Re: adjusting the K-Factor with our bare hands
I'd be concerned that you have completely muddled up kfactors for someone who no longer looks at it as the standard and industry practices do. But why listen to us warning about sending novices out with the wrong viewpoint? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: From NFPA 13-2007, 22.4.4.5.1, we are required to, among other things, adjust the K-Factor. Using the Hazen-Williams friction formula, 62.4 lb/ft3 / 144 in2 = .433 lb/in2/ft(h). If we have an AF solution at 65.5 lb/ft3, / 144 = .455 lb/in2/ft(h). If K=5.6, and we assume P=7 PSI.: 7/.433=16.166 ft(h). 7/.455=15.385 ft(h).* 15.385/16.166=.952. sqrt(.952)=.976, x 5.6 = 5.46. There is a chart in 13 showing a 50% glycerin solution at about -10F weighing about 15% more than 100% water: 62.4 x 1.15 = 71.76. 71.76/144=.498. 7/.498=14.056 ft(h). 14.056/16.166=.869. sqrt(.869)=.932, x 5.6 = 5.22. If I had to fab the pipe today and formalize the submittal tomorrow (after googling centipoises for several hours) I would calc it like it was 'all wet', using K=5.22. * converting PSI to feet of head(h) it is seen that the denser the solution, the 'shorter' it is. Since v=sqrt(2gh), the shorter it is the slower it is. Making the adjustment based on h, we have to take the square root of the ratio, i.e., (K=Q/sqrtP). If adjusted based on velocity we would use the ratio itself (square feet=cubic feet per second divided by feet per second): sqrt(2*32.2*16.166)=32.266 ft/sec. sqrt(2*32.2*15.385)=31.477 ft/sec. 31.477/32.266=.976. The above is simply the type of thing I enjoy doing and like to share, hoping it will cause no harm, to be taken or left as one sees fit. thanks, Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: adjusting the K-Factor with our bare hands
Brad I'd rather spend my remaining time with my wife and I'm licking myself for saying anything. Btw who might be accepting this for the jurisdiction? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Thanks Matt and Ron. I appreciate ALL feedback. I like posting numbers because there is no opinion, personal feelings, hearsay, etc. I know a ton about D-W and H-W, and I do not need to repeat the Velocity of Efflux experiments of the early 1600's to know I am correct about K-Factors. Would it be too much to ask of you to simply work a few of the numbers that back up the concepts I post, BEFORE I get your Criticisms and Opinions? Either that or YOU show ME how it is done- adjusting K-Factors I mean, from NFPA 13 referenced earlier? -Original Message- From: Ron Greenman [mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: adjusting the K-Factor with our bare hands can I say strongly enough how much I agree with what Matt said? can I say it again? And third time being the charm, I agree with what Matt said--a lot--and with George's earlier comments. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Matt Grise m...@afpsprink.com wrote: I would strongly caution against using this method for estimate calculations. (Without doing extensive testing to verify that it is accurate) The D-W and H-W calculation methods are simply approximations of how fluids interact with themselves and the pipe they are in. The H-W equation and the K-factor concept are two VERY specialized cases that are intended only to describe warm water in pipes coming out of a smooth hole. The k-factor only relates the ease with which water can escape a sprinkler. If you plug in a modified k-factor, you are still using H-W to describe how the fluid is moving through the pipes. The reason that you have to switch to the D-W equation is because H-W will give you the wrong answer. If you use a modified K factor with H-W (instead of D-W) the most likely outcome is a wrong answer - although maybe not the same wrong answer as before. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: From NFPA 13-2007, 22.4.4.5.1, we are required to, among other things, adjust the K-Factor. Using the Hazen-Williams friction formula, 62.4 lb/ft3 / 144 in2 = .433 lb/in2/ft(h). If we have an AF solution at 65.5 lb/ft3, / 144 = .455 lb/in2/ft(h). If K=5.6, and we assume P=7 PSI.: 7/.433=16.166 ft(h). 7/.455=15.385 ft(h).* 15.385/16.166=.952. sqrt(.952)=.976, x 5.6 = 5.46. There is a chart in 13 showing a 50% glycerin solution at about -10F weighing about 15% more than 100% water: 62.4 x 1.15 = 71.76. 71.76/144=.498. 7/.498=14.056 ft(h). 14.056/16.166=.869. sqrt(.869)=.932, x 5.6 = 5.22. If I had to fab the pipe today and formalize the submittal tomorrow (after googling centipoises for several hours) I would calc it like it was 'all wet', using K=5.22. * converting PSI to feet of head(h) it is seen that the denser the solution, the 'shorter' it is. Since v=sqrt(2gh), the shorter it is the slower it is. Making the adjustment based on h, we have to take the square root of the ratio, i.e., (K=Q/sqrtP). If adjusted based on velocity we would use the ratio itself (square feet=cubic feet per second divided by feet per second): sqrt(2*32.2*16.166)=32.266 ft/sec. sqrt(2*32.2*15.385)=31.477 ft/sec. 31.477/32.266=.976. The above is simply the type of thing I enjoy doing and like to share, hoping it will cause no harm, to be taken or left as one sees fit. thanks, Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Ron Greenman ( ? 6 ??) Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346
