To answer some of your questions:
Personally, I don't think the exposed cpvc was at fault. I have seen a
Blazemaster test report which indicates exposed cpvc with sprinkler heads
being subject to a 30 minute fire test. Initially, temperature on pipe rises
to 1560 deg.F. Sprinkler heads fuse in 50
Can anyone tell me who makes the rubber links that we put around
underground pipe when it comes through concrete holes (subterranean
garage). I installed some about twenty years ago and can't recall the
name of the product or the manufacturer.
Thanks to anyone that can help,
George Medina Jr.
Link Seal
http://www.linkseal.com/htmlPages/base_ls.htm
Hope that helps
John Drucker
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Medina
Jr
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:58 AM
To:
Good morning, forum --
I want to use control mode heads in an existing warehouse building
under 30 ft in height.
Somebody (working for the owner) says that he would prefer ESFR heads
because (his thought)
it eliminates the requirement for heat and smoke vents.
If that's true, I would have
Please do update us, Tony- I can't think the 200*F heads- required in
unventilated attic- are the cause. And the code DOES allow exposed CPVC in
OH2 if 400 SF in light hazard building, and with spacing and elevation
restrictions.
glc
-Original Message-
From:
Vince,
From IBC 2006
910.1 General.
Where required by this code or otherwise installed, smoke and heat vents or
mechanical smoke exhaust systems and draft curtains shall conform to the
requirements of this section.
Exceptions:
1. Frozen food warehouses used solely for storage of Class I and
Vince, we did a job last year where our variance was approved and here's the
logic train:
Egress distance can be increased past 250' if heat and smoke vents are
provided.
So we pencil vents in.
Then we provide an ESFR system so the vents aren't required, erase them.
Extended egress distance in
We got a similar response where the vents were used for the increased distance.
The Underwriter required the vents to be either manual or have links at a
higher temp rating than the sprinklers and the AHJ concurred. Vents had to go
in.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Specialist
My understanding is that smoke vents impair the function of esfr systems by
drafting heat away from the fire area and setting off sprinklers that don't
help with suppression.
Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP
Sales Engineer
Alliance Fire Protection
*Licensed in KS MO
913.888.0647 ph
913.888.0618 f
Yes. That is a valid concern. We offset that here by requiring the operation
temp of the vents to be significantly higher than the ESFR temp ratings.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
I 3rd...
Todd Letterman
Fire Protection Engineer
Riverside County Fire Department
(951) 955-5273-Fax(951) 955-4886
todd.letter...@fire.ca.gov
Life's not about waiting for the storms to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-Original Message-
From: Law, Kevin W
Ok, I have a question, I'm still waking up with morning coffee, but was the
installation installed to manufacturers specifications in this building? I know
with Blazemaster they have very specific criteria for exposed installations.
They even have exposed riser applications and their paragraphs
--- So the consensus of opinion is that requirement of smoke and heat
vents will or
will not be required depending on the AHJ and whether or not he buys into IFC.
Kinda what I thought... hope I don't get the guy that held up a plan
approval because
we didn't put heads under a couple of
No the consensus was if not for exiting exceptions vents are not required by
the IFC.
Assuming the IFC is adopted without amendment as LAW the LAW allows this
omission. The only further exception is if the AHJ has changed the LAW and
is legally allowed to change the LAW. For example in MN
I learned an interesting phrase from a former staff liason at NFPA; during
committee meetings he'd observe:
Since I'm not on the committee, I'm not entitled to an opinion. But if I
were, I'd ..
Nice caveat, he could participate without participating. And as a PE, he
would otherwise BE
And the reality is there are many, many people out there practicing w/o a
lic that I'd put their opinion way before many, many with a lic. The other
reality is cases of action against people w/o a lic are very, very rare.
It's all semantics.
I'm not a PE, so I'm not entitled to an opinion. But
Got a design criteria trivial question for some of the more experienced (PC
for the old geezers, lol). A system installed in 1992 protecting Class
III-A Combustible liquids in 55 gallon non-relieving drums stored 3 high was
designed as a dry system and to Ordinary II (.20 / 1950). By today's
I'm a PE am entitled to an opinion, but if I wasn't, I could give
one and wouldn't be held liable for it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2009, at 11:45 AM, George Church for...@ptd.net wrote:
I learned an interesting phrase from a former staff liason at NFPA;
during
committee meetings
I've found a lot of chemical protection systems designed per NFPA 13 with no
regard to any other Standard. Using the text in Chapter 5 within the various
Hazards they base their design solely on the description of conditions and
words such as moderate or substantial.
Protection of
Is it the intent of NFPA 14 to require isolation of individual standpipes
without interrupting the supply to other standpipes from the same source on
a manual-dry system feed from an FDC?
Thanks
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Not sure if this is against the rules but I just picked up the 19th edition
of the Fire Protection Handbook, 2 volume set for $23! Attached is the link
for eBay, my office just ordered (3) sets two days ago and they came in
today, all books are in excellent shape. FYI.
Craig,
The liquid is spearmint oil flash point 143 F, the oil is stored in
non-relieving steel drums. I have looked at the MSDS sheets and 2008 NFPA
30 as well as a small section of NFPA 30 - 1993. I am pretty comfortable
with requirements of 1993 and 2008 just don't have the backing of what
For some reason the link got truncated, you need to combine both lines.
Sorry.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fire-Protection-Handbook-Hardcover-2003_W0QQitemZ3412923
68536QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4f769c4298
Brian Harris
FDFP INC.
