Re: low flow residential head replacement

Change out what you believe are the most demanding 4 heads and do a bucket test. Let’s know what happens. Owen Evans Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum > wrote: > >  > We are looking at an apartment complex that was built in the 2000-2001 ran

Re: Detached Garage

ct of a higher density, I'm >> sure both the contractor and owner of the subject property would love to >> hear from you. But why stop there - if you look at it as a detached >> parking structure, the correct density is .15. >> >> Steve L. >> >> From: Sp

Re: Detached Garage

The thinking being why not spend a few extra bucks and protect the structure and contents with greater density. Makes no sense to buy time for escape with .05. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum > wrote: > >  > This issue was not clearly defi

Re: Detached Garage

Auxiliary building, easy enough to do a .1 density, even .15. No reason to do .05 density. Owen Evans Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 5, 2019, at 7:10 PM, Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum > wrote: > >  > I’m a little rusty on my 13D. > > I have a residence with a detached 3 car garage

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

of the water purveyor. Also copy the serving fire >> marshals. >> >> Be part of the solution. >> >> Steve Leyton >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] >> On Behalf Of

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

of your state, you may have > already lost the battle. > > > Ron Greenman > > rongreen...@gmail.com > > 253.576.9700 > > The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner > Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera dir

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

> or General Manager of the water purveyor. Also copy the serving fire > marshals. > > Be part of the solution. > > Steve Leyton > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of firstin--- via Sprink

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

Director (if public) or the President/CEO/COO (if private) > or General Manager of the water purveyor. Also copy the serving fire > marshals. > > Be part of the solution. > > Steve Leyton > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerfo

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

wrote: > > I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well. > > > >> On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum >> wrote: >> >> The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting >> for it to get done. >> &g

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:57 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum >> wrote: >> >> Need advice on the best way to fight a non required requirement. >> Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great

Not required, requirement

Need advice on the best way to fight a non required requirement. Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to require a full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler systems at a cost of $600 each. The vast majority of water mains that run down residential street

13D CAD and Calc Program

Hello all, I've been drawing 13D systems by hand on reflective ceiling plans for years. I'm now looking for recommendations for a CAD program for 13D systems, something simple and inexpensive if possible. I've been using Hydronics to run the calculations. There is a problem with this program w

Re: 13D GPM to use?

that are being used can actually flow the 61 gpm that you have in the > calcs. Some meters and BFP aren’t listed for those flows. > > Cliff Whitfield, SET > President > > Fire Design, Inc. > 184 Comfort Place > Burnsville, NC 28714 > Ph: 828-284-4772 > > &

Re: 13D GPM to use?

Protection > 727-282-9243 > > Typed on tiny keys, just for you. Please forgive spelling errors, > typographical transgressions and grammatical gaffs. > > > From: Sprinklerforum on > behalf of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum > > Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 4:11:

13D GPM to use?

I have an AHJ who wanted a 4 head calculation on a 13D system. The heads being used flow 13 gpm. 13 x 4 + 5 domestic = 57 gpm. After running the calculations, the calculations indicate that head 1 is flowing 13 gpm, head 2 flowing 13.2 gpm, head 3 flowing 14 gpm, and head 4 flowing 15.6 gpm,

Re: Tamper or not

Thank you Steve. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 1, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: > > So figure out which edition of the CBC was applicable to the building you’re > looking at and then refer to §903.4, which is where the monitoring > requirement resides. The threshold and language have

Tamper or not

Please fill in the blank. In California tampers are not required on the control valves if the system has (blank) or fewer heads. Thank you, Owen Evans Residential Design Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firespri

Re: Protection from weather

Thank you Mark. I missed that. Owen Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 25, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Mark Sornsin [FAR] > wrote: > > Owen, > > Section 8.16.4.2 (2016 ed.) deals with Protection of Piping Against > Corrosion. 8.16.4.2.3 specifically addresses exposure to weather. > > > Mark Sornsin > S

Protection from weather

Are risers, mains and branch lines required to be protected (painted) when exposed to weather? I can’t find it in 13. Would it be in 25? Owen Evans Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.

