/
And look under Latest News.
Best Regards,
Ken Holsopple
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential
I see a few heads listed for dry service in residential systems ..
Interesting but is there a specific DPV that must be used with a residential
system?
A listed head is great but the end result is still water delivery in 15
seconds and that seems pretty tough to achieve without carefully
When you look at the press release they mention at the very bottom to follow
special bulletins TFP 460 and TFP 461 for listing and design information etc
..
Those particular bulletins don't seem to be available off the TFP website
but I'm also not an authorized dealer / installer.
Can
...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dave Phelan
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems
I see a few heads listed for dry service in residential systems ..
Interesting but is there a specific DPV that must be used
From another list.
Subject: RE: [NJ_FIRE_MARSHALS - NJFIRESAFETY] FW: NFPA issues safety alert
regarding antifreeze in residential sprinklers
Similar circumstances involving a fire with resultant injury at a restaurant
in Monmouth County. The case was settled out of court and sealed
: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems
Always the last to know. However, I could not access either of the
TFP documents referenced in the product description. Does this
actually exist? Maybe that I why I couldn't find it under regular
search criteria.
At 09:38 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
Todd
...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 10:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: FW: [NJ_FIRE_MARSHALS] FW: NFPA issues safety alert regarding
antifreeze in residential sprinklers
From another list.
Subject: RE: [NJ_FIRE_MARSHALS - NJFIRESAFETY] FW: NFPA issues
...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
Williams
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:40 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers for Dry Pipe Systems
Always the last to know. However, I could not access either of the
TFP documents referenced in the product description. Does
Seems to mew that these types of actions can only be stalling tactics
since I don't see how laws that disallow the ability of elected
officials to make laws can be constitutional. Of course I'm no lawyer.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Terri Leyton
te...@protectiondesign.com wrote:
...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:40 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Defeat for residential sprinklers in GA
Seems to mew that these types of actions can only be stalling tactics
since I don't see how laws that disallow the ability
I believe its called preemption. You see it a lot in gun control
legislation, so its not uncommon in general.
However, this is going to backfire horribly once the first fatality happens
in a jurisdiction where the law excised the sprinkler requirement from the
IBC. You're going to see a lot of
Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:40 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Defeat for residential sprinklers in GA
Seems to mew that these types
, 2010 11:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Defeat for residential sprinklers in GA
I believe its called preemption. You see it a lot in gun control
legislation, so its not uncommon in general.
However, this is going to backfire horribly once the first fatality happens
@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Defeat for residential sprinklers in GA
Not a lawyer, but who are they going to sue? The elected officials have
immunity in these matters.
Or are you saying this will open up lawsuits to the builder who followed the
modified version. Even then I believe builder have some
...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:57 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Defeat for residential sprinklers in GA
Terri and I subscribe to EPARADE, the metro fire marshal's forum, and
this topic has already been kicked around a lot. The concern
...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:57 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Defeat for residential sprinklers in GA
Terri and I subscribe to EPARADE, the metro fire marshal's forum, and
this topic has already been kicked around a lot
By using residential heads in a 13 residential calc, 4 head MRA vrs not
using res hds and having a 3000 sf mra due to permissible unprotected
combustible construction, the res hds DO allow a 4 hd calc- vrs the largest
room, and it'd only be 4 res hds in the corr not 5.
Residential sprinklers
I'm still confused by the 3000 sq.ft. mra.13 requires the combustible dead
spaces to be protected.Just because you are using residential sprinklers in a
13 system it does not allow you to ignore these spaces as would be allowed in
13R.Maybe I have missed part of this thread.
Lamar Vaughn,
SET
residential calc, 4 head MRA vrs not
using res hds and having a 3000 sf mra due to permissible unprotected
combustible construction, the res hds DO allow a 4 hd calc- vrs the largest
room, and it'd only be 4 res hds in the corr not 5.
Residential sprinklers offer us much more than high wall wetting
, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says
Where corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces,
residential sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor.
The FAQ located in the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the
intent of 8.4.5 to allow residential sprinklers
10:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential sprinklers
Tony:
11.2.3.1.4 Restrictions. Regardless of which of the two methods
(density/area or room design method) is used, the following restrictions
shall apply:
(3)*Unless the requirements of 11.2.3.1.4(4) are met
of the building shall be 3000 ft2 (279 m2).
