Very possible but unlikely to be accurate. What we find in the land of
super pressure is the so little of the energy available being used to move
water through a 2 1/2" hole I have seen residual drops so small as to be
unmeasurable on the gauges we use. The way to get accurate numbers is to
demand
Goes back to my thought about clean room heads from earlier. Concealed head
with a gasket
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
www.fpdc.com
860-535-2080 (ofc)
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:13 PM, "Cahill, Christopher"
> wrote:
>
> Can you use concealed heads? That w
Can you use concealed heads? That way the plate takes a beating and is easily
replaced without risking the head. Leave them with a case of covers it rather
cheap. I did it once.
Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
Burns & McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Correct me if I'm wrong - I was a C+ student in college after all - but I
believe it is possible to have a residual the same as the Pitot, but highly
unlikely. In order for it to happen, you must convert all the energy
(pressure) in the system to velocity, with no measurable losses.
In the cas
there is an elevation difference of 7'-11" between the two hydrants?
-Original Message-
From: Cahill, Christopher [mailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Flow Test Residual and Pitot The Same?
I have a f
Unless you can apply the requirements of IBC 2009 903.3.1.1.1 (2) I would have
to say you are stuck putting sprinklers in it. As far as how to sprinkler it,
It seems the need to protect it from mechanical damage and the need to suppress
the fire are contradictory. Other than a head guard, yo
Chris,
With any flow test on plans or in specs we receive, we check that the pitot
(resulting in GPM via chart or formula) is not one and the same. If so, we
immediately suspect a single fire hydrant test. Without the residual, the
static and gpm are meaningless. It is indeed possible for the 20
I have a flow test report showing the residual and pitot pressure being the
same. 60 static, 20 residual with a 20 pitot on a 2.5" opening for 750 gpm. I
talked to the contractor and they described doing it correctly, two hydrants
one static/residual, one flowing. I don't believe it's possible
For clarification, only cellophane bags are permitted.
The common sandwich bags are not cellophane and not acceptable for covering a
sprinkler with.
Forest Wilson
Fire Sprinkler Contractor
937-736-0425
Notice:
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected
by
How long is someone going to direct the blast at a sprinkler? If you were
using fusible link sprinklers, it would take a deliberate and lengthy action of
directing a discharge from the blast nozzle at the sprinkler before it would
fail. Have you ever tried to accidently knock the element out
That was primarily my question - how do we keep them from activating a
sprinkler via the spray from the blaster.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work
Sent: Wednesda
Don't forget that the paper/cellophane bags are designed to protect against
solvents adhering to sprinklers, not impact. You need to ask if they are going
to provide sufficient protection from mechanical damage.
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
www.fpdc.com
8
Roland,
I guess I don't know poly from cellophane. My statement was clearly
misleading...
NFPA 33 Standard for Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials
2011 Edition, Section 9.4.7.1 states: "Sprinklers shall be permitted to be
covered only by cellophane bags having a thicknes
we use to use sandwich bags all the time. We've tightened that up by adding
text to the annex of 25 pointing out that a cellophane bag is allowed but a
sandwich bag is a plastic bag (a poly family) with a bad end result.
A.5.4.1.8.1 Typical sandwich bags purchased in a grocery store are genera
Jim,
I would think walnut shells to be a better blasting media for the purpose to
protect precision machined surfaces, but they're probably using steel to
achieve more "tooth" for the corrosion resistant coating they apply next.
Nevertheless, to protect sprinkler heads from accumulating "media
Not much will survive a direct blast, but a clean room head might give you
reasonable protection. Include inspecting the cover plates on the 25
inspection.
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Jim Kettle
E) All of the above. The plant refinishes large industrial parts and reapplies
corrosion resistant coatings.
Agreed that they should be not blasting the ceiling, but that seems nearly
impossible to prevent.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.or
What are they blasting for, to remove paint or finishes or rust or ?
The sprinklers would be a the ceiling of the booth, the operator shouldn't be
shooting blasting media at the ceiling.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group Lead
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spa
We have a facility installing a large new abrasive blasting booth. The booth
uses steel grit/shot.
Is there a requirement for the fire sprinkler system to be extended into the
booth? If so, how are the sprinklers protected?
It used solely for abrasive blasting - the spray finishing operations a
19 matches
Mail list logo
