] On Behalf Of Hinson,
Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 11:19 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org'
Subject: which edition of NFPA 13?
Which edition of NFPA 13 is adopted in Alabama?
Thank you,
Ryan L. Hinson, EIT, NICET III
Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group
Burns McDonnell
)
-Original Message-
Subject: NFPA-13 Wood Joist
The reason I bring this up is because I'm working on a Rec. Center and one
wing of the
building has Glu-Lam beams that are exposed
Brian Harris
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum
People smarter than me.
In a nut shell what are requirements of NFPA-13 and wood trusses? I know the
exceptions when the ceiling is within 6 of the bottom of the beam and such
but in general is it safe to assume if it's wood it's wet? The reason I
bring this up is because I'm working on a Rec
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: NFPA-13 Wood Joist
People smarter than me.
In a nut shell what are requirements of NFPA-13 and wood trusses? I know the
exceptions when the ceiling
by the medium of conversation.
Chris Cahill
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA-13 Wood Joist
, it met code and mfr recoommendations)
glc
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13
8:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
Why would 13R PROHIBIT heads in bathrooms?
I beleive you meant to say Does not require
Just because you exceed a code minimum doesn't kick u into another standard.
We sprinkler
-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George
Church
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
Why would 13R PROHIBIT heads in bathrooms?
I beleive you meant to say Does not require
Just
and look just at what the IBC allows. I find it
mind boggling.
So what are the constraints on the application of this allowance on
I-1 as viewed by our code enforcement brethren?
Roland
On Jul 9, 2010, at 8:10 AM, Dave Phelan wrote:
If NFPA 13-D is for the installation of sprinkler systems
the point to be made is that the system type applies to the entire
building and a single structure can be multiple buildings. This is
not a mixed use building but two buildings. The BUILDING below the
horizontal separation is required to be protected per NFPA 13 as well
as being limited
...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
the point to be made is that the system type applies to the entire
building and a single structure can be multiple buildings
09, 2010 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
It will be interesting to see the water supply arrangements for these
multiple buildings including but not limited to the location of a fire
pump outside the building it serves in accordance
2007 NFPA-13-8.2.4 Multiple buildings attached by canopies, covered
breezeways, common roofs, or a common wall(s) shall be permitted to be
supplied by a single fire sprinkler riser. The maximum system size shall
comply with 8.2.1.
John Drucker, CET
Fire Protection Subcode Official
Fire/Building
NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
2007 NFPA-13-8.2.4 Multiple buildings attached by canopies, covered
breezeways, common roofs, or a common wall(s) shall be permitted to be
supplied by a single fire sprinkler riser. The maximum system size shall
comply with 8.2.1.
John Drucker, CET
Fire Protection Subcode
Interesting that no one commented on the stated allowance to apply
903.3.1.3. Thats a 13D system.
Roland
On Jul 6, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Reed Roisum wrote:
IBC (ref. below 2006 ed.) allows 13R in Group I-1 if 4 stories or
less. Note exception...
[F] 903.2.5 Group I. An automatic sprinkler
@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
John,
Good idea with the name change, but it would not satisfy those whom
want
to see nothing but sky surrounding nothing but residential--
-Original Message-
From: John Drucker [mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net]
Sent
: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:17 PM
To: 'John Drucker'; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
John,
Good idea with the name change
Roland wrote
Interesting that no one commented on the stated allowance to apply
903.3.1.3. Thats a 13D system.
Speaking in the 2009 IBC
In reading 308.2 it would seem that 13D could only be used in an I-1 with 5
or fewer people because it equates it to an R-3 and allows the use of the
IRC.
Sorry - an I-1 (type VB construction) could be a 2 story and 4500 sq. ft.
Ken
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email
Why are you unnecessarily limiting yourself? In other words, I
disagree. You are right that 308.2 kicks you to R-3 with fewer than 5
persons but where does 903.2.6 say ANYTHING about using 903.3.1.3 in
R-3. It says I-1 can use either 13R or 13D. Granted this undoubtedly
stemmed from
Jeez! Are you nuts? You know what they're going to do. although NAHB
is singing a lie now about inspection costs for individual homeowners
they won't be soon. Let's hope we get lots of residential sprinkler
ordinances passed before we have to start eating our words. And if
things go south I know
What NAHB? I said 13D in an Institutional occupancy not single family
home. Me thinks your trigger finger is a tad itchy (guess that
happens to old snake eaters).
Roland
On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Ron Greenman wrote:
Jeez! Are you nuts? You know what they're going to do. although NAHB
Roland,
I don't know that I am. Look at the requirements of of 903.2.8 for Group R.
