They just aren’t going to stop an 
explosion event.  Once it’s done, it’s done.

You can take a look at UFC 4-420-01, May 2015 for the way munitions and 
explosive storage is handled by the military.  UFC = Unified Facilities 
Criteria.  You can search for it on-line.  There are no restrictions for access.

You’d also have to  deal with sprinkler run-off and being underground, that 
might be a big challenge.

So, basically, this isn’t a sprinkler contractor project.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com> | 
www.jacobs.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.jacobs.com/__;!!KZTdOCjhgt4hgw!-_khxU8gU0_6jc895I7kRbnU8JghRDsWgqOblZ4jr7Qp2IVbR30VYw_hWvNFtphnl0uWpB9KIvbYi1pvZz4$>
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS


From: Chris Dorn 
mailto:chris.d...@dornfireprotection.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 4:05 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Protecting underground storage of 
explosives.

Trying to help a friend of a friend. Has anyone ever provided any type of fire 
suppression system for underground storage of ANFO (Ammoniun Nitrate and fuel 
oil mixture)? The area in question is in a limestone mine underground. The 
space is pretty large and has 30’ ceilings so I’m guessing that chemical 
suppression is not going to be an option. I tend to believe that sprinklers may 
not be the route to go. Water will apparently render the ANFO inert but in case 
of a fire I’m not sure that the sprinklers could operate fast enough to provide 
any real protection. Additionally, the water supply is inadequate for almost 
any type of sprinkler system anyway.

I’m not really finding much in NFPA except Annex C in NFPA 495 which refers to 
separation distances. I did find a reference to NFPA 490 2002 Edition but 
cannot find a current code so I’m guessing it was folded into 495 at some point.

Any direction at all would be appreciated to help me in my research.

Chris Dorn
Dorn Fire Protection LLC




NOTI

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Protecting underground storage of explosives.

[Ron Greenman]

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IFC2018/CHAPTER-56-EXPLOSIVES-AND-FIREWORKS?site_type=public

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 1:20 PM Prahl, Craig  wrote:

> Munitions and explosives are typically protected via separation.  On
> military projects, storage areas such as these are either semi-subterranean
> (partially earthen covered bunker), or just physically separated from other
> structures by several hundred feet.
>
>
>
> I do hope the components are adequately separated.
>
>
>
> Fire is usually not an issue in these spaces since there should be very
> stringent controls on ignition sources.  So, we don’t waste money on
> sprinklers or other types of suppression systems.  They just aren’t going
> to stop an explosion event.  Once it’s done, it’s done.
>
>
>
> You can take a look at UFC 4-420-01, May 2015 for the way munitions and
> explosive storage is handled by the military.  UFC = Unified Facilities
> Criteria.  You can search for it on-line.  There are no restrictions for
> access.
>
>
>
> You’d also have to  deal with sprinkler run-off and being underground,
> that might be a big challenge.
>
>
>
> So, basically, this isn’t a sprinkler contractor project.
>
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 
>
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
> CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Dorn 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 4:05 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Protecting underground storage of
> explosives.
>
>
>
> Trying to help a friend of a friend. Has anyone ever provided any type of
> fire suppression system for underground storage of ANFO (Ammoniun Nitrate
> and fuel oil mixture)? The area in question is in a limestone mine
> underground. The space is pretty large and has 30’ ceilings so I’m guessing
> that chemical suppression is not going to be an option. I tend to believe
> that sprinklers may not be the route to go. Water will apparently render
> the ANFO inert but in case of a fire I’m not sure that the sprinklers could
> operate fast enough to provide any real protection. Additionally, the water
> supply is inadequate for almost any type of sprinkler system anyway.
>
>
>
> I’m not really finding much in NFPA except Annex C in NFPA 495 which
> refers to separation distances. I did find a reference to NFPA 490 2002
> Edition but cannot find a current code so I’m guessing it was folded into
> 495 at some point.
>
>
>
> Any direction at all would be appreciated to help me in my research.
>
>
>
> Chris Dorn
>
> Dorn Fire Protection LLC
>
>
>
> --
>
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by
> unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message
> and deleting it from your computer.
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Protecting underground storage of explosives.

[Prahl, Craig]

Munitions and explosives are typically protected via separation.  On military 
projects, storage areas such as these are either semi-subterranean (partially 
earthen covered bunker), or just physically separated from other structures by 
several hundred feet.

I do hope the components are adequately separated.

Fire is usually not an issue in these spaces since there should be very 
stringent controls on ignition sources.  So, we don't waste money on sprinklers 
or other types of suppression systems.  They just aren't going to stop an 
explosion event.  Once it's done, it's done.

You can take a look at UFC 4-420-01, May 2015 for the way munitions and 
explosive storage is handled by the military.  UFC = Unified Facilities 
Criteria.  You can search for it on-line.  There are no restrictions for access.

You'd also have to  deal with sprinkler run-off and being underground, that 
might be a big challenge.

So, basically, this isn't a sprinkler contractor project.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME - Special Hazards | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS


From: Chris Dorn 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 4:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Protecting underground storage of 
explosives.

Trying to help a friend of a friend. Has anyone ever provided any type of fire 
suppression system for underground storage of ANFO (Ammoniun Nitrate and fuel 
oil mixture)? The area in question is in a limestone mine underground. The 
space is pretty large and has 30' ceilings so I'm guessing that chemical 
suppression is not going to be an option. I tend to believe that sprinklers may 
not be the route to go. Water will apparently render the ANFO inert but in case 
of a fire I'm not sure that the sprinklers could operate fast enough to provide 
any real protection. Additionally, the water supply is inadequate for almost 
any type of sprinkler system anyway.

I'm not really finding much in NFPA except Annex C in NFPA 495 which refers to 
separation distances. I did find a reference to NFPA 490 2002 Edition but 
cannot find a current code so I'm guessing it was folded into 495 at some point.

Any direction at all would be appreciated to help me in my research.

Chris Dorn
Dorn Fire Protection LLC




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: SECTION ~ 9.3.14.3 & FIGURE A.9.3.14.3 (NFPA-13, 2022 ed)

[Ken Wagoner]

  
  
George,
  
  I believe I see the confusion here.
  
  The figure in the annex illustrates that the sprinkler system is
  to extend into the open space 0.6 x sqrt of the
  remote area,  and it also provides guidance that any fire in the
  high ceiling area is only "expected to open sprinklers 1.2"
  which is the means to determine the remote area in §28.2.4.2.1
  
  Actually, the title of the figure is sort of explanatory -
  "Extension of Sprinkler System Above Drop Ceiling."  Emphasis on
  "extension."
  
  at least that's my take on this matter,

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

On 4/5/2024 11:34 PM, George Medina Jr.
  wrote:


  
  

  Sprinklerforum,
  
  
  Section 9.3.14.3  says
extend system over ceiling .6 x sq. rt. of design area
(adjacent to drop ceiling)  Than Figure A.9.14.3 states to
extend 1.2 x sq. rt. of design area. Which one is it?
Section 9.3.14.3.1 states to extend at least 24 ft. over
drop ceiling (I understand that as a minimum). I
am confused. Am I missing something so obvious? Can
anyone help with clarity? is it  .6 or 1.2?
  