Pipe protection from weather

Is steel pipe that is exposed to weather required to be protected, painted? System risers, mains, branch? I can’t seem to find it in 13. Regards, Owen Evans Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http

Re: Ceiling Grids and Flex Drops

URG! AHJ's that have their own requirements in their head without back-up from standard, code or amendment. I had an inspector require heads in a 13D driveway overhang (not a car port). The inspector wouldn't budge. The fire marshal said I had to prove to him the heads weren't required. Really?

Re: Protective Cap

That's a great idea when used during drywall mud or painting. But if they're sanding, especially with extension sticks, there's the risk of hitting a head. Thank you for the info. Owen Sent from my iPhone > On May 27, 2018, at 10:20 AM, John Paulsen wrote: > > I'm sure there are going to be

Re: Protective Cap

This is a very large retail area going through major remodel with hotel above. At the end of work day they must remove 100+ caps via scissor lift, then replace the following day. This will go on for weeks. Sent from my iPhone > On May 26, 2018, at 7:25 PM, Matthew J Willis wrote: > > The ans

Re: Protective Cap

It's a very large retail space going through remodel. They are in various stages of drywall, mud, sanding and paint. At the start and end of each day they must install then remove the caps, upward of 80 caps using a scissor lift. This will go on for a week or two. Sent from my iPhone > On May

Protective Cap

Is there a protective cap out there that can remain on the head yet allow the sprinkler head to function normally? Trying to fix a major headache. Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.f

Re: Assembly or Not?

Thank you Steve. And that was a good guess with Orange County? Ha! I'm not involved, nor would I want to be. I heard about this situation and was curious to know what you all thought. Thank you for your input. BTW, it was many years ago that I attended a fire sprinkler class that you and Bob Cap

Re: Assembly or Not?

So, since there is a large number of people congregating (waiting for tram) in the open parking structure, can the AHJ call the open garage an assembly and require fire sprinklers? Since this was a temporary relocation (lasting 18 months) a compromise was made that if the resort provides a fire

Assembly or Not?

At a large resort there is a 10,000 vehicle multi-level, concrete open parking structure, no walls. Their is a load/unload area for the transportation tram that transports people from the parking structure to the resort. This load / unload area is outside, adjacent to the parking structure. Th

Use of E-pipe

Has anyone heard of an AHJ approving the use of E-Pipe (epoxy lining) for copper sprinkler pipes that are springing pinhole leaks? Owen Evans Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.fires

Re: Electric monitoring of control valves

Ok, so the tamper switch on the PIV sends a unique signal, different from the tamper on the DCV that it is connected to in series? It should indicate the PIV tamper is moving at the panel? I just assumed a unique wire ran back to the panel for each tamper. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 5, 2017

Re: Electric monitoring of control valves

I get parallel / in series for power but how is that possible for addressing? Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 4, 2017, at 6:56 PM, Steve Leyton wrote: > > Parallel, series, whatever. Wiring by others. > > Steve > > > Original message > From: Kenneth Berman > Date: 7/4/17 6:1

Electric monitoring of control valves

Here is the situation on an installation at a new hotel. The DCVA has tamper switches. Two PIV's near by do not have tamper switches. The hotel is complete, no wiring had been run to the PIV's. (CFC 903.4) The DCVA and PIV's sit within the same large planter with lots of finished concrete betwee

Re: special inspections

I can not stand nor do I tolerate an inspector who states "you shall because I say so". They do this because they stand behind a badge while having very little knowledge, or respect, for the codes that stand behind them. It's an abuse of power, it's ignorance of the codes and ego. Don't stand f

Re: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch?

David, thanks for responding. The building is new. The problem is the fire inspector has made mistakes all over the map on many different projects. It's extremely frustrating because his mistakes are falling on blind eyes with fire admin, he's being protected. I believe this will be the straw. H

Re: PIV Supervisor, lock or tamper switch?