11.3.1.2.1 The design area of 3000 ft2 (279 m2) shall be applied only to
the portion of the residential sprinklers that are adjacent to the
qualifying combustible concealed space.
11.3.1.2.2 When applying the 3000 ft2 (279m2) design area, the rules of
22.4.4.1.1
, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says Where
corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces, residential
sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor. The FAQ located in
the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the intent of 8.4.5 to allow
residential sprinklers to be installed
Care facility designed to NFPA 13, 2002. Residential heads in patient rooms
and adjacent corridors. All other rooms with non-residential qr heads. A
corridor opens to a dining room. There are no walls separating them. Any
problems using res. heads in the dining room? I'm trying to use res. heads
Tony, for what it's worth, the commentary to section 8.4.5.1 says Where
corridors serve dwelling unit areas and other adjoining spaces, residential
sprinklers would not be permitted within the corridor. The FAQ located in
the margin next to that commentary asks Is it the intent of 8.4.5 to allow
Apparently NFPA did a study to see if sprinklers would hurt the housing
economy. Here are a couple of articles indicating how residential sprinklers
will not hurt the economy. I love the analogy demonstrating that the added
cost for sprinklers is equivalent to one Big Mac a month. Oh yea
With all due respect, it seems the Forumites did stuff the ballot box,
so the percentages should not be surprising and the numbers don't
really represent public opinion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 22, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Chris Cahill chr...@sentryfiremn.com
wrote:
942/129 = 88% for
Chris
98% of all statistics are made up }:-) If the NAHB can stuff the
public's head full of smelly brown stuff why can't we retaliate if
given the opportunity? If one person out there says, Gee, I didn't
think most people thought these were good things, I think I'll get
one. then we did a good thing
Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd -
FPDC
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 7:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
With all due respect
...
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-Original Message-
From: Terri Leyton [mailto:te...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
This is off topic, but I had to share
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
Done! And I may vote again.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Terri Leyton
te...@protectiondesign.com wrote:
A local TV station in Pennsylvania is doing an online poll on
residential fire sprinklers
A local TV station in Pennsylvania is doing an online poll on
residential fire sprinklers, today only.
Please take a moment to click and vote.
Thanks! A safe and Happy Holiday to ALL!
http://www.wjactv.com/news/1960993/detail.html
Terri
Terri Simmons Leyton
PROTECTION DESIGN
: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
A local TV station in Pennsylvania is doing an online poll on
residential fire sprinklers, today only.
Please take a moment to click and vote.
Thanks! A safe and Happy Holiday to ALL!
http://www.wjactv.com/news/1960993/detail.html
Terri
Now 637
John
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Cahill
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 4:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW
: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
Now 637
John
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Cahill
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 4:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Terri Leyton
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 4:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
I sent the link to some large CA groups about an hour ago - the vote count was
274 then... HeHe indeed
@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
655/105 Keep them going.
Thanks,
Eric Tysinger CET
NICET 108988
Designer
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
4370 Motorsport Drive
Concord, NC 28027
p: (704)782-3032
f: (704)795-6838
C: (239)633-9703
-Original
Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
Uh, did you know you can
Of George Church
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
Uh, did you know you can back up and vote again?
A friend in Chicago noted that to me.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun
Done! And I may vote again.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Terri Leyton
te...@protectiondesign.com wrote:
A local TV station in Pennsylvania is doing an online poll on
residential fire sprinklers, today only.
Please take a moment to click and vote.
Thanks! A safe and Happy Holiday to
So when I went back to vote again another person had voted no. I voted
yes two more times after the second. I feel like I'm in Chicago.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote:
Done! And I may vote again.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Terri Leyton
@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
I sent the link to some large CA groups about an hour ago - the vote count was
274 then... HeHe indeed.
Terri Simmons Leyton
PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING
Ph: 858-751-2930 - ext. 101
Fax: 858-751-2933
Cell: 619
SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW
: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
So when I went back to vote again
: Re: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Date: Monday, December 21, 2009, 4:44 PM
So when I went back to vote again another person had voted no. I voted
yes two more times after the second. I feel like I'm in Chicago.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM
794 to 113.