  
  
George
  Medina Jr.
  Sr. Fire Sprinkler Designer
  fireg...@aol.com
  SINGLETON FIRE
  PROTECTION INC.
  Office: (818) 252-5744
  Cell: (323) 906-5701
  Business Hours: 9:00am-5:00pm
  

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


  

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Protecting underground storage of explosives.

[Bob Caputo]

Chris,

When I worked in the Kansas City area in the ‘80’s we installed sprinklers
in hundreds of thousands of square feet of limestone caves.  I was not
aware that hazardous materials were permitted to be stored underground.  At
the time, most was restricted to philatelic, wine, paper records and not
much more than Class IV products.

The problem I see right off the bat, is secondary containment of the
sprinkler water runoff.  There are super fast deluge systems but not sure
deflagration hazards are a good match for subterranian storage
opportunities.

 my two cents

Bob


Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
,
you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more

.


On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:05 PM Chris Dorn 
wrote:

> Trying to help a friend of a friend. Has anyone ever provided any type of
> fire suppression system for underground storage of ANFO (Ammoniun Nitrate
> and fuel oil mixture)? The area in question is in a limestone mine
> underground. The space is pretty large and has 30’ ceilings so I’m guessing
> that chemical suppression is not going to be an option. I tend to believe
> that sprinklers may not be the route to go. Water will apparently render
> the ANFO inert but in case of a fire I’m not sure that the sprinklers could
> operate fast enough to provide any real protection. Additionally, the water
> supply is inadequate for almost any type of sprinkler system anyway.
>
>
>
> I’m not really finding much in NFPA except Annex C in NFPA 495 which
> refers to separation distances. I did find a reference to NFPA 490 2002
> Edition but cannot find a current code so I’m guessing it was folded into
> 495 at some point.
>
>
>
> Any direction at all would be appreciated to help me in my research.
>
>
>
> Chris Dorn
>
> Dorn Fire Protection LLC
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Horizontal Barriers

[Brett Peters]

The last part of the sentence "unless required as part of a fire
separation" NFPA 30 requires it as part of the fire separation for the
horizontal barrier. "NFPA #30 2024 Section 16.6.2  Horizontal barriers of
plywood"




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

Proudline now offers ULc listed monitoring services, please contact
a...@proudline.ca for more information






On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 5:39 PM James Crawford 
wrote:

> NFPA #30 2024 Section 16.6.2  *Horizontal barriers of plywood having a
> minimum thickness of 3/8” or sheet metal of minimum 22 gauge thickness
> shall be installed in accordance with figures ect.*
>
>
>
> We just had one of our OHS guys say we cannot use plywood based on the
> following, this is a project we did about 20 years ago.
>
>
>
>
> *5.34 Combustible materials *
>
> Except for packaging used to contain flammable or combustible liquids,
> combustible shelves, racks and other materials are not permitted inside a
> flammable or combustible liquids storage room or storage cabinet unless
> required as part of a fire separation.
>
> Has anyone come across this, not sure why this is in the regulations.
>
>
>
> Thank You
>
>
>
> James Crawford
>
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
>
> Phone 604-888-0318
>
> Cel: 604-790-0938
>
> Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
>
> Web: www.phaserfire.ca
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Horizontal Barriers

[Mike Morey]

Doesn’t “unless required as part of a fire separation” fit the use of plywood 
in this situation?


Mike Morey

CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677

Project Manager • Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company

7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825

direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991
email mmo...@shambaugh.com

[Image]


From: James Crawford 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 6:37:47 PM
To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Horizontal Barriers

NFPA #30 2024 Section 16. 6. 2 Horizontal barriers of plywood having a minimum 
thickness of 3/8” or sheet metal of minimum 22 gauge thickness shall be 
installed in accordance with figures ect. We just had one of our OHS guys say 
we cannot
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

NFPA #30 2024 Section 16.6.2  Horizontal barriers of plywood having a minimum 
thickness of 3/8” or sheet metal of minimum 22 gauge thickness shall be 
installed in accordance with figures ect.



We just had one of our OHS guys say we cannot use plywood based on the 
following, this is a project we did about 20 years ago.





5.34 Combustible materials

Except for packaging used to contain flammable or combustible liquids, 
combustible shelves, racks and other materials are not permitted inside a 
flammable or combustible liquids storage room or storage cabinet unless 
required as part of a fire separation.

Has anyone come across this, not sure why this is in the regulations.



Thank You



James Crawford

Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.

Phone 604-888-0318

Cel: 604-790-0938

Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca

Web: 
www.phaserfire.ca



This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this message in 
error, please  immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, 
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly or 
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message 
if you are not the intended recipient.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

[Craig Hanson]

Just tell him he has to roll up the hoses when you are done. Bet he will
change his mind.



Craig D. Hanson, CFPS
Fire Division Manager
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. (WC³)
Meridian Satellite Office
*C:* 253.225.9977 | *E:* cra...@wc-3.com | www.WC-3.com

*Teaming With Your Community to Make a Difference*


On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:58 PM Prahl, Craig  wrote:

> 1500 FEET OF HOSE?   That’s just insane.
>
>
>
> You’re not going to get any results of any value out of that.  Is this new
> parking lot made of tissue paper?
>
>
>
> I’d tell ‘em no can do buckaroo.
>
>
>
> Plus I can’t imagine the before and after of dealing with all that hose
> line.
>
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 
>
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
> CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Harris 
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:43 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] 1500' for Standpipe Test
>
>
>
> Anybody ever ran through 1500’ of hose for a standpipe test? GC is
> requesting it so we don’t get their new parking lot wet…..
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
> 
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935
>
>
>
> --
>
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by
> unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message
> and deleting it from your computer.
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

[Prahl, Craig]

1500 FEET OF HOSE?   That's just insane.

You're not going to get any results of any value out of that.  Is this new 
parking lot made of tissue paper?

I'd tell 'em no can do buckaroo.

Plus I can't imagine the before and after of dealing with all that hose line.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME - Special Hazards | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS


From: Brian Harris 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] 1500' for Standpipe Test

Anybody ever ran through 1500' of hose for a standpipe test? GC is requesting 
it so we don't get their new parking lot wet.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

[Don Casey]

Or wait till it rains (comment not applicable for the bottom left of the 
country)

From: Brian Harris 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:59 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test


[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.]

Good idea! Thanks.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Eric Rieve mailto:e...@rievefire.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:55 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

What's your expected flow rate? You could always tell the GC that they need to 
rent you an empty pool truck to discharge into if they don't want the driveway 
to get water on it. 1500' of hose should be a non-starter for you.

Hope this helps!
Eric Rieve, SET
Rieve Fire Protection

From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:43 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] 1500' for Standpipe Test

Anybody ever ran through 1500' of hose for a standpipe test? GC is requesting 
it so we don't get their new parking lot wet.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssystemsinc.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbvssystemsinc.com%2f=E,1,QVECWX7OmLGxhX6uZDHCbTzCWGNpn5xU0YbrFa543zERY09Gasyhy5d8zoccAVmfLv9rf6x83vk59Jpt-Bzn-bNcV7kwt88nXrfWS77oTNvaom696lKb=1>
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[rimrock.design.services]

I want to thank everyone for their valuable input. I have passed all this along 
the parties that originally asked me, to ask the question. And they can decide 
what to do with it. 