Re: adjusting the K-Factor with our bare hands
I about shit myself when I saw Licking instead of kicking after it was too late Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: I've been hanging blinds, and just now have the time to note this most extraordinary turn of the thread. I got nothing - this may be the greatest correspondence in the history of the Forum. Remember back in 1997 or thereabout, when an errant email home from some kid in the Midwest (no, not you Brad) was updating her parents about how much fun she was having at Grandma and Grandpa's, and that evening they enjoyed a great visit with the Slotnicks? Good times. Yessir, Mr. Muncy. On topic from hereto forward, siryessir! SL -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of Ron Greenman Sent: Tue 6/11/2013 5:53 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: adjusting the K-Factor with our bare hands I love the 1. Typo. or 2. Auto Correct. or 3. Freudian ? or 4. Slotism. ...and I'm licking myself You just keep hanging out with the woman and licking yourself. It's not a pretty picture, but it will be now and forever be how I think of you. As my father-in-laws dementia advanced, but before he was totally lost we were over at his house. My eldest son and I were hanging with him when a couple of family friends showed up. These were both women, both our age (not his), long time family friends, and under normal circumstances would be very recognizable to him. Note that both always were way too much make-up. On this particular occasion he didn't remember who they were and his comment was, and totally out of normal character, Hey! Who ordered the hookers? He passed away a bit over a year ago but when I think of him it's saying and I always chuckle. You just keep licking yourself for a long time, OK. And let Leyton Yosemite Sam out on Brad. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM, George Church g...@rowesprinkler.comwrote: Brad I'd rather spend my remaining time with my wife and I'm licking myself for saying anything. Btw who might be accepting this for the jurisdiction? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Thanks Matt and Ron. I appreciate ALL feedback. I like posting numbers because there is no opinion, personal feelings, hearsay, etc. I know a ton about D-W and H-W, and I do not need to repeat the Velocity of Efflux experiments of the early 1600's to know I am correct about K-Factors. Would it be too much to ask of you to simply work a few of the numbers that back up the concepts I post, BEFORE I get your Criticisms and Opinions? Either that or YOU show ME how it is done- adjusting K-Factors I mean, from NFPA 13 referenced earlier? -Original Message- From: Ron Greenman [mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: adjusting the K-Factor with our bare hands can I say strongly enough how much I agree with what Matt said? can I say it again? And third time being the charm, I agree with what Matt said--a lot--and with George's earlier comments. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Matt Grise m...@afpsprink.com wrote: I would strongly caution against using this method for estimate calculations. (Without doing extensive testing to verify that it is accurate) The D-W and H-W calculation methods are simply approximations of how fluids interact with themselves and the pipe they are in. The H-W equation and the K-factor concept are two VERY specialized cases that are intended only to describe warm water in pipes coming out of a smooth hole. The k-factor only relates the ease with which water can escape a sprinkler. If you plug in a modified k-factor, you are still using H-W to describe how the fluid is moving through the pipes. The reason that you have to switch to the D-W equation is because H-W will give you the wrong answer. If you use a modified K factor with H-W (instead of D-W) the most likely outcome is a wrong answer - although maybe not the same wrong answer as before. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: From NFPA 13-2007, 22.4.4.5.1, we are required to, among other things, adjust the K-Factor. Using the Hazen-Williams friction formula, 62.4 lb/ft3 / 144 in2 = .433 lb/in2/ft(h). If we have an AF solution at 65.5 lb/ft3, / 144 = .455 lb/in2/ft(h). If K=5.6, and we assume P=7 PSI.: 7/.433=16.166 ft(h). 7/.455=15.385 ft(h).* 15.385/16.166=.952. sqrt(.952)=.976, x 5.6 = 5.46. There is a chart in 13 showing a 50% glycerin solution
Re: test header