-Original Message-
From:
OH II, no, don't think so. Plus you may have issues with extinguishment based
on water alone since it's SG=.91 and is insoluble.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC
I'm still using the 16th edition - wonder what the postage would be to the UK ?
Stewart
On 17 Dec 2009, at 20:09, Brian Harris wrote:
For some reason the link got truncated, you need to combine both lines.
Sorry.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fire-Protection-Handbook-Hardcover-2003_W0QQitemZ3412923
Shoot the guy an email, he was quick to get back with me. Either way for $23
plus shipping you'd still come out way ahead.
Brian Harris
FDFP INC.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Stewart
Anyone know where to get information on ASCOA sprinklers? Nothing online.
Model 246G SSU. Trying to find information on this sprinkler.
Jay White
Estimator/Design Manager
Dynamic Fire Protection
1807 Hwy. 25 South
Starkville, MS 39759
Phone: 662-324-1550
Fax: 662-324-1545
Cell:
Unfortunately the person who designed this did it as Ord II and the AHJ
bought off on it. I am pretty certain the codes never allowed this hazard
as Ord II, I just wanted to have some backing since I don't anything (NFPA
30) prior to 1993. Nothing like trying to solve someone else's mistake.
Was the building originally designed for the drum storage? Almost
sounds like it was supposed to house something else.
At 05:21 PM 12/17/2009, you wrote:
Unfortunately the person who designed this did it as Ord II and the AHJ
bought off on it. I am pretty certain the codes never allowed this
It was existing at the time, so the hazard was present when originally
installed.
Jim Johnston, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Inland Fire Protection, Inc
1100 Ahtanum Road
Yakima, WA 98903
Phone 509-248-4471
Fax 509-248-1180
j...@inlandfireprotection.com
-Original Message-
From: Todd
)
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4697 (20091217) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com http://www.eset.com/
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum
Your research needs to include the Building and Fire Code enforceable at
the time of the original construction. That will tell you what it
should have been designed to, whether it was or wasn't won't be known
until you start there. Chris C. had a post about the LAW earlier today
on another
I am working on a 13D system which is fed by a copper pipe from the
public supply. I have been asked by the water company (who has review
authority in this situation) to decrease the C factor for the copper
pipe from 150 to 120 due to age. I have done this several times in
steel and CI pipe,
My reference manual lists the range for copper as 150-120. So I would say it is
within reason.
Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP
Sales Engineer
Alliance Fire Protection
*Licensed in KS MO
913.888.0647 ph
913.888.0618 f
913.927.0222 cell
www. AFPsprink.com
-Original Message-
From:
Note all that Scott and Craig said about codes and physical properties, but FYI
the 1987 edition of NFPA 30 says for solid pile or palletized storage of metal
containers greater than 5 gal. up to 3 containers high Class III should be
0.25/3000 for high temp or 0.25/5000 for intermediate temp
I already tried that approach, the records are archived at the Counties
Office the representative from the Fire Marshals office dug thru the files
for this facility unfortunately; everything prior to 1996 is gone. The
applicable codes at the time should have been 1991 UBC UFC. It's possible
...@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 4697 (20091217) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32
The 13 handbook commentary for 14.4.4.5 (2002)
does not include any decrease for copper and I
have never used one. 2010 has similar language.
The FP handbook does not address it. My
questioning is on the degradation of copper pipe
and decrease in C Factor because of it. Never
heard of it
Were the Codes set by the State, County or Local authorities?
At 06:58 PM 12/17/2009, you wrote:
I already tried that approach, the records are archived at the Counties
Office the representative from the Fire Marshals office dug thru the files
for this facility unfortunately; everything prior to
I completely agree with you David, I have this information in the 1993
edition that you provided for me on a different issue at a different site
built in 1993. I get stuck being the bad guy when the owners of these
facilities call and say their insurance guy is coming up with different
criteria
Should be State, but when community is agricultural based and Billy Bob is
the local elected official anything is possible.
Jim Johnston, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Inland Fire Protection, Inc
1100 Ahtanum Road
Yakima, WA 98903
Phone 509-248-4471
Fax 509-248-1180
They are all gone (damn firewall at work, I couldn't get to Ebay till now!!)
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Brian Harris br...@firstdefensefire.comwrote:
Shoot the guy an email, he was quick to get back with me. Either way for
$23
plus shipping you'd still come out way ahead.
Brian
Jim,
I have code sets going back into the 80s. Do you know what edition of
13 is referenced in the 91 UBC 'cause I don't think I have that.
Perhaps 30 is also directly referenced but if not it would be referred
to in 13.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Jim Johnston
j...@inlandfireprotection.com
If you have a storage room defined by the EOR as a .222/2,000 remote
area in the back of a retail store with NO separation to the retail area
and you conform to both requirements (15' of the greater hazard and 30'
of 286 deg heads) into the retail space:
Does this lock you out of changing to EC
Ok, to make it more confusing, the EC heads I was going to use are UL
Listed as QR for 14x14 (which I need) and SR for 16x16 - which would
mean by increasing the spacing I could use the exact same head?
AND, the FM rating is SR for 14x14...I want to do this right and for the
heads to operate as
Jim:
The 1991 UFC Table 79.203-C has the same criteria as the 1987 NFPA 30, i.e.
0.25/3000 and 5000 for high and intermed temp sprinklers respectively.
I can fax you a copy of the reqs from it if you need it.
Dave
David A. de Vries, P.E., CSP
Firetech Engineering Incorporated
--- On
46 matches
Mail list logo