 

Richard L. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services, LLC

Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL  <mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com> 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com

WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com

 

From: Anthony Carrizosa  
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:42 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

 

Very valuable input Steve and something we should all keep on our minds when 
designing fire systems.

 

The OP stated that it is a four-story building designed to NFPA 13R standards.  
 as such it is not classified as a high-rise building. If it were a high rise 
then it wouldn’t be designed to NFPA 13R but rather NFPA 13 standards and would 
be fully sprinklered thus allowing the maximum of 1000 GPM. So if not a high 
rise then manual wet standpipes are allowed so if he needs to include all 
required stairs then he must calculate them to a max of 1250 GPM and list the 
pressure and flow requirements for the fire department pumper.

 

OP stated that the water supply isn’t sufficient which must mean that the 
pressure is not sufficient because if they didn’t have the required minimum 
fire flow ( most likely 1500 GPM minimum)  then they would not be allowed to 
build this building. Or would have to provide stored water supply to achieve 
this minimum required flow.

So the quick answer is design the flow rate for each required stair to a 
maximum of 1250 GPM for a manual wet standpipe and note the required pressure 
and volume on the sign attached for the FDC. It would be good to meet with the 
FM to discuss this in advance as NFPA 14 states.

 

 

Anthony Carrizosa 

Project Manager | Fire Protection 

7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032

Cell: 206-679-5283 | Office Dir: 253-341-4593 



 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2farcherconstruction.com%2f=E,1,Wdb65AWzMgSBzW3HDw91SfcRQCtxDUQKoJf-UowQ-WnB_WMosgG-8W7eLePJ42PwWQvLiQx16Pls052VqwHO7tKm-_u5AnWly0ewkNiMkxn-AjQb1JI,=1>
 https://archerconstruction.com

 

From: Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 10:23 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

 

It’s the committee’s intent that the 1,000 gpm threshold is applicable only to 
buildings sprinklered per NFPA 13.   There have been numerous fires in 
13R-protected buildings where the structure became involved, many of which were 
roof burn-offs.   Fire service is acutely aware of this nationwide, and any 
member of the residential sprinkler committee will affirm that every cycle, 
there is at least one but usually multiple inputs that propose to add 
sprinklers in attics if not all combustible concealed spaces.   So the language 
in 14 is based on fire incident reporting and other empirical data that inform 
us that it’s not prudent to limit hose stream capacity in 13R-protected 
buildings, so than an added measure (one additional attack stream) of hydraulic 
capability is backed into the standpipe system. 

 

 

The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

 

Protection Design and Consulting

Steve Leyton, President

T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |   
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.protectiondesign.com%2f=E,1,VZSZ56jk4A1jC5CHa5teWnpcljH1W1CUPmEthqeDeLPNDe47OnqIrhU23nO3FmpDGXqBuCpGHWeTr9VWJz9wDoxo7kX09dTCOxpRiiBxcGUDHy9UMA,,=1>
 www.protectiondesign.com 
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Ken Wagoner mailto:k...@parsleyconsulting.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2024 10:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

 

I disagree, Jose.

I'm not terribly confused by the omission of a direct reference to 13R in that 
section.  As the text reads "...for buildings that are not sprinklered 
throughout in accordance with NFPA 13."

Wouldn't you agree that 13R is other than NFPA 13?

sincerely,

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 4/4/2024 10:28 AM, Jose Anibal Castillo wrote:

It appears there's a

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

[Brian Harris]

Good idea! Thanks.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Eric Rieve 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:55 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

What's your expected flow rate? You could always tell the GC that they need to 
rent you an empty pool truck to discharge into if they don't want the driveway 
to get water on it. 1500' of hose should be a non-starter for you.

Hope this helps!
Eric Rieve, SET
Rieve Fire Protection

From: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:43 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] 1500' for Standpipe Test

Anybody ever ran through 1500' of hose for a standpipe test? GC is requesting 
it so we don't get their new parking lot wet.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssystemsinc.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbvssystemsinc.com%2f=E,1,QVECWX7OmLGxhX6uZDHCbTzCWGNpn5xU0YbrFa543zERY09Gasyhy5d8zoccAVmfLv9rf6x83vk59Jpt-Bzn-bNcV7kwt88nXrfWS77oTNvaom696lKb=1>
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

[Eric Rieve]

What's your expected flow rate? You could always tell the GC that they need to 
rent you an empty pool truck to discharge into if they don't want the driveway 
to get water on it. 1500' of hose should be a non-starter for you.

Hope this helps!
Eric Rieve, SET
Rieve Fire Protection

From: Brian Harris 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] 1500' for Standpipe Test

Anybody ever ran through 1500' of hose for a standpipe test? GC is requesting 
it so we don't get their new parking lot wet.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

[Brian Harris]

100% agree.

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.

From: Brett Peters 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

Fire hose has massive restriction, I would tell them it’s not possible due to 
the hydraulic loss in that amount of hose, you can google the pressure loss of 
fire hose, it’s pretty high

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 1:45 PM Brian Harris 
mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>> wrote:
Anybody ever ran through 1500’ of hose for a standpipe test? GC is requesting 
it so we don’t get their new parking lot wet…..

Thank you,

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssystemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/>
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
--
Thank You
Brett Peters
PFPS Ltd
(780) 777 0568
Sent From My iPhone

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 1500' for Standpipe Test

[Brett Peters]

Fire hose has massive restriction, I would tell them it’s not possible due
to the hydraulic loss in that amount of hose, you can google the pressure
loss of fire hose, it’s pretty high

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 1:45 PM Brian Harris 
wrote:

> Anybody ever ran through 1500’ of hose for a standpipe test? GC is
> requesting it so we don’t get their new parking lot wet…..
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

-- 
Thank You
Brett Peters
PFPS Ltd
(780) 777 0568
Sent From My iPhone

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Anthony Carrizosa]

Very valuable input Steve and something we should all keep on our minds when 
designing fire systems.
The OP stated that it is a four-story building designed to NFPA 13R standards.  
 as such it is not classified as a high-rise building. If it were a high rise 
then it wouldn’t be designed to NFPA 13R but rather NFPA 13 standards and would 
be fully sprinklered thus allowing the maximum of 1000 GPM. So if not a high 
rise then manual wet standpipes are allowed so if he needs to include all 
required stairs then he must calculate them to a max of 1250 GPM and list the 
pressure and flow requirements for the fire department pumper.

OP stated that the water supply isn’t sufficient which must mean that the 
pressure is not sufficient because if they didn’t have the required minimum 
fire flow ( most likely 1500 GPM minimum)  then they would not be allowed to 
build this building. Or would have to provide stored water supply to achieve 
this minimum required flow.
So the quick answer is design the flow rate for each required stair to a 
maximum of 1250 GPM for a manual wet standpipe and note the required pressure 
and volume on the sign attached for the FDC. It would be good to meet with the 
FM to discuss this in advance as NFPA 14 states.


