RE: NFPA 14- 2010 Section 7.2.4

Thanks Steve, I am slowly backing out of the PRV door. Sprinkler systems are not downstream of these. I am bringing them off before. As fortune would have it, there is an FDC in the vicinity of each. I am looking at factory testing of the Regulating Hose valves now. No way to provide the 3" rise

RE: NFPA 14- 2010 Section 7.2.4

As for the design, you cannot install a regulating device that influences more than two hose connections without redundancy. The schematic figure shows two reducing valves in series and the bypass is normally closed, so there's no way to over-pressurize the system if the manifold is maintained

Re: NFPA 14- 2010 Section 7.2.4

Why not eliminate all hose valves between 30 ft above and below FD level of access? On Apr 27, 2016 4:21 PM, "Matthew J Willis" wrote: > We have a unique situation where a few pounds from churn is killing us. > > To resolve this, we are looking at placing a 6" Tyco (PRV-1) Pressure > Reducing Va

NFPA 14- 2010 Section 7.2.4

We have a unique situation where a few pounds from churn is killing us. To resolve this, we are looking at placing a 6" Tyco (PRV-1) Pressure Reducing Valves immediately in the stair before the standpipes proper (vertical piece). 7.2.4 is giving us pause. If we provide a bypass around, we will

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

And yes, this system was in service when the CO was issued. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) Sent using CloudMagic [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti&cv=6.0.64&pv=8.2] On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 3:27 PM, fpdcdes...@gm

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Craig, Take a look at my last reply to Roland's comments. The end pieces on the branch lines are 3/4" and the cross mains have "Y" type screwed and screwed by flanged tees as well as offset fittings. If you like I can email you photos. It is some form of pipe schedule. The sprinklers I believe w

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

How do you know this was an NFPA 13 design and not an NFPA 231 design? NOTE: New address and phone numbers Effective 4/11/2016 Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC  29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 craig.pr...@

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Was this the system that was in place and approved by the FD when the latest occupant filed for their certificate of occupancy? How do you know it is a pipe schedule system? What is the date on the sprinklers? How do you know it was designed as an OH system and to which OH design level? NO

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Funny thing here is.. If this building were to burn down at some point in the future, the owner's insurance company would argue that the contractor who replaced the sprinkler heads should have known the system wasn't adequate for the hazard classification of the building. They would argue that

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Now wait a minute. You mean my antique plastic pellets are fake?? Looks like you just wrote most of the letter. System designed prior to any known criteria and although it somewhat resembles a OH pipe schedule, it doesn't make it one. Another unknown is whether or not the free flowing modifier

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

I understand the concerns, but first of all, I am going to the owner's rep, not the AHJ. They may have an analysis, but I have my doubts (I would have most likely been asked to do it). The letter can die with the rep, but at least I would have done my part. This is not an OH Pipe Schedule system

RE: ??

Talk about an open ended question. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: ?? Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engi

??

Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Todd, Be careful with this. We recently finished a case where the building was constructed in the early 1950's and protected with a pipe schedule system (extra-hazard) 90 sq ft per head, for a plastic bottle regrinding process, regrind plastic in boxes to a height of 8 ft., sprinkler contractor

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

This poses an interesting dilemma. You feel it is a problem but can’t articulate a definitive statement so do you or don’t you write a letter. I certainly understand the need for a CYA philosophy (as moronic and insane as our legal system has become - notice I didn’t say anything about justic

RE: Forward Flow for a Backflow Preventer - Character set not allowed

May 2013 Great article too Mark -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Forward Flow for a Backflow Preve

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

There are some maintenance and condition issues that need to be addressed which is my base contract. The old "hire an engineer to figure out what is happening" routine. Flushings and internal inspections will be a part of that resolution. At that point I can determine C factors, internal diamet

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

You should notify someone. It does not have to be offensive. A short letter or email to the owner stating that there appears be an issue with the , and that you recommend that it be reviewed further as a life-safety concern. Then go on with your life. You do not have to send a dissertation or

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Almost as old as the State I live in (1889). Presuming you post letter to owner's agent, and they contract you to calc system. What c-factor would you use? Internal pipe examination? Have i.d.'s stayed consistent? Best Bruce > On Apr 27, 2016, at 06:31, Scott Futrell wrote: > > You need

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

You need to be on the record, the letter is a good idea. The deposition questions are not fun...So, Mr. Williams, you are a Professional Engineer, right? ... I'd keep going, but it wouldn't be in my best interest. Scott   Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message--

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

As a PE you would be remiss in not noting your concerns. However, it appears the owner is relying on his/her insurance entity and the AHJ for the current risk assessment. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

The original building was built in 1884 and the sprinkler system installed at that time. Since the standardized pipe schedule did not come into being until 1896, my assumption is that the sizing was at the installers discretion. The branch pipe sizing is less that what was called for in 1896 ed

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Palletized probably better than rack. Class IV probably better than Group A. OH better than LH. Wet probably better than dry. Pipe schedule probably better than no system. Water flow reported to a supervising station better than cell phone from highway. The 1973 edition of NFPA 13 had an OH3

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Good morning Todd. It is my opinion that you need to notify someone that an evaluation in accordance with NFPA 25 (2014 edition) 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 needs to be undertaken. Code of Ethics. If you've seen it, as a FPE, you are obligated to question it if it doesn't appear to be correct. It wo

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Todd: As my Mom used to say: "Heavens to Betsy!" Is there at least a no smoking sign?! It's probably the old wrought iron pipe too. Wow! OK, the mines just got widely dispersed. I would still do a quick calc to show the max the existing system can do and then have a meeting with the local AHJ.

Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Actually this is part of the pre 1896 pipe schedule system I mentioned in previous posts. The branch line sizing is less that the 1896 standards. No major renovation >20%. Density requirements would be approx .24/2000. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-53

RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage

Todd: I have come across this situation a couple of times and in my experience, you are waltzing in a mine field. I am going to assume for the sake of argument that: The existing pipe scheduled system is per the OLD Extra Hazard pipe scheduled guidelines. The Class IV storage usa

RE: Forward Flow for a Backflow Preventer

http://www.mail-archive.com/sprinklerforum%40lists.firesprinkler.org/msg4216 9.html James, here is link to archived post I made last July. I changed the English version to show how I got ~195 gpm. I used the Article Roland mentioned as a way forward, and for checking (and correcting) my thinki

RE: National Museum of Natural History - Delhi, Burns

They were using the Dubai fire protection model. John Paulsen – SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P – 614-782-2438 F – 614-782-2374 C – 614-348-8206 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf

RE: National Museum of Natural History - Delhi, Burns

So fire extinguishers were present but didn't' work. Fire pump(s) were there but didn't work. Government building. 35 fire engines, four hours to extinguish. Yeah that's some fire there and some real great government oversight into the maintenance of functionality of systems protecting pr

RE: National Museum of Natural History - Delhi, Burns

Thanks guys for the article! I'm going to forward it to ALL of my hotel owner customers with the heading THIS COULD BE YOU! John Paulsen - SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P - 614-782-2438 F - 614-782-2374 C - 614-348-8206 -Original Message- From: Sprink

Existing pipe schedule and storage

I am working at a facility where there is an existing OH pipe schedule system over 12ft palletized Class IV storage. The fire department has approved it, but I question whether it will provide adequate protection. I did not see anything in NFPA 13 that requires storage occupancies to be hydraul

Re: National Museum of Natural History - Delhi, Burns

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/national-museum-gutted-no-fire-ok-equipment-didnt-work-rare-fossils-lost-in-blaze-2772098/ John Drucker Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904