inklerforum>
> >
> > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
rinklerforum
> >
> > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
> _
I guess it's just gonna be what all the AHJs consider listed and/or
approved. If'n I were the an AHJ I'd I'd accept either. If'n there
were an FM interest I suspect they'd want FM approved stuff only, and
to there criteria. If'n I were gonna performance design this thing I
bet I could set up some e
I respectfully disagree with this. The FM standards dictate that number or
turns and minimum radii (based on length) be maintained in order to have
their tested friction loss be accurate, same for UL. Whether or not the
turns are maintained after turnover on future work is another matter and
wher
George,
I looked at some of the data from FlexHead this afternoon, and what
occurred to me was that if the devices were installed and maintained the
minimum radius on the bends that met the FM limitations rather than
those for UL, that a reasonably good case could be made to suggest the
FM equ
Since when did FM stop being a recognized national testing laboratory?
We've used FM criteria often in projects, and their ESFR obstruction
criteria is far more illustrative than NFPA's.
So if we have a job FM does not insure, and we want to use a device that is
not UL listed but IS FM-Approved,
Dennis,
If this is not an FM job, then they have no dog in the fight and you cannot
use them to reduce your equivalent lengths. Since there is no FM
inspection and no FM insurance, you will have to use the UL equivalent
lengths and submit the shop drawings and calculations to the local AHJ with
th
Now you can check the UL listing, and see if it was listed.
The 1996 edition of NFPA 13 (4-15.2.5) required an automatic drip in areas
subject to freezing.
American Star Valve Corporation
ncorporated by Brian Crider, American Star Valve Corporation is located at
6181 E Lake Rd # 186 Palm Ha
Dave:
You might want to check the Face to Face of those valves and look for a
valve with the same dim.
The FDC check is only about $125, and depending on the riser check you use
you'll spend double or triple that. It may still be less than all the labor
and lost time looking for parts.
Thom McMaho
No UL/FM marks, year of mfr cast in body as reqd on listed valves, etc?
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesp
Thanks Paul I've missed that one!
Thom McMahon, SET
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
P.O. Box 882136
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On
American Star Valve Corporation
Incorporated by Brian Crider, American Star Valve Corporation is located at
36181 E Lake Rd # 186 Palm Harbor, FL 34685. American Star Valve Corporation
was incorporated on Tuesday, October 04, 1994 in the State of FL and is
currently not active. Brian Crider rep
Greetings all,
I ran across an installation (poor) yesterday and could use some assistance
identifying two check valves on it. The system is wet piped and is circa
1994. The 3" riser check (definitely not an alarm check) is a red cylinder
with a taping for the main drain and a plate 'American
Empty attic. Some ductwork and maybe an air handler or two. The core
is 3 floors and the wings are two. Peaked roof with wood joist on
wood beams. Separation is plaster on lathe on wood joist or sheetrock
on wood joist.
At 03:39 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>OK. Attic that's just an unusable empt
/fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Ant
OK. Attic that's just an unusable empty space? Attic for storage?
Attic with mechanical equipment? Empty attic with the same joist plane
as an adjacent occupied space? Mechanical pent? Empty, unusable attic
seems to be similar to an interstitial space to my way of thinking. If
it's partially occupi
Per section 1509.2 of the 2006 IBC, a penthouse or rooftop enclosure can
be up to 1/3 of the area of the roof. Over that and it is a floor.
Paul Pinigis, P.E.
Life Safety Department Head
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...
Same sort of question could be asked of a "Mechanical penthouse" How big
does it have to be before it's a floor, and not just a box set on the roof?
Thom McMahon, SET
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
P.O. Box 882136
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
-Origin
I always use the larger number because doing that I never had a
conflict problem. If the job is designed for FM using the FM
criteria, the AHJ could come back and reject the design because the
friction loss doesn't match what he is looking at (UL).
At 01:34 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>We are d
If your calcs are going to be tight use the FM approved equivalent
lengths but remember the FM approved ones cost more.
Mike Brown
Project Designer
Sunland Fire Protection
1218 Elon Place
High Point, NC 27263
Ph. 336.886.7027 Ext. 140
Fax: 336.886.7024
WWW.SUNLANDFIRE.COM
-Original Message-
Look at the minimum radius. It is 3" for UL and 7" for FM. I assume that
is why the different equivalent lengths. That may help you decide what
you are going to use.