Anthony Carrizosa
Project Manager | Fire Protection
7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032
Cell: 206-679-5283 | Office Dir: 253-341-4593
[cid:image001.jpg@01DA868C.6225F890]
https://archerconstruction.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2farcherconstruction.com%2f=E,1,Wdb65AWzMgSBzW3HDw91SfcRQCtxDUQKoJf-UowQ-WnB_WMosgG-8W7eLePJ42PwWQvLiQx16Pls052VqwHO7tKm-_u5AnWly0ewkNiMkxn-AjQb1JI,=1>

From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 10:23 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

It’s the committee’s intent that the 1,000 gpm threshold is applicable only to 
buildings sprinklered per NFPA 13.   There have been numerous fires in 
13R-protected buildings where the structure became involved, many of which were 
roof burn-offs.   Fire service is acutely aware of this nationwide, and any 
member of the residential sprinkler committee will affirm that every cycle, 
there is at least one but usually multiple inputs that propose to add 
sprinklers in attics if not all combustible concealed spaces.   So the language 
in 14 is based on fire incident reporting and other empirical data that inform 
us that it’s not prudent to limit hose stream capacity in 13R-protected 
buildings, so than an added measure (one additional attack stream) of hydraulic 
capability is backed into the standpipe system.


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Protection Design and Consulting
Steve Leyton, President
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
www.protectiondesign.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.protectiondesign.com%2f=E,1,VZSZ56jk4A1jC5CHa5teWnpcljH1W1CUPmEthqeDeLPNDe47OnqIrhU23nO3FmpDGXqBuCpGHWeTr9VWJz9wDoxo7kX09dTCOxpRiiBxcGUDHy9UMA,,=1>
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training







From: Ken Wagoner 
mailto:k...@parsleyconsulting.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2024 10:10 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

I disagree, Jose.

I'm not terribly confused by the omission of a direct reference to 13R in that 
section.  As the text reads "...for buildings that are not sprinklered 
throughout in accordance with NFPA 13."

Wouldn't you agree that 13R is other than NFPA 13?

sincerely,
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 4/4/2024 10:28 AM, Jose Anibal Castillo wrote:
It appears there's a conflict in understanding, as section 10.6.1.1.6 outlines 
a requirement for a flow rate of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) for buildings 
lacking sprinkler coverage, in line with NFPA 13 standards. Yet, 10.6.1.1.6 
omits any mention of NFPA 13R, leading to confusion about the necessity of 
meeting the 1,250 gpm requirement in scenarios where NFPA 13 standards might 
not be mandated by the building code but NFPA 13R. Furthermore, NFPA 14 does 
not discuss provisions for buildings with partial sprinkler protection 
according to NFPA 13R.

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:07 AM John Denhardt 
mailto:jdenha...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote:
Correct - for standpipe calculations purposes, buildings protected with NFPA 
13R systems do not meet t

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Jose Anibal Castillo]

As I understand, the comments imply that buildings protected under NFPA 13R
are classified as partially protected, which raises some doubts.

If buildings installed following NFPA 13R systems are indeed deemed
partially protected and require a total flow rate of 1,250 GPM by NFPA 14,
the analysis doesn't end there. According to Section 10.6.1.3.3 of NPFA 14,
partial automatic sprinkler protection requires an additional 150 GPM or
500 GPM, based on the specific hazard level. This adjustment could
potentially bring the total required flow rate, including the sprinkler
system and the standpipe system, to reach an elevated GPM threshold.

This appears problematic, as it seems to conflict with Section 10.6.1.3.1.
This section mandates selecting the higher demand between two systems, but
not their cumulative total. It might even suggest that compliance with NFPA
13R might not categorize the system as partially protected, contrary to the
initial assumption.

Thanks.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 12:24 PM Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> It’s the committee’s intent that the 1,000 gpm threshold is applicable
> only to buildings sprinklered per NFPA 13.   There have been numerous fires
> in 13R-protected buildings where the structure became involved, many of
> which were roof burn-offs.   Fire service is acutely aware of this
> nationwide, and any member of the residential sprinkler committee will
> affirm that every cycle, there is at least one but usually multiple inputs
> that propose to add sprinklers in attics if not all combustible concealed
> spaces.   So the language in 14 is based on fire incident reporting and
> other empirical data that inform us that it’s not prudent to limit hose
> stream capacity in 13R-protected buildings, so than an added measure (one
> additional attack stream) of hydraulic capability is backed into the
> standpipe system.
>
>
>
>
>
> The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA
> 14 Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the
> standard.
>
>
>
> *Protection Design and Consulting*
>
> Steve Leyton, President
>
> 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:* Ken Wagoner 
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2024 10:10 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations
>
>
>
> I disagree, Jose.
>
> I'm not terribly confused by the omission of a direct reference to 13R in
> that section.  As the text reads "...for buildings that are not sprinklered
> throughout in accordance with NFPA 13."
>
> Wouldn't you agree that 13R is *other* than NFPA 13?
>
> sincerely,
>
> *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 4/4/2024 10:28 AM, Jose Anibal Castillo wrote:
>
> It appears there's a conflict in understanding, as section 10.6.1.1.6
> outlines a requirement for a flow rate of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm)
> for buildings lacking sprinkler coverage, in line with NFPA 13 standards.
> Yet, 10.6.1.1.6 omits any mention of NFPA 13R, leading to confusion about
> the necessity of meeting the 1,250 gpm requirement in scenarios where NFPA
> 13 standards might not be mandated by the building code but NFPA 13R.
> Furthermore, NFPA 14 does not discuss provisions for buildings with partial
> sprinkler protection according to NFPA 13R.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:07 AM John Denhardt 
> wrote:
>
> Correct - for standpipe calculations purposes, buildings protected with
> NFPA 13R systems do not meet the requirements to limit the flow to 1,250
> GPM
>
>
>
> 10.6.1.1.6 in NFPA 14 - 2024
>
>
>
> John August Denhardt, P.E.
>
> Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
>
> 301-343-1457
>
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 09:49, Fpdcdesign  wrote:
>
> 
>
> 13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, > wrote:
>
> Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?
>
> Shawn Foor, SET
>
>
>
> *FOOR DESIGN, LLC*
>
> *10208 E 98TH ST*
>
> *TULSA, 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[matthew.willis1]

Once again, proving membership has its benefits! Thanks Steve.

I like it. Honestly, what are the concerns? We are adding 250gpm, to a large 
type of system.

Unless in extreme circumstances, there is no real cost impact.

R/
Matt

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

Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET
Engineering Manager – Southwest Region
FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC
C: 307-236-8249
matthew.will...@ferguson.com<mailto:matthew.will...@ferguson.com>
www.FergusonFire.com<http://www.fergusonfire.com/>


From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 11:23 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

Caution:  This email originated from outside of the organization.  DO NOT click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender.

It’s the committee’s intent that the 1,000 gpm threshold is applicable only to 
buildings sprinklered per NFPA 13.   There have been numerous fires in 
13R-protected buildings where the structure became involved, many of which were 
roof burn-offs.   Fire service is acutely aware of this nationwide, and any 
member of the residential sprinkler committee will affirm that every cycle, 
there is at least one but usually multiple inputs that propose to add 
sprinklers in attics if not all combustible concealed spaces.   So the language 
in 14 is based on fire incident reporting and other empirical data that inform 
us that it’s not prudent to limit hose stream capacity in 13R-protected 
buildings, so than an added measure (one additional attack stream) of hydraulic 
capability is backed into the standpipe system.