It mentions that I need to comply with Section 903.3. Under section 903.3 -
13D is also an option. That doesn't mean that 13D is appropriate. It might
be, but it would depend on the building height/area and
THROUGHOUT
BY AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
903.3.1.1, (NFPA-13 not 13R !) and shall be permitted to be any of the
following occupancies:
6.1. Group S-2 parking garage used for the parking
and storage of private motor vehicles;
6.2. Multiple Group A, each
Message-
From: Daniel Adams [mailto:d...@interwestfire.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
For a single-story *assisted living* center, can 13R be used for the system
design ? If it can be designed per NFPA
The Ohio IBC has allowed and encourages the use of residential sprinklers in
I occupancies. We have used the residential rules in 13 with 4 head calc
areas for many years. But attics etc are required for 100% sprinkler
coverage due to NFPA 13 requirements per IBC for the I occupancy.
ART
ATCO
-
From: Art Tiroly [mailto:atir...@atcofirepro.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
The Ohio IBC has allowed and encourages the use of residential sprinklers in
I occupancies
...@nebraska.gov
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:20 AM
To: 'Art Tiroly'; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
That's correct-- the 2-hour walls make separate buildings.
-Original Message-
From: Autry, David [mailto:david.au...@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:23 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
I
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
I believe you can ONLY have a 13 building or a 13R building. You can't mix
and match. One or the other.
David Autry
Plans Examiner
Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office
246 S. 14th Street
Lincoln
The 2-hour walls would go from the ground through the roof, so, no.
-Original Message-
From: Todd Williams [mailto:t...@fpdc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
I'm with Dave A. on the issue of 13/13R 'hybrid' designs where a single
building contains both systems where did we see that in the model
building codes which dictate the 'when and where'? If using the IBC then
903.3.1.2 references an NFPA 13R system '... in buildings of Group R...'.
Note
13 is property and life safety and 13R is strictly life safety. I
don't think we want to mix the two like this
At 11:29 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote:
I'm with Dave A. on the issue of 13/13R 'hybrid' designs where a single
building contains both systems where did we see that in the model
: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
13 is property and life safety and 13R is strictly life safety. I
don't think we want to mix the two like this
At 11:29 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote:
I'm with Dave A. on the issue of 13/13R 'hybrid' designs where a single
building contains both systems where
that a single mixed use building is different
buildings, and apply (misapply, actually) 13 and 13R separately. In
order to clarify its intent, the committee has enhanced A.1.1 in the
2010 edition of NFPA 13R:
A.1.1 NFPA 13R is appropriate for use as an option to NFPA 13 only in
those residential
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
The building code absolutely does tell us when and where. It tells us
in the provisions
Very well said, and if there were any argument here, you would win Steve.
-Original Message-
From: Autry, David [mailto:david.au...@nebraska.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:26 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
Well said
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
I believe you can ONLY have a 13 building or a 13R building. You can't mix
and match. One or the other.
David Autry
Plans Examiner
Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office
246 S. 14th
rename
it to?
-Original Message-
From: John Drucker [mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
David,
Exactly. Where all this hybrid stuff came
Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:17 PM
To: 'John Drucker'; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
John,
Good idea
@firesprinkler.org; bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
Brad,
At issue is the notion of horizontal fire separation assembly being the
same as a firewalls.
There are two building separation concepts; 1) open space which allows
adjacent buildings to burn down without
From: David Blackwell
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 2:01 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org'; 'bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com'
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
Yes, NFPA 13, NFPA 13R, or NFPA 13D are standards for protecting a
BUILDING.
Proper understanding is fostered
, July 07, 2010 1:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
From: David Blackwell
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 2:01 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org'; 'bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com'
Subject: RE: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
Yes
For a single-story *assisted living* center, can 13R be used for the system
design ? If it can be designed per NFPA 13R, at what point would it need to
be protected per NFPA 13 ? I realize that 13R covers residential units up to
4 levels, but where this is an assisted living center, does this make
if 13 or 13R is
req'd.
Good luck on it.
On 7/6/2010 2:46 PM, Daniel Adams wrote:
For a single-story *assisted living* center, can 13R be used for the system
design ? If it can be designed per NFPA 13R, at what point would it need to
be protected per NFPA 13 ? I realize that 13R covers
to
be protected per NFPA 13 ? I realize that 13R covers residential units up to
4 levels, but where this is an assisted living center, does this make a
difference ?
Dan Adams
Designer
Interwest Fire Protection, Inc.