Dave
David A. de Vries, P.E., CSP
Firetech Engineering Incorporated
--- On Mon, 12/21/09, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Date
...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David de Vries
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
794 to 113.
Dave
David A. de Vries, P.E., CSP
Firetech Engineering Incorporated
--- On Mon, 12/21/09
Of Terri Leyton
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
This is off topic, but I had to share. Sorry Mr. Muncy, in advance...
-
David - aka Mr. Chicago,
If you ask the 4-year old Little Leyton
.
Dave
David A. de Vries, P.E., CSP
Firetech Engineering Incorporated
--- On Mon, 12/21/09, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote:
From: Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com
Subject: RE: Vote for Residential Sprinklers - NOW please!
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Date: Monday
Voice alarm with fault ridden smokes
is still the same old joke:
this time -- not by howling
from a wolf in sheep's clothing,
but by a human voice
in a more expensive device
that does little to correct
the repetitive numbing effect.
scot deal
excelsior fire
-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ralphy Henderson
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS IN NFPA #13
Hello,
I'm looking at a set of plans that calls out
You can use them but must follow NFPA 13 rules for residential
sprinklers.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ralphy
Henderson
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum
...@inlandfireprotection.com
-Original Message-
From: Scott A. Futrell [mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential sprinklers
I am preparing a presentation (pro residential sprinklers) for a building
I am preparing a presentation (pro residential sprinklers) for a
building officials group and I am looking for good pictures of
residential (13D only) valve assemblies on city water and not on city
water, with and without pumps, with and without tanks, and with wells.
If you have any pictures
It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
leaves it up to the local AHJ which has resulted in a few different
requirements.
I would like to hear from anyone who may hold the solution
of guidance from
NFPA or others, it seemed a reasonable approach.
At 05:41 PM 6/12/2008, you wrote:
It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
leaves it up to the local AHJ which has resulted
and lack of
guidance from NFPA or others, it seemed a reasonable approach.
At 05:41 PM 6/12/2008, you wrote:
It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
leaves it up to the local AHJ which has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Killey
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch
It is my
Subject: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch
It is my understanding that there are still no residential sprinklers
approved for installation in sloped ceiling greater than 8/12 pitch. This
leaves it up to the local AHJ which has resulted in a few different
requirements.
I would like
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Killey
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential sprinklers in sloped ceiling over 8/12 pitch
It is my understanding that there are still no residential
, 2008 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
I love these discussions cause I get to hear about the problems that
the contractors have in designing these systems. Guess what...we (the
AHJ) have the same problems trying to approve
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines to
follow in these situations. I do not care if they say calculate the
room to light hazard as long as they put it in writing. But the way it
is now
.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
I'm working on a home (13D) that has
.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message -
From: Steve Leyton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
What
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Brown (TECH- GVL)
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee should provide guidelines
Message-
From: Eckard, Mark - Mark E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:30 am
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
Re: obstruction to sprinkler spray pattern development in 13-D.
First lets take a look at the purpose of NFPA
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Brown (TECH- GVL)
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
My point is that the NFPA 13D Committee
, May 07, 2008 11:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
Hi Mark,
Your questions about the intent an function, even with some blocked
spray pattern were concerns during the sloped and beamed ceiling testing
that was done.? The Tyco
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
Except that we absolutely positively don't want to defer to 13. I get
___
Sprinklerforum mailing
As most always, there has been a very interesting mix of responses and
ideas, so based on the information given during this posting, we are going
with what Mike and Thom gave as helpful info. Where construction features
or other special conditions exist that are outside the scope of sprinkler
Bob,
Just to throw one of those ever present Pacific Northwest dark clouds
into the mix I was talking to a guy from Tyco at a seminar a couple of
months ago and asked if they had any conclusions regarding that
report. He said that they hadn't been able to reproduce the result
since that first
I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets. These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep. Concealed residential sprinklers are being used. In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think
Bob,
I've got a similar situation in a building with residential
sprinklers designed to NFPA 13, only with soffits. Four sprinklers in
a 60 sqft bathroom seems excessive. So far I haven't come up with
anything to let me eliminate sprinklers.
IAt 12:51 PM 5/6/2008, you wrote:
I'm working
Look at Tyco's residential design guide for beams and pockets for their
residential sprinklers.