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Protection Design and Consulting
Steve Leyton, President
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: Ken Wagoner 
mailto:k...@parsleyconsulting.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2024 10:10 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

I disagree, Jose.

I'm not terribly confused by the omission of a direct reference to 13R in that 
section.  As the text reads "...for buildings that are not sprinklered 
throughout in accordance with NFPA 13."

Wouldn't you agree that 13R is other than NFPA 13?

sincerely,
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 4/4/2024 10:28 AM, Jose Anibal Castillo wrote:
It appears there's a conflict in understanding, as section 10.6.1.1.6 outlines 
a requirement for a flow rate of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) for buildings 
lacking sprinkler coverage, in line with NFPA 13 standards. Yet, 10.6.1.1.6 
omits any mention of NFPA 13R, leading to confusion about the necessity of 
meeting the 1,250 gpm requirement in scenarios where NFPA 13 standards might 
not be mandated by the building code but NFPA 13R. Furthermore, NFPA 14 does 
not discuss provisions for buildings with partial sprinkler protection 
according to NFPA 13R.

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:07 AM John Denhardt 
mailto:jdenha...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote:
Correct - for standpipe calculations purposes, buildings protected with NFPA 
13R systems do not meet the requirements to limit the flow to 1,250 GPM

10.6.1.1.6 in NFPA 14 - 2024

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
American Fire Sprinkler Association
301-343-1457

On Apr 3, 2024, at 09:49, Fpdcdesign 
mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote:

13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered.



On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, mailto:shawn.f...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?

Shawn Foor, SET

FOOR DESIGN, LLC
10208 E 98TH ST
TULSA, OK 74133
P:918-237-1400


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43 
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)

We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building 
and two at the approximate mid-point on either 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[John Denhardt]

In my opinion, Steve and Ken are correct. This language was written this way for the reasons Steve stated.  I was personally at the technical committee meetings and heard the discussions on this topic. The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This is provided with the understanding that the AFSA assumes no liability for this opinion or actions taken on it and they are not to be considered the official position of the AFSA, and/or NFPA or its technical committees.AFSA cannot provide design or consulting engineering services, and this opinion should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as such.JohnJohn August Denhardt, P.E.Vice-President Engineering and Technical ServicesAmerican Fire Sprinkler Association 301-343-1457On Apr 4, 2024, at 13:24, Steve Leyton  wrote:





It’s the committee’s intent that the 1,000 gpm threshold is applicable only to buildings sprinklered per NFPA 13.   There have been numerous fires in 13R-protected buildings where the structure became involved,
 many of which were roof burn-offs.   Fire service is acutely aware of this nationwide, and any member of the residential sprinkler committee will affirm that every cycle, there is at least one but usually multiple inputs that propose to add sprinklers in attics
 if not all combustible concealed spaces.   So the language in 14 is based on fire incident reporting and other empirical data that inform us that it’s not prudent to limit hose stream capacity in 13R-protected buildings, so than an added measure (one additional
 attack stream) of hydraulic capability is backed into the standpipe system. 

 
 
The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.
 
Protection Design and Consulting
Steve Leyton, President
T
 |
 619.255.8964 x 102 
|
 www.protectiondesign.com

2851 Camino Del Rio South  | 
 Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA 
 92108
Fire Protection System Design
| Consulting
| Planning
| Training
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


From: Ken Wagoner 

Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2024 10:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations


 
I disagree, Jose.

I'm not terribly confused by the omission of a direct reference to 13R in that section.  As the text reads "...for buildings that are not sprinklered throughout in accordance with NFPA 13."

Wouldn't you agree that 13R is other than NFPA 13?

sincerely,

Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
500 West Mechanic Street
Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235
Phone: (760) 745-6181

Visit
 the website 
 


On 4/4/2024 10:28 AM, Jose Anibal Castillo wrote:





It appears there's a conflict in understanding, as section 10.6.1.1.6 outlines a requirement for a flow rate of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) for buildings lacking sprinkler coverage, in line with NFPA 13 standards.
 Yet, 10.6.1.1.6 omits any mention of NFPA 13R, leading to confusion about the necessity of meeting the 1,250 gpm requirement in scenarios where NFPA 13 standards might not be mandated by the building code but NFPA 13R. Furthermore, NFPA 14 does not discuss
 provisions for buildings with partial sprinkler protection according to NFPA 13R.

 


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:07 AM John Denhardt <jdenha...@firesprinkler.org> wrote:



Correct - for standpipe calculations purposes, buildings protected with NFPA 13R systems do not meet the requirements to limit the flow to 1,250 GPM


 


10.6.1.1.6 in NFPA 14 - 2024


 

John August Denhardt, P.E. 

Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services


American Fire Sprinkler Association 


301-343-1457







On Apr 3, 2024, at 09:49, Fpdcdesign <fpdcdes...@gmail.com> wrote:




 


13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered. 

 








On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, <Shawn Foor> wrote:



Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?  











Shawn Foor, SET


 


FOOR DESIGN, LLC


10208 E 98TH ST


TULSA, OK 74133


P:918-237-1400











 


 


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43 <rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com> wrote:




Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)
 
We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are connected at the 1st
 floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour separation wall with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.

The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be treated as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 4th floor, 250 gpm
 at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm.

Or do we have to calculate the ad

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Steve Leyton]

It’s the committee’s intent that the 1,000 gpm threshold is applicable only to 
buildings sprinklered per NFPA 13.   There have been numerous fires in 
13R-protected buildings where the structure became involved, many of which were 
roof burn-offs.   Fire service is acutely aware of this nationwide, and any 
member of the residential sprinkler committee will affirm that every cycle, 
there is at least one but usually multiple inputs that propose to add 
sprinklers in attics if not all combustible concealed spaces.   So the language 
in 14 is based on fire incident reporting and other empirical data that inform 
us that it’s not prudent to limit hose stream capacity in 13R-protected 
buildings, so than an added measure (one additional attack stream) of hydraulic 
capability is backed into the standpipe system.


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Protection Design and Consulting
Steve Leyton, President
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: Ken Wagoner 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2024 10:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

I disagree, Jose.

I'm not terribly confused by the omission of a direct reference to 13R in that 
section.  As the text reads "...for buildings that are not sprinklered 
throughout in accordance with NFPA 13."

Wouldn't you agree that 13R is other than NFPA 13?

sincerely,
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 4/4/2024 10:28 AM, Jose Anibal Castillo wrote:
It appears there's a conflict in understanding, as section 10.6.1.1.6 outlines 
a requirement for a flow rate of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) for buildings 
lacking sprinkler coverage, in line with NFPA 13 standards. Yet, 10.6.1.1.6 
omits any mention of NFPA 13R, leading to confusion about the necessity of 
meeting the 1,250 gpm requirement in scenarios where NFPA 13 standards might 
not be mandated by the building code but NFPA 13R. Furthermore, NFPA 14 does 
not discuss provisions for buildings with partial sprinkler protection 
according to NFPA 13R.