404 Ironwood Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84115
Phone: (801) 746-4040
Fax
, CET
Ulteig Engineers, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs
Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:
sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding NFPA 13 vs. NFPA 13R
Assisted living is an I-1
@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: shelf storage-NFPA 13 (07ed)
Dewayne, they are what they are...(2002) 12.3.1.9 Solid Shelving and you
are right that by definition 20 sq ft or less is what the book says,
however, what really is it... basically a solid barrier forming several
fire compartments (right) somewhere
Is there any way to have shelf storage greater than 15ft?
It appears that the cutoff of 15ft per 14.2.1 (2).
I have a customer that wants 18ft of shelf storage with
an arrangement like 14.5 with a walkway at 12ft.
What about putting plywood on the walkway and calling it 12ft of
storage
on
Then you are moving into racks and such...what is your ceiling clearance,
aisle width, commodity, container, etc. ?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Dewayne Martinez deway...@dbfp.netwrote:
Is there any way to have shelf storage greater than 15ft?
It appears that the cutoff of 15ft per
: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of tom
poisal
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: shelf storage-NFPA 13 (07ed)
Then you are moving into racks and such...what is your ceiling
not look there.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of tom
poisal
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: shelf storage-NFPA 13 (07ed)
Then you
Subject: Re: shelf storage-NFPA 13 (07ed)
well the walkway creates a problem, now it's an obstructionso they
have movng ladders tor reach stuff...don't do a walkway, but your still
looking at a rack storage problem with solid shelves...check chap 12
..specifically
12.2.2.1.5.3 12.2.2.1.6...02
Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of tom
poisal
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: shelf storage-NFPA 13 (07ed)
well the walkway creates a problem, now it's
This will most likely be a stupid question, but what are the two valves
(A and B) shown in the diagram used for? The 1999 NFPA 13 Handbook
didn't provide any information.
Thank you.
Steve
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum
-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Steven D.
(CSFD)
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:44 AM
To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM
Subject: Figure 4-5.3.1 1999 NFPA 13
This will most likely be a stupid question, but what are the two valves
(A and B
NFPA 13
Valves for sampling/testing of the solution.
David Autry
Plans Examiner
Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office
246 S. 14th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
402-471-9659
402-471-3118 fax
www.sfm.ne.gov
** Note new email address: david.au...@nebraska.gov
-Original Message-
From
-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 5:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007NFPA
1321.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
Because you
@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007NFPA
1321.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
Because you are a contractor. AHJ's don't have as much latitude with regard
to the law.
The best Dave can do is make a 'Subjects not regulated' or 'Matters not
provided
Hopefully someone [Roland, etc.] here knows the story behind this
omission:
Why was 2007 NFPA 13 21.30 removed from 2010 NFPA 13? Oxidizers no
longer appear in the index and no longer listed in the References for
Extracts in Mandatory Sections in Section 2.4.
Why doesn't the 2010 handbook
Since the information in NFPA 13 was already covered in NFPA 430 maybe they
figured let 430 handle it and be done with it?
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David
Blackwell
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007 NFPA 13
21.30removed from
Before NFPA 13 absorbed the storage standards [231, etc.] and added the special
occupancy hazards chapter we found more submittals not properly designed to the
account for increased hazards and without referencing these little used
specialty standards which contained sprinkler requirements
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007 NFPA 13
21.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
FYI - even without the special occupancy listed, the 2009 and 2006
International Fire Code 4004.1.4 can get me to NFPA 430 and require The
automatic sprinkler system shall be designed
Going by memory (which can be dangerous) it was the feeling of the
committee (NFPA 13 SSD) that this information was not correct based on
recent fire losses. Since the committee did not feel the design
parameters were appropriate, they withdrew the information. I can not
answer why
Of
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007 NFPA
1321.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
If they know what they are doing and the commodity they are dealing with it
shouldn't
, June 02, 2010 4:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007 NFPA 13
21.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
Going by memory (which can be dangerous) it was the feeling of the
committee (NFPA 13 SSD) that this information was not correct based
: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John
Denhardt
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007 NFPA
1321.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
Going
No, but that is another committee. NFPA 430 operates independently of
NFPA 13. Just as any one else, we can suggest changes to their standard
but if we copy it into NFPA 13, we can not change it. It is their
information.
John
John August Denhardt, P.E.
Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated
NFPA 13?