Thanks for responding Steve. It would be the 2013 IFC with California amendments renamed the CFC, correct? O Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 23, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: > > Owen: > > Correction – you are NOT working with 2013 or 2016 IFC, but instead with the > CFC. State amendm

Re: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch?

Thanks Ken, the way you phrased your response I thought I had miss something the last several years. Cheers! Owen Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Parsley Consulting > wrote: > > Owen, > for at least the last fifteen years that has been the case. > Ken Wagoner, SET > P

Re: 13D Porches

Great answer Roland. Owen Evans. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 7, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Roland Huggins wrote: > > I would say OPEN is to the temperature, not the bugs. Also look at it from > the potential to flash-over. The screen will not hold in the heat. Now have > that discussion with th

Re: Installing non-required systems

In the California Fire Code, page 2, it states the fire code is the minimum. I think this is your default position. Owen Evans Res Fire Design Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:58 PM, > wrote: > > Somewhere within NFPA 13 I recall seeing a statement which says basically > that i

Re: Test

Is there problem with posting? I submitted something but I haven't seen it show up. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 8, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Todd Williams wrote: > > Test back > > Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) > Sent

Exterior over-hangs on SFR, 13D system

Has anyone in "California 13D land" have an AHJ require fire sprinklers in the exterior over-hangs? A typical condition would be the second story over-hanging the driveway to the garage in the rear. Non combustible construction. Let me know, thanks. Owen Evans Sent from my iPad ___

Re: Mixed heads

I'm also thinking if the ordinary goes off first the intermediate right next to it will never go off because the ordinary is cooling the air, residential flat spray pattern. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Parsley Consulting > wrote: > > Owen, >let's take a different a

Re: Mixed heads

Ken, Yes, the words "shall", "or" and "throughout" cause me to believe it's one or the other throughout m. It doesn't say ordinary "and" intermediate can be used throughout. Good discussion coming out, btw. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Parsley Consulting > wrote: > >

Re: Mixed heads

I don't have 13D in front of me at the moment but I believe is said either ordinary OR intermediate throughout. It read like it was one OR the other THROUGHOUT, no mixing. (caps to add emphasis) Thus my question. Owen Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 3, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Parsley Consulting > wro

Re: Mixed heads

My installer placed the intermediate head. The inspector didn't say anything at final. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Roland Huggins wrote: > > Is this your job or are you doing an inspection? > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Re: Mixed heads

This particular situation is a single family residence. The family and dinning area are one room. There are red bulb concealed heads in the living area and a green bulb sidewall in the dinning area. No heat source causing issue. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Brad Casterlin

Mixed heads

You can not mix ordinary and intermediate heads in the same compartment, correct? Can someone direct me the the code/standard section that addresses this? Thanks, Owen Evans Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.fires

Test to see if attachment works

-- next part -- Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Ken, Good questions. Correct, 13D does not require tamper on one and two family dwellings. But what about an Option one 13D system serving a building with 5 town homes? In other words, this is a stand alone 13D system (no domestic service from this line) serving 5 attached town homes. Does the

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Yes, thank you Steve. I was just trying to get a consensus from the forum on does the CBC exception to tamper monitoring apply to a 13D, option one, stand alone system? Building details being a 5 unit building served by a 2" service with double OS&Y. No domestic water service off this line. Tha

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

No, it's a stand alone. No domestic service. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: > > Good points, which also beg the question: Does the 2" meter also feed > the domestic water? If so, you can take the handles off the > double-check, or lock them open if th

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has an FDC. That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit building with no tampers on double OS&Y. They are claiming 13D exception to tampers in CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save money on our next

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

It appears that both the AHJ and contractor have made mistakes on this project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but now the

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

This is a stand alone, it does not serve domestic. It is a double check with OS&Y. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Parsley Consulting > wrote: > > Owen, > >You haven't given us enough information. Does this underground supply > also provide domestic water? Even if