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:07 AM John Denhardt 
mailto:jdenha...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote:
Correct - for standpipe calculations purposes, buildings protected with NFPA 
13R systems do not meet the requirements to limit the flow to 1,250 GPM

10.6.1.1.6 in NFPA 14 - 2024

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
American Fire Sprinkler Association
301-343-1457


On Apr 3, 2024, at 09:49, Fpdcdesign 
mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote:

13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered.




On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, mailto:shawn.f...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?

Shawn Foor, SET

FOOR DESIGN, LLC
10208 E 98TH ST
TULSA, OK 74133
P:918-237-1400


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43 
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)

We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building 
and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour separation wall 
with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.
The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be treated 
as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 4th 
floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm.
Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. Available 
water is the issue.


Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com<http://www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com/>


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Ken Wagoner]

  
  
I disagree, Jose.
  
  I'm not terribly confused by the omission of a direct reference to
  13R in that section.  As the text reads "...for buildings that are
  not sprinklered throughout in accordance with NFPA 13."
  
  Wouldn't you agree that 13R is other than NFPA 13?
  
  sincerely,

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

On 4/4/2024 10:28 AM, Jose Anibal
  Castillo wrote:


  
  

  It
appears there's a conflict in understanding, as section
10.6.1.1.6 outlines a requirement for a flow rate of 1,250
gallons per minute (gpm) for buildings lacking sprinkler
coverage, in line with NFPA 13 standards. Yet, 10.6.1.1.6
omits any mention of NFPA 13R, leading to confusion about
the necessity of meeting the 1,250 gpm requirement in
scenarios where NFPA 13 standards might not be mandated by
the building code but NFPA 13R. Furthermore, NFPA 14 does
not discuss provisions for buildings with partial sprinkler
protection according to NFPA 13R.



  On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at
9:07 AM John Denhardt 
wrote:
  
  
Correct - for standpipe calculations
  purposes, buildings protected with NFPA 13R systems do not
  meet the requirements to limit the flow to 1,250 GPM
  
  
  10.6.1.1.6 in NFPA 14 - 2024
  
John August Denhardt, P.E.
  Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
  American Fire Sprinkler Association 
  301-343-1457


  On Apr 3, 2024, at 09:49,
Fpdcdesign 
wrote:

  


  
13R
  buildings are not considered to be fully
  sprinklered. 


  


  On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM,  wrote:

  
  
Why would you do 1250 if
  it’s a fully sprinklered building?  
  
  

  

  

  

  Shawn Foor, SET
  
  
  FOOR DESIGN, LLC
  10208 E 98TH ST
  TULSA, OK 74133
  P:918-237-1400

  

  

  

  




  
On
  Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43 
  wrote:


  

  Asking this
on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler
Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)
   
  We have a
4-story modular apartment
building sprinklered in
accordance with NFPA 13R with
allowed exceptions, with 4
standpipes. The standpipes are
connected at the 1st
floor level. One each at 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Jose Anibal Castillo]

It appears there's a conflict in understanding, as section 10.6.1.1.6
outlines a requirement for a flow rate of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm)
for buildings lacking sprinkler coverage, in line with NFPA 13 standards.
Yet, 10.6.1.1.6 omits any mention of NFPA 13R, leading to confusion about
the necessity of meeting the 1,250 gpm requirement in scenarios where NFPA
13 standards might not be mandated by the building code but NFPA 13R.
Furthermore, NFPA 14 does not discuss provisions for buildings with partial
sprinkler protection according to NFPA 13R.

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:07 AM John Denhardt 
wrote:

> Correct - for standpipe calculations purposes, buildings protected with
> NFPA 13R systems do not meet the requirements to limit the flow to 1,250 GPM
>
> 10.6.1.1.6 in NFPA 14 - 2024
>
> John August Denhardt, P.E.
> Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
> 301-343-1457
>
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 09:49, Fpdcdesign  wrote:
>
> 
> 13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered.
>
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, > wrote:
>
> Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?
>
> Shawn Foor, SET
>
> *FOOR DESIGN, LLC*
> *10208 E 98TH ST*
> *TULSA, OK 74133*
> *P:918-237-1400*
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43  wrote:
>
>> Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance
>> with NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes
>> are connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L
>> shaped building and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a
>> 2-hour separation wall with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.
>>
>> The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be
>> treated as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of
>> the 4th floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at
>> the at the connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750
>> gpm.
>>
>> Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm.
>> Available water is the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard L. Mote CET
>>
>> Rimrock Design Services, LLC
>>
>> Middleburg, PA 17842
>>
>> Mobile 570-541-2685
>>
>> EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
>>
>> WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> SprinklerForum mailing list:
>>
>> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> _ SprinklerForum
> mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org



-- 

José Anibal Castillo M.S. (FP UMD)
Ingeniero Electromecánico
Especialista en Sistemas Contra Incendio
Cel:+(507) 6349.6217

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Ed Kramer]

I'm not an IBC guy, but I don't think a 2-hour wall creates separate buildings 
in accordance with the model building code (2019 NFPA 14 section A7.10.1.2.3.1).

And if that door in the 2-hour wall is considered an exit opening of a 
horizontal exit, you may be required to provide additional hose connections 
there (section 7.3.2.2).

Ed Kramer


From: rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com 
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 8:43 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Standpipe Calculations

Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)

We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building 
and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour separation wall 
with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.
The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be treated 
as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 4th 
floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm.
Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. Available 
water is the issue.


Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com


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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[John Denhardt]

I should have included this note on my earlier response.  Sorry - NFPA. 


*The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal
interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This is provided with the understanding that the AFSA assumes no
liability for this opinion or actions taken on it and they are not to be
considered the official position of the **AFSA, and/or NFPA or its
technical committees.**AFSA cannot provide design or consulting engineering
services, and this opinion should therefore not be considered, nor relied
upon, as such.*


Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org



*Treat Your Apprentices Like VIPs!*
AFSA’s Virtual Instruction Program (VIP) for Apprentices is training that
comes straight from our expert instructors. They lead the way to ensure
your men and women are trained, letting you focus on OJT. Click here
 to learn
more and enroll.


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:05 AM John Denhardt 
wrote:

> Correct - for standpipe calculations purposes, buildings protected with
> NFPA 13R systems do not meet the requirements to limit the flow to 1,250 GPM
>
> 10.6.1.1.6 in NFPA 14 - 2024
>
> John August Denhardt, P.E.
> Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
> 301-343-1457
>
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 09:49, Fpdcdesign  wrote:
>
> 
> 13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered.
>
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, > wrote:
>
> Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?
>
> Shawn Foor, SET
>
> *FOOR DESIGN, LLC*
> *10208 E 98TH ST*
> *TULSA, OK 74133*
> *P:918-237-1400*
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43  wrote:
>
>> Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance
>> with NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes
>> are connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L
>> shaped building and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a
>> 2-hour separation wall with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.
>>
>> The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be
>> treated as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of
>> the 4th floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at
>> the at the connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750
>> gpm.
>>
>> Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm.
>> Available water is the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard L. Mote CET
>>
>> Rimrock Design Services, LLC
>>
>> Middleburg, PA 17842
>>
>> Mobile 570-541-2685
>>
>> EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
>>
>> WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> SprinklerForum mailing list:
>>
>> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> _ SprinklerForum
> mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[AKS-Gmail-IMAP]

Building a single structure to be considered two separate, individual buildings 
can be tough to do. The structure has to be such that either one can burn and 
fall away without harming the other building. Every building system gets 
involved and not just at the attachment point. For example, are there two 
separate fire alarm systems? This structure is also L shaped, right? All the 
required building separation distance rules come into play at the inside right 
angle juncture. Any windows planned there? Are the exterior walls there up to 
snuff? You might be required, or forced even, to handle that problem yourself. 
Do the construction plans for this building not include a code sheet that 
explicitly explains how the project is defined? It is the building code that 
dictates how many buildings there are.