Best regards,
Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS
Burtell Fire Protection, Inc.
Phone: 406.652.7697
Fax: 406.652.7743
Cell: 406.861.4507
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com
Bob,
Is there a specific reason you can't use the type of residential
sprinklers which are allowed to be installed
either drilled through the beams, or installed adjacent to the bottom of
the beams? From what you've
described it seems as though the maximum depth of the pockets isn't
more
: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets. These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep. Concealed residential sprinklers are being used. In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets. These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message -
From: Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
I'm working on a home (13D) that has
. with the
beams being 6 deep. Concealed residential sprinklers are being used. In
one room, which is 224 sf, if I place a sprinkler in every pocket like I
think I should, there will be 13 sprinklers. This averages out to 17 sf per
head. Another room is 375 sf and will require 10 sprinklers
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
Bob:
We run into this all the time. First question are the beams structural? If
the beams
-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message -
From: Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
The NFPA 13D Committee in their wisdom
Please ignore. Sent to wrong party.
Rahe Loftin
- Original Message -
From: rahe.loftin
Sent: 05/06/2008 03:16 PM EST
To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential Sprinklers and Beam Obstructions
Please call them and tell them I am on the way
...and no single solution will fit all
situations.
rick matsuda
city of dallas, bldg insp dept
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Knight
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers
in
the house.
On 5/6/08, Bob Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm working on a home (13D) that has several rooms with the ceiling broken
up by beam pockets. These vary in width from 2'8 to 3'3 o.c. with the
beams being 6 deep. Concealed residential sprinklers are being used. In
one
As part of the Bismarck Rural F.D. and the Sprinkler community - I know that
my Chief is relieved that some of the outlying buildings within our Fire
District are protected with automatic sprinklers! He has voiced his concern
over the fact that some of these 'subdivisions' that are some 10+ miles
, 2008 11:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: U.S. Fire Administration Policy on Residential Sprinklers
Just a little further information. First alarms are not required on
NFPA 13D systems but that is for another day.
I have been in meetings with some of the advocates
I guess I have stirred up enough discussion today but I am concerned about the
use of control and suppression when residential sprinklers are not designed
or tested to either control or suppress the fire. In our desire to promote
residential sprinklers some folks have in my opinion have over
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: U S Fire Administration Policy on Residential Sprinklers
This morning, in a position paper memorandum dated today, March 28,
2008, the National Fire Administrator, Gregory Cade, published the
USFA's formal endorsement of residential fire sprinklers.I
Thanks Steve, for those that arent subscribed to the USFA, heres the
complete text, see you in Minneapolis !
John Drucker
Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ)
New Jersey
---
March 28, 2008
U.S. Fire Administration Adopts Official Position on
: 913.477.7920
Fax:913.888.2143
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
Cahill
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: [SPAM] - RE: U S Fire Administration Policy on Residential
Sprinklers - Email
In a residential space (hotel rooms) in a NFPA 13 building (high rise or over
four stories) I believe you would use the LxW vs. mfgr requirements for calcs.
In a pure 13R occupancy such as a three story hotel, should you use only the
mfgr recommendations or both mfgr recommendations and LxW
the listing of the
head at 20 gpm.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Sprinklers in a 13 System
Somebody help a rookie out
I would call the 07 ed material CLARIFICATION on what was the
original intent. Keep in mind that this applies only to the 0.1
density side of the residential criteria. It is interesting that for
discharge criteria we treat the residential sprinkler as a hybrid
having to meet both the
If you have a small room protected by residential sprinklers, can you
average the area of the room to get sprinkler area, or do I need to do a
full SxL? I know it still needs to meet the minimum listing of the
sprinkler.
Ex: Room is 10'x10'. Due to obstructions, I am 8' off of 2 walls. Using
Matt, if you've gotten knee deep in the sprinkler business, no, you don't
need a life- you have a career in the sprinkler business.
In a mtg with out IT guys this AM, we were trying to figure out the best
time to do server backups daily with new backup software, and ya shoulda
seen Ken wince when
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2007_1011.htm#sprinklers
This is a link to a summary from NIST for the cost-benefit analysis of
including Residential sprinklers. There is a link at the bottom of the
summary to get a copy of the full report. It is 67 pages, and looks
pretty
101 - 197 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