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour con

Monitoring 13D control valves in California

The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family Dwellings, 13D. What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour separat

13D with FDC

I saw a 13D system with an FDC. I don't recall 13D addressing FDC. The only time I can think an FDC would be useful on a 13D would be if the system was served by a tank of water, a limited supply. This would allow FD to supplement the supply. Other than that...? Can anyone give me reason why an

Re: AHJ Powers

Yes Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 31, 2015, at 6:14 PM, John Drucker wrote: > > Are the valves required to be electrically supervised by applicable code ? > > John Drucker - Mobile Email > Asst Construction Official > Fire Protection Subcode Official > jdruc...@redbanknj.org

AHJ Powers

What say you? An inspector failed to require tamper switches on control valves. The job is complete and there are thousands of pounds of concrete between the control valves and the electrical panel. They placed a chain and lock and the chief declared the chain and lock meet intent...final approv

Re: Old dog, new tricks?

Yes, always. Sent from my iPad > On Aug 3, 2015, at 8:34 AM, "Travis Mack, SET" wrote: > > Only in certain jurisdictions where they require we add 5gpm, or where we > have a duplex. > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 2508 E Lodgepole Drive > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-

Re: 13R Valve Monitoring

Steve, I have no interest in this building. I was driving by and saw the DCVA and what looked like 13D risers serving each unit. Curious, I stopped for a closer look. Each unit has it's own domestic water meter. The fire sprinklers are separately served by a 2" meter with DCVA that has a 1 1/2"

Re: 13R Valve Monitoring

Steve, I have no interest in this building. I was driving by and saw the DCVA and what looked like 13D risers serving each unit. Curious, I stopped for a closer look. Each unit has it's own domestic water meter. The fire sprinklers are separately served by a 2" meter with DCVA that has a 1 1/2"

Re: 13R Valve Monitoring

Steve, So after reading the description if this building are you saying the OS&Y valve would be required to have electronic monitoring per CBC? Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:38 PM, "Steve Leyton" > wrote: > > 13R doesn't require it and 101 is not an adopted code in many states.

Re: 13D exterior overhangs.

add their personal wants and desires for these systems without following proper procedure. 13D does not require heads in exterior over-hangs. Owen Evans Former AHJ now 13D designer and consultant. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2015, at 5:46 PM, "John Drucker - Home" > wro

Re: 13D exterior overhangs.

I agree, it's much easier to just conform but that's just not right. This particular inspector is just out of control. What makes it worse is he, his boss (FM), and his bosses boss (FC) don't know jack about fire sprinklers. They fit the Dunning - Kruger effect to a tee when it comes to fire spr

Re: 13D exterior overhangs.

So the AHJ can simply write a policy and "BAM" it's legal to be more restrictive and costly? I always thought they had to submit to the building standards commission, no? Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Parsley Consulting > wrote: > > Adding to what Steve mentioned, it's a

13D exterior overhangs.

13D does not require heads in exterior over-hangs, such as a second story over-hanging a driveway. Can an AHJ apply 13 rules to 13D systems without an amendment and require heads in over-hangs 4' & greater? Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailin

Bracing

I'm a 13D guy but I have a 13 question. What bracing is required if the hangers are 6" or less in lenght? An AHJ said bracing would only be required at the riser. No lateral or longitude required. Is that true? I'm looking in chapter 9 but don't see it. Sent from my iPhone

Re: Flow test and 13D

I tried that and was met with dear in the headlights look. What do you think of the Code amendment angle. Because it is beyond 13D requirements, and an additional cost, shouldn't they have to justify the cost with the building standards commission and the state fire marshal, therefor requiring a

Flow test and 13D

In a few cities they require a full blown flow test for a proposed 13D system. This can be expensive and time consuming. My question is, would the AHJ have to have a code amendment in order to require a flow test because it goes beyond 13D and is an additional cost? Any suggestions on how to ar