Travis
> We are doing a job using flex heads. They show different equivalency loss
> for FM and UL listings. 9.6 ft versus 27 ft.
Normally an attic is not considered a story, but it could be. If it is not
a story and if there is no stair access to the space, there may not be a
need to provide a standpipe connection for this area. However, IBC Section
1209.3 does provide for access to concealed spaces such as attics. My
ass
We are doing a job using flex heads. They show different equivalency loss for
FM and UL listings. 9.6 ft versus 27 ft. respectfullt. What should I use?
This is not a mandated FM project and I am designing to 2002 13 light/ordinary
hazzard.
I would rather use the 9.6 factor. At what point would
> >
> > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
> ___
> Sprink
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(
I don't typically provide standpipes for attics, but the attic space
is usually 1 level up from the occupied space. What is the proper
separation between an attic and occupied spaces? There are walls with
some doors.
At 12:18 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>Do you typically supply standpipe coverage
Further if you look at A8.15.7.2 you'll see that the porte-cochere do not
normally require sprinkler where there is no occupancy above.
I believe that you stated that there is an occupied space above, so I would
say sprinklers are required. By the statement in the last line of A8.15.7.2
"However a
I declare it a tunnel and the drive an Eisenhower Freeway. Proceed
appropriately. Oh wait. It's Veteran's Day, not April Fool's. Remember
that veterans have given anywhere from two years to all of their lives
in service to all of us. Think about that the next time you feel you
don't have a few minu
J.
Being in Colorado I see two major paths, 1) Most Fire dept. that have three
stations also have their own (Fire Marshal or Certified Plan reviewer as
required by the CO Div. of Fire Safety) if this is the case I'd have the
Inspector review the facility and in conjunction with the contracting
offi
Do you typically supply standpipe coverage to an attic?
Is the occupied space properly separated from attic space?
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Todd Williams wrote:
> I am working on a building where part of the 3rd floor is occupied
> (center core) and the rest (wings and area over core) is
I am working on a building where part of the 3rd floor is occupied
(center core) and the rest (wings and area over core) is unoccupied
attic. The building is fully sprinklered, including the attic. Does
the standpipe coverage have to reach the remote part of the attic
spaces or just the occupie
gt; http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> >
> > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the
Porte Cochere translates to "coach gate" or "coach door"; it's not that odd.
At 10:38 AM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>proceed with great caution. UNDER the building is not the same as a
>canopy attached to the building regardless of what odd French names we
>apply. From the context of the title and
proceed with great caution. UNDER the building is not the same as a
canopy attached to the building regardless of what odd French names we
apply. From the context of the title and all other information, it
would be a challenge to say 8.15.7 applies to anything that does not
stick out beyo
be in the subject field)
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4596 (2009) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature data
r Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4
Chris Gaut
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesp
It's not IF, it's WHEN
If what your planned course of action is makes you sick to your stomach,
then you need to change it and make sure the problem is identified to the
parties that CAN rectify it. If they don't, its no longer on you. But if it
burned, and someone died, could you live with saying
So just because it's the fire department you're supposed to ignore a system
that is grossly under-designed and doesn't meet code? Perfect. What a
tribute to the industry when the fire department burns down but the news media
reports the building was fully sprinklered and the system failed.
The answer lies within NFPA-25. Emphasis in CAPS.
2008 NFPA-25-1.1.2 "The types of systems addressed by this standard include,
but are not limited to, sprinkler, standpipe and hose, fixed water spray,
and foam water. Included are the water supplies that are part of these
systems, such as private f
This sounds like one you may be wise to let someone else sort out.Not knowing
all the particulars of this area,I would have to ask "Why are they looking for
a ligitimate inspection of a system that they KNOW isn't code
compliant"?Also,not just one station but multiples.This tells me this is not
Interesting as I ran across a similar piping arrangement but in a
commercial building. Digging back through the code and building
records I found out that some 20 plus years ago this type of system
was permitted. Fortunately the owner in this case is remodeling and
has to bring it up to curre
In spite of who it is, it would be wrong to just sweep this under the
rug. Does the jurisdiction have something written in the Code stating
that a system must be installed per standard, even if not required?
If so, you could challenge the system based on that. Either way, you
should document yo
43 matches
Mail list logo