> On Apr 3, 2024, at 8:42 AM, rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)
>  
> We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
> NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
> connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped 
> building and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour 
> separation wall with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor. 
> The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be 
> treated as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 
> 4th floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
> connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm. 
> Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. 
> Available water is the issue. 
>  
>  
> Richard L. Mote CET
> Rimrock Design Services, LLC
> Middleburg, PA 17842
> Mobile 570-541-2685
> EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com 
> 
> WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com 
> 
>  
> 
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Steve Leyton]

If you can do without a fire pump on ANY water based system, that’s better than 
having one.   Lower first and continuing costs, more reliable through 
simplification, it’s a win-win-win.   And knowing how FDs use standpipes, a 
manual system is preferable for any midrise and some FDs might even say they 
prefer or will treat automatics as manual in high-rise buildings as well, so 
long as the overall height is within their pumping capacity.It’s about 
reliability, control and constancy of flow and pressure.

My opinion only,
Steve L.

From: George Medina Jr. 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2024 12:27 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

Not sure if this would help, I had a similar Apartment (NFPA-13R) situation 
where the Architect specified an Automatic Standpipe system because there was a 
water supply issue. I come to find out that the project was at the very end of 
the local water purveyors district. The property next door was a different 
water purveyor with plenty of water. The A.H.J. & Consultant allowed me to use 
the flow from that hydrant (25' from property) and design as manual standpipe 
system (Saved the cost of Fire Pump and Water Tank). I had to indicate proper 
signage on FDC. Maybe your property is same situation?

George Medina Jr.
Sr. Fire Sprinkler Designer
SINGLETON FIRE PROTECTION INC.
Office: (818) 252-5744
Cell: (323) 906-5701
Business Hours: 9:00am-5:00pm


On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 06:43:54 AM PDT, 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com> 
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:



Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)



We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building 
and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour separation wall 
with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.

The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be treated 
as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 4th 
floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm.

Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. Available 
water is the issue.





Richard L. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services, LLC

Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>

WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com<http://www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com>



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

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[George Medina Jr.]

Not sure if this would help, I had a similar Apartment (NFPA-13R) situation 
where the Architect specified an Automatic Standpipe system because there was a 
water supply issue. I come to find out that the project was at the very end of 
the local water purveyors district. The property next door was a different 
water purveyor with plenty of water. The A.H.J. & Consultant allowed me to use 
the flow from that hydrant (25' from property) and design as manual standpipe 
system (Saved the cost of Fire Pump and Water Tank). I had to indicate proper 
signage on FDC. Maybe your property is same situation?
George Medina Jr.
Sr. Fire Sprinkler DesignerSINGLETON FIRE PROTECTION INC.Office: (818) 
252-5744Cell: (323) 906-5701
Business Hours: 9:00am-5:00pm 

On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 06:43:54 AM PDT, 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com  wrote:  
 
 
Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)

  

We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building 
and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour separation wall 
with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor. 

The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be treated 
as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 4th 
floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm. 

Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. Available 
water is the issue. 

  

  

Richard L. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services, LLC

Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com

WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com

  

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

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Rick Matsuda]

This is a great discussion but with all matters concerning standpipes, hose 
valves, and FDC’s, you really need to discuss this with the AHJ and fire 
department to see what they want. They are the end user. 
Rick Matsuda 

> On Apr 3, 2024, at 11:01 AM, Anthony Carrizosa 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> I think Don kern hit it on the head, Unless it’s a high rise then a manual 
> standpipe system is all that’s needed.
>  
> Anthony Carrizosa
> Project Manager | Fire Protection
> 7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032
> Cell: 206-679-5283 | Office Dir: 253-341-4593
> 
> https://archerconstruction.com
>  
> From: Steve Leyton  
> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 8:57 AM
> To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
> 
> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations
>  
> Yes, a building separation does divide the hydraulic demands to what is 
> required on each side of the separation.   See Fig. A.10.6.1.2.3.1 (2024 ed).
>  
>  
> The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
> Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the 
> standard.
>  
> Protection Design and Consulting
> Steve Leyton, President
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  www.protectiondesign.com 
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
> Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Rick Matsuda  
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2024 8:29 AM
> To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
> 
> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations
>  
> Here’s a thought which may be out way of line. 
>  
> The 2-hour separation wall in the middle of the building was installed in 
> lieu of an additional stairway. So technically there would have been three 
> stairways and only three standpipes. 
>  
> Does NFPA 14 allow you to install one standpipe by the separation and supply 
> two hose valves on each level, one on each side of the wall, instead of two 
> separate standpipes? If this is allowed then you’ll need to calculate only 
> 1000-gpm. 
>  
> During a fire condition, the fire department should be hooking up to only the 
> hose valve on the safe non-fire side. 
> Just my crazy opinion. 
> Rick Matsuda 
>  
> 
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 10:06 AM, Tstone52  wrote:
> 
> 
> The building code calls for buildings more than 3 stories to have Standpipes. 
> 13R has nothing to do with it. 
> G Tim Stone
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:50 AM,  wrote:
> 
> 13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered. 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM,  wrote:
> 
> Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?  
> 
> Shawn Foor, SET
>  
> FOOR DESIGN, LLC
> 10208 E 98TH ST
> TULSA, OK 74133
> P:918-237-1400
>  
>  
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43  wrote:
> Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)
>  
> We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
> NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
> connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped 
> building and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour 
> separation wall with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.
> The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be 
> treated as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 
> 4th floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
> connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm.
> Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. 
> Available water is the issue.
>  
>  
> Richard L. Mote CET
> Rimrock Design Services, LLC
> Middleburg, PA 17842
> Mobile 570-541-2685
> EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
> WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com
>  
> 
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> _ SprinklerForum 
> mailing list: 
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> _ SprinklerForum 
> mailing list: 
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org 
> To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforu

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Eric Rieve]

Of course, the one and only annex link I didn’t click on was the one that had 
the good graphic.

I think this would still fall back on the building code however to determine if 
the separation is significant enough to make the structure count as two 
separate buildings.

If the intent is to not double count standpipes on each side of the horizontal 
exit it would probably be best to have a specific section stating as such in 
10.6.1.1.

Sincerely,
Eric Rieve, SET
Rieve Fire Protection

From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

Yes, a building separation does divide the hydraulic demands to what is 
required on each side of the separation.   See Fig. A.10.6.1.2.3.1 (2024 ed).


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Protection Design and Consulting
Steve Leyton, President
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: Rick Matsuda mailto:rick26...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2024 8:29 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

Here’s a thought which may be out way of line.