Re: Recessed heads and escutcheons

Yes, I did request and receive a letter from reliable stating the F1 series escutcheon was part of the listed assembly. Now apparently they are telling council the heads are not the F1 series. Now I've got them on the NFPA section on recesses heads. I've been forced to play this game and allow

Re: Recessed heads and escutcheons

They are recessed. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 2, 2014, at 10:26 AM, John Denhardt > wrote: > > Are they installed in a recessed manner or are the threads even or below the > ceiling? > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinkler

Recessed heads and escutcheons

Are all recessed heads listed to be installed with their escutcheons? Sent from my iPad ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Flow Switch/Alarm for 13D

Most jurisdictions require a flow alarm anyway. Some even require the flow alarm be interconnected with the smoke detectors, like in Redondo Beach, Ca. So you better check with the AHJ. These additional requirements to 13D drive me crazy. They usually come from some new inspector who thinks it w

Re: Remedy for problem AHJ

Beyond help. He and his superior are in charge because they stand behind a badge, not because they have command of the codes, ordinances and standards that stand behind them. That's the problem. To question them when they can't intelligently answer is a threat to exposing them. Therefor you are

Re: Remedy for problem AHJ

Unable to read calculations. Problems at rough and final not being noted. As far as I know he's never issued a plan check correction letter or field correction notice. Consequently low bids are getting a free ride and taking over at the risk of public and firefighter safety. What contractor is g

Re: Remedy for problem AHJ

California Sent from my iPhone On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Forest Wilson wrote: > You need to provide more details. > What is the specific issue? > A submitted drawing? > A final inspection? > What state? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:52 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote: > >

Remedy for problem AHJ

Can anyone provide direction for dealing with a problem AHJ? It appears one particular inspector is in over his head and when speaking with superiors they protect him. Superiors know even less about his job. Rather than deal with the problem (because they can't speak to it intelligently) they pu

Re: Assembly & Fire Sprinklers

Thank you Ron. I'm looking for California code requirement. In particular a restaurant with bar, no entertainment, just serves food. What would the occupant load have to be to require fire sprinklers? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Ron Greenman wrote: > I believe A2 (when a

Re: Assembly & Fire Sprinklers

Ok, what assembly occupancy has the lowest occupant number load that causes fire sprinklers to kick in? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ron Greenman wrote: > Depends on type of assembly. Nightclubs are much lower than say > auditoriums. Also there is square footage, elevation

Assembly & Fire Sprinklers

Can someone tell me what the assembly occupant load number is that causes the fire sprinkler requirement to kick in. (California) I don't have access to code books at the moment. Thank you. Owe Evans Res. Design Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum

Re: Horizontal dry standpipe

Here is the hook up. Gives a nice look to the front yard. A double 21/2" that serves a single 21/2 halfway down the driveway. Three small houses on the lot with fire sprinklers. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Ron Greenman wrote: > Good grief, Charlie Brown on the pool shed

Re: Horizontal dry standpipe

I'm with you Mark, a total joke and waist of money. And to top it off, all residential properties are sprinkled. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 7:24 AM, wrote: > Maybe the homeowner could just build a fire station behind the pool changing > room and a 100,000 gallon reservoir with a

Re: Horizontal dry standpipe

Typical beach property, deep and narrow lot. The changing room is 100 soft. Total overkill in my view. On this property and many others just like it. Eventually there will be an FDC every 40' down a residential street. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Dwight Havens wrote: > O

Re: Horizontal dry standpipe

Redondo Beach has a fire code amendment that requires a standpipe if you can't reach every part of a structure with 150' of hose stretch from a fire truck parked on a public way. This includes single family residential properties. A homeowner built a pool changing room at the rear of his proper

Horizontal dry standpipe

Does anybody have stats on how long a 4' steel, underground for a horizontal dry standpipe will last before it rusts from inside out? Owen Evans Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.fi