The information in 13 and also in 430 were rolled into the 2010 NFPA 400
Hazardous Materials Code. This logically now rolls all these type specialty
hazard occupancies into one Standard.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500
...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John
Denhardt
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was
2007NFPA1321.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
No, but that is another committee. NFPA
@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007 NFPA
1321.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
Did they withdraw NFPA 430? Regardless, the NFPA 430 sprinkler design
compliance is still required by the latest previous published IFC
[2009 2006] in Chapter 40.
David W. S
and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007
NFPA1321.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
430 was indicated as withdrawn in Annual 2009 and incorporated into NFPA 400
for the 2010 edition.
If 400 is a more stringent and comprehensive standard than 430 I would be
apprehensive in not using the better data and base
...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers: Why was 2007 NFPA
1321.30removed from 2010 NFPA 13?
430
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest
Wilson
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA #13 changes/additions
Don't beat up
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA #13 changes/additions
Don't beat up the Schirmer Engineering expert too badhe may be
suffering from alzheimers and thinks the building code is from the
1940's.
If not, then he is obviously
-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest
Wilson
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA #13 changes/additions
Don't beat up the Schirmer Engineering expert
Ahh yes.too big to fail? Now where have I heard this before..
Happy Friday all!!!
Best Regards,
Ken Holsopple
FYI - Schirmer Engineering is an AON subsidiary; and, Aon Corporation
(NYSE: AON) is a provider of risk management services, insurance and
reinsurance brokerage, human capital
You may have also noticed that the Vertical Bar in the 2010 regular
standard now covers the entire paragraph even when only one word has
changed. I've already discussed returning to a format that reflects
the actual change with NFPA but have not heard a definitive answer.
Your issue
Why doesn't the NFPA 13 committee use shading like NFPA 70?
Rahe Loftin
Sent from my Blackberry
- Original Message -
From: Roland Huggins [rhugg...@firesprinkler.org]
Sent: 04/30/2010 08:24 AM MST
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA #13 changes/additions
You may
Of Fletcher, Ron
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
The forum is invaluable and Roland is the man. I'm also impressed by the
restraint of the forumites. Nobody said, hey dummy it's right there in the
book. Can't you read
...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
I find it interesting that a firm would recommend we put high density
protection over toys
life safety should get better.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes
Of George Church
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
I find it interesting that a firm would recommend we put high density
protection over toys, but protection of 300' tall storage of elderly only
needs standpipes
Yeah. I'll sum it quicklyjump.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes
, April 29, 2010 9:41 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA #13 changes/additions
Ron,
Steve and I both hit the roof when the video you're referring to was
broadcast. One of the representatives for that firm, when discussing
the proposed retrofit installation of fire sprinklers
@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA #13 changes/additions
Ron,
Steve and I both hit the roof when the video you're referring to was
broadcast. One of the representatives for that firm, when discussing
the proposed retrofit installation of fire sprinklers in residential
condominiums, assured everyone
, but are plagued by others who- well, Nuff said.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
ParsleyConsulting
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:41 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA #13
-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
ParsleyConsulting
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:41 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA #13 changes/additions
Ron,
Steve and I both hit the roof when the video you're referring to was
broadcast. One of the representatives
You mean rhymes with t-ode f-horing?
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes
55390
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:06 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
You'll note that even
-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Cahill
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
Let's remember a couple things before we re-beat the party
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Phelps, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Blackwell
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:40 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
1) Speaking of changes, we have already adopted the 2010 editions of NFPA
sprinkler standards:
http
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
David,
Thanks for passing that along.
I wish all jurisdictional authorities has something like that available on
their websites and that if they did it was as easy to find. Sometimes getting
or finding that information is harder than finding hens teeth
I was very dismayed when I discovered the 2010 had omitted the flags/bars.
It was a huge time saver in the past. I envision a lot of nasty surprises
in the coming years when subtle changes (I had missed) jump up and bite me.
Ed Kramer
Littleton, CO
If Mr. Huggins and others forum members
Office
(612) 759-5556 Cell
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Cahill
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
Let's
. at 888-347-3079 toll
free.
-Original Message-
From: George Church for...@ptd.net
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Thu, Apr 29, 2010 12:35 pm
Subject: RE: NFPA #13 changes/additions
You mean rhymes with t-ode f-horing?
-Original Message-
rom: sprinklerforum-boun
I am trying to find out how a new rule is added into 13 without having a
bar next to it in the margin and without being in the ROP or the ROC?
Case in point. NFPA 13, 2007 Section 18.2.4. The protection specified
in 18.2.1 shall not be required where ESFR or large drop sprinkler
systems
701 - 800 of 983 matches
Mail list logo
