I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system
had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a
system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction
from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some
Do an air test, fix the obvious stuff that's broken, buy a new pump and
flush/test the existing pipe with water. An air test will get most big leaks
it's pretty hard to find little pin hole leaks using air if it is a large
volume system. My 2 cents.
Ron F
-Original Message-
From:
Scott, you understand my concerns. Unfortunately this is a challenging client
and you better have any requirement opinion backed up with documentation
otherwise it's just an opinion for what that's worth.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group Lead
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500
Do they have maintenance personnel that can assist you? I really have had the
same problem, but when you get the guys that have to work on it involved they
can provide some welcome support.
Good luck.
Scott
(763) 425-1001 Office
(612) 759-5556 Cell
-Original Message-
From:
I like the replace it all option...
How old is the system to start with?
You need to replace all the sprinklers, if some have popped you don't know
how many others may be damaged.
What about gaskets in grooved couplings?
Is the water supply now equal to the original pump and pond? If not, pipe
I am working on a school project where there is a basement that will be used
for storage (3300 sqft, 13 ft ceiling). I am basing my design on 10 ft high
storage of miscellaneous stuff, which I am calling Class IV. This would be a
0.20/1500 sprinkler density, which is the same as the requirement
Just to reiterate Scott's point: Maintenance is huge and his examples are
extremely valid. We were once painted into a corner on our first foam job many
years ago. The foam tanks were put on a mezzanine above the risers. But we
ensured there was plenty of room on the mezzanine for bladder
The owner wants to re-use the system and we have to prove to him that it needs
to be replaced, if it does. I'm thinking after a physical inspection and air
test, it would tell us if we have something that could be used or not. The
building is approximately 30 ft to the peak and 25 to the hip
Todd,
Since occupancy classifications are based on quantity and/or combustibility
and expected rates of heat release, uhhh...???
-Original Message-
From: Todd - Work [mailto:t...@fpdc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Misc
Todd, take a peek at 13.2.2 (2) (2013 edition).
Ed Kramer
Lawrence, KS
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd -
Work
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:45 AM
To:
Ok just to follow up with the outcome.
Had our meeting with the client, explained access issues and Code requirement
of Approved access.
Our 2nd foam room will be at grade level in one of two decent locations. They
may even push Process guys out of the way for this FP system. That's a huge
I would air test first but I think you will need the water test to find leaks
Sent from my Galaxy S®III
Original message
From: Scott A Futrell sco...@ffcdi.com
Date: 11/20/2013 9:06 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: resurrecting an
Push Like button now.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:24 AM, craig.pr...@ch2m.com wrote:
Ok just to follow up with the outcome.
Had our meeting with the client, explained access issues and Code
requirement of Approved access.
Our 2nd foam room will be at grade level in one of two decent
You are on the right track. Test and repair as needed, then flush.
I had a similar situation in an aircraft hangar about 15 years ago. System
froze and there were lots of issues. The occupant's first indication of a
problem was falling debris, broken fittings.
We went in and fixed the obvious
Mike,
I would respectfully urge flushing prior to full 200# test, simply because
this system contains mud and other debris, that could, still in place, allow
pinhole leaks to remain undetected. Flush to eliminate debris that could be
allowing a successful pressure test. Once flushed, the system
Todd,
I completely agree with Ed.
13.2.1 (5) would let it qualify as miscellaneous storage, and use Table
13.2.1, and Figure 13.2.1.
13.2.2 (2) tells you that the same, except you can apply
Chapter 11 for OH 1 2, and EH 1 2
So, if you apply 13.2.2(2), and Table 13.2.1, class
As long as you are in Chapter 13, Chapter 11 modifiers apply as applicable.
John
It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 13
Technical Committee on Sprinkler Discharge Criteria, and has not been processed
as a formal interpretation in accordance with the
I would suggest a slightly modified approach.
Test and repair as needed until tight. Flush and then retest.
You really need to flush and retest due to the leaks that might be uncovered
after proper flushing. I agree with Scott on cost. Given the total cost in
the end, it might be wiser for
The other benefit to the owner with replacement is a warranty. If the system is
patched back together, then it could end up being a source of constant
headaches and expense if leaks start to show up.
Replacing the system could end up being a faster option depending on how many
rounds of
19 matches
Mail list logo