The 2-hour separation wall in the middle of the building was installed in lieu 
of an additional stairway. So technically there would have been three stairways 
and only three standpipes.

Does NFPA 14 allow you to install one standpipe by the separation and supply 
two hose valves on each level, one on each side of the wall, instead of two 
separate standpipes? If this is allowed then you’ll need to calculate only 
1000-gpm.

During a fire condition, the fire department should be hooking up to only the 
hose valve on the safe non-fire side.
Just my crazy opinion.
Rick Matsuda

On Apr 3, 2024, at 10:06 AM, Tstone52 
mailto:tston...@comcast.net>> wrote:

The building code calls for buildings more than 3 stories to have Standpipes. 
13R has nothing to do with it.
G Tim Stone



On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:50 AM, mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote:
13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered.



On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, mailto:shawn.f...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?

Shawn Foor, SET

FOOR DESIGN, LLC
10208 E 98TH ST
TULSA, OK 74133
P:918-237-1400


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43 
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)

We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building 
and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour separation wall 
with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.
The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be treated 
as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 4th 
floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm.
Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. Available 
water is the issue.


Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com<http://www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com>


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

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To un

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Anthony Carrizosa]

I think Don kern hit it on the head, Unless it’s a high rise then a manual 
standpipe system is all that’s needed.

Anthony Carrizosa
Project Manager | Fire Protection
7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032
Cell: 206-679-5283 | Office Dir: 253-341-4593
[cid:image001.jpg@01DA85A5.421C2610]
https://archerconstruction.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2farcherconstruction.com%2f=E,1,Wdb65AWzMgSBzW3HDw91SfcRQCtxDUQKoJf-UowQ-WnB_WMosgG-8W7eLePJ42PwWQvLiQx16Pls052VqwHO7tKm-_u5AnWly0ewkNiMkxn-AjQb1JI,=1>

From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 8:57 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

Yes, a building separation does divide the hydraulic demands to what is 
required on each side of the separation.   See Fig. A.10.6.1.2.3.1 (2024 ed).


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Protection Design and Consulting
Steve Leyton, President
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
www.protectiondesign.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.protectiondesign.com%2f=E,1,KfASMvfI-kVU9MW7rwRZP02AqMeUcDUFECs-iYjDe5HvWRnGsuZZkYeH9Tb4YwpHYUaTF7CKdNELucXRFBuVgTIPslpQ2aN5vVELfMtD361RgSPbONGDFA,,=1>
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training







From: Rick Matsuda mailto:rick26...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2024 8:29 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

Here’s a thought which may be out way of line.

The 2-hour separation wall in the middle of the building was installed in lieu 
of an additional stairway. So technically there would have been three stairways 
and only three standpipes.

Does NFPA 14 allow you to install one standpipe by the separation and supply 
two hose valves on each level, one on each side of the wall, instead of two 
separate standpipes? If this is allowed then you’ll need to calculate only 
1000-gpm.

During a fire condition, the fire department should be hooking up to only the 
hose valve on the safe non-fire side.
Just my crazy opinion.
Rick Matsuda

On Apr 3, 2024, at 10:06 AM, Tstone52 
mailto:tston...@comcast.net>> wrote:

The building code calls for buildings more than 3 stories to have Standpipes. 
13R has nothing to do with it.
G Tim Stone



On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:50 AM, mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote:
13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered.



On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, mailto:shawn.f...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?

Shawn Foor, SET

FOOR DESIGN, LLC
10208 E 98TH ST
TULSA, OK 74133
P:918-237-1400


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43 
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)

We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building 
and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour separation wall 
with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.
The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be treated 
as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 4th 
floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm.
Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. Available 
water is the issue.


Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
WEB: 
www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com=E,1,eOQj6rLQOEeBsaaXnAuKYtQ4f5p4Knm1UKY0yyEOJLTVKOri1kqjepFq49XVuwByNE0nPukd4eAAOI3E9-xPHUOVNZeGu9LiuulSXKkPWiE0WLwgNg,,=1>


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,Iw7Un7H9x7nonfcNbzNkMKDRHYg9t-jck45KFFuPpA62mF4RfBc_tpawJj-r9xHZUexuEfWdh5LXJbJ22gQfxFyZkBcaFmD9zUdQPG_G98ZDqaI,=1>
To unsubscribe send an email to 
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
_ SprinklerForum 
mailing list: 
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.l

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

[Eric Rieve]

Rick,

This is an interesting train of thought. Logically there should never be a 
reason to use the hose connections on both sides of a horizontal exit at the 
same time. This jives with the allowance to remove the hose valve on one side 
of the separation if the other side can be completely covered from the far 
stairwell.

Nothing in the Flow Rates section of chapter 10 allows this however, and I 
think it may even be specifically prohibited by 10.6.1.1.7 “Where lateral 
piping serves a single hose connection, the minimum flow rate for the system 
shall be determined as if the hose connection is being served from a separate 
standpipe.”

It really does make sense though to consider the hose connections on opposite 
sides of a horizonal exit to be a single standpipe. I would be interested in 
getting other readers thoughts on this.

Sincerely,
Eric Rieve, SET
Rieve Fire Protection

From: Rick Matsuda 
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:29 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Standpipe Calculations

Here’s a thought which may be out way of line.

The 2-hour separation wall in the middle of the building was installed in lieu 
of an additional stairway. So technically there would have been three stairways 
and only three standpipes.

Does NFPA 14 allow you to install one standpipe by the separation and supply 
two hose valves on each level, one on each side of the wall, instead of two 
separate standpipes? If this is allowed then you’ll need to calculate only 
1000-gpm.

During a fire condition, the fire department should be hooking up to only the 
hose valve on the safe non-fire side.
Just my crazy opinion.
Rick Matsuda


On Apr 3, 2024, at 10:06 AM, Tstone52 
mailto:tston...@comcast.net>> wrote:

The building code calls for buildings more than 3 stories to have Standpipes. 
13R has nothing to do with it.
G Tim Stone




On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:50 AM, mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>> wrote:
13R buildings are not considered to be fully sprinklered.




On Apr 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM, mailto:shawn.f...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why would you do 1250 if it’s a fully sprinklered building?

Shawn Foor, SET

FOOR DESIGN, LLC
10208 E 98TH ST
TULSA, OK 74133
P:918-237-1400


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 08:43 
mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
Asking this on behalf of Rowe Sprinkler Systems (Temporally Un-Retired)

We have a 4-story modular apartment building sprinklered in accordance with 
NFPA 13R with allowed exceptions, with 4 standpipes. The standpipes are 
connected at the 1st floor level. One each at the ends of the L shaped building 
and two at the approximate mid-point on either side of a 2-hour separation wall 
with self-closing, rated doors in the corridor.
The question is for purposes of calculating the standpipe can these be treated 
as two separate buildings? For example, 250 gpm at the far end of the 4th 
floor, 250 gpm at the far end of the 3rd floor and 250 gpm at the at the 
connecting point of the middle standpipe, for a total of 750 gpm.
Or do we have to calculate the additional standpipes up to 1250 gpm. Available 
water is the issue.


Richard L. Mote CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
Middleburg, PA 17842
Mobile 570-541-2685
EMAIL 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com<http://www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com>


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

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

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