I believe tommy d could fill you in on a lot of local horror stories. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: What exactly is the purpose of a forward flow test on a backflow preventer? This is not required on other check valve devices such as alarm valves, riser checks, water meters, etc. Has there been a history of problems that this seems to solve? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:03 AM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: NFPA 13 and 24 only require the forward flow test. Maybe they could be changed to require a means to forward flow test? Around here most BFP's are installed at the property line so they are not in the FP contractor's scope. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:13 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: test header Moreover, the engineer could specify Ron's solution up front. Doesn't help the design-build jobs - but you as the contractor could offer it up front...in such a way that makes you look like you're helping the customer, not just seeking a means to get more money out of them (easy to say...). I've been asked why we spec these test outlets on our jobs. When I ask the contractor how they do their annual full-flow testing thought the backflow assemblies, they answer with a description like we've discussed here - except that it is clear that they are answering a theoretical situation - they normally aren't doing the forward flow testing of the backflow assemblies - neither at the end of a job, nor during their annual testing. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: test header By the time toy've drained the system, removed the FDC and put in a spool, removed the FDc, done the flow, drained everything again, replaced all the parts, probably be compelled to do a hydro on the FDC line, and then are nearly due to do it again, you could have just put in a test header, or mech-teed a couple of fire hose valves onto the FDC line, or the riser quicker and for less money, and nobody has to go through that nonsense again. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:22 PM, G. Tim Stone tston...@comcast.net wrote: Take the flappers out or just remove the FDC fitting. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: 13R local alarm
Couldn't treat em as 13d irc townhouses? Sent from my iPhone On May 29, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: This is an older single story 3 family side-by-side structure. The 13R system is being retrofitted. I believe (am confirming) that they have local hard wired smoke detectors only. Located in MA. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On May 29, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] johnson...@mail.nih.gov wrote: NFPA 101:30.3.4.2.3In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 30.3.5, required fire alarm systems shall be initiated upon operation of the automatic sprinkler system. Someone will need to go through Section 30.3.4.3 for notification requirements as they very based on the number of dwelling units, building height, etc. Ask for the code reference for the deficiency that is being noted. Here is the audibility requirement for sleeping areas: NFPA 72: 18.4.5 Sleeping Area Requirements. 18.4.5.1Where audible appliances are installed to provide signals for sleeping areas, they shall have a sound level of at least 15 dB above the average ambient sound level or 5 dB above the maximum sound level having a duration of at least 60 seconds or a sound level of at least 75 dBA, whichever is greater, measured at the pillow level in the area required to be served by the system using the A-weighted scale (dBA). Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Greg McGahan [mailto:g...@livingwaterfp.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 13R local alarm mount it in the closet On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: I was thinking that a 6 bell inside an apartment might be a little overkill as well as obtrusive. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On May 29, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Greg McGahan g...@livingwaterfp.com wrote: I am not sure what you are referring to exactly, but we often use a flow switch wored to a 6 electric bell. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: I have an FM that wants local alarms for a 13R system within each unit (3 family house). Any suggestions on a small wall mounted unit? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: 13R local alarm
Horn strobe? Sent from my iPhone On May 29, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: My contract does not include alarms, only the sprinklers. It will be up to the owner and the FM to work that detail out. I have been asked to show a strobe outside and a local interior alarm on the drawing. My original post was asking for a specific product in a small, reasonably unobtrusive alarm to install in a hallway. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On May 29, 2013, at 5:08 PM, John Drucker - Home john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Todd, How old are the smoke alarms ?, at 10 yrs. their due for replacement anyway. As I commented earlier, a prescriptive way to solve the issue. John Drucker, CET Fire Protection Subcode Official Fire / Building / Electrical Inspector New Jersey -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 13R local alarm The FM asked for the sprinkler alarms to be connected to ring the smoke detectors. I asked if a separate bell would be acceptable. The present system is essentially residential hard wired smokes. I'm not sure if all of the devices in each unit go off when one activates. There is no annunciation. I don't think the detectors are wired to accept additional input, so the entire system would have to be replaced if we have to interconnect. Right now they are not being asked to upgrade the alarms and this is not a town with a wimpy fire marshal. The alarm system is beyond my contract and the drawing notes state so. That is a can of worms I will let someone else open. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On May 29, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Tom Duross tduro...@comcast.net wrote: We had a local town home rule go into effect 15+ years ago requiring sprinklers in anything 3+ units substantially renovated but it forgot to mention annunciation (also forgot water supply). Many slick property owners got together and sued and after the dust settled, it was decided to put an electric bell in the stair lobby or main lobby of each unit plus the outside. No formal fire alarm was required. I've done the accessory relay to wire a dry contact to a 3 wire 120 vac smoke circuit but it voids the listing of the smokes, or did (been many years). These days Todd, I don't know how you could install a sprinkler system under current MA code and not have to install a formal 72 FA. 3 units or more requires supervision and central station in MA. TD -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Henke Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 13R local alarm It may be possible to activate both the smoke alarms and a separate waterflow alarm. The flowswitch should have 2 sets of contacts. One switch can activate a local alarm such as the 120 vac mini horn The other switch may be able to activate the smoke alarms. This would provide the additional signal for waterflow so it wouldn't be confused with burnt toast. You probably have to contact the detector manufacturer to see how and if the detectors can be activated from a separate switch. They may have a separate module for this. There are some products on the market for this such as Firex but I don't know if they universally work with all makes and models of smoke alarms. There was also a carrier frequency device made by Cepco products for this. Regards, ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Moving building
If these are modular homes its likely cpvc that isn't going anywhere. Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2013, at 11:46 PM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Whether or not the system would sway during moving would be dependent on how it's currently installed. If in earthquake country it wouldn't sway since it would be braced against seismic events. Pre-fabs are designed to be moved so swaying is minimized by sway bracing or hung in such a way as to compensate. On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM, David Canham dcan...@firesys.com wrote: They put the sprinklers in off site for manufactured buildings all the time, is this that different? All the other trades get installed before shipping as well. I was doing some work for a company a whole back that built all the building in there factory and they had sprinklers installed during fabrication then shipped the units to the site for final assembly. They connected piping from one module to the next in the field. It seemed to work fine. All calculations were done based on the local supply. Plumbing and gas was done the same way. Drop it on the foundation and connect the utilities. David Canham Fire Systems Solutions Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: In addition to those, my concern would be that if the pipe is suspended from the structure, it will probably sway back and forth during the move and could possibly damage heads or pipe. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On May 25, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Douglas Hicks fire...@eoni.com wrote: An account is moving a pre-fab building. The occupancy is classrooms and office space. They want us to disconnect and connect the sprinkler piping in the attic. But, as I am considering this, I keep coming up with more concerns. Some of which, in not particular order, are: 1. They will need to have a FPE run the supply calcs for the new location. 2. The standard will be NFPA 13-2013, which will require a pit, an FDC, backflow devices, and a way to perform a Full Flow Test. I think I should have someone experienced in underground do all that. 3. The present water supply comes into the building from the floor. Should we disconnect and remove the riser to protect it from damage during transport? 4. The area has a history of water deposits in piping. When we lived in that town, I would reverse flush the potable water lines using air. I was amazed at the debris that came out of the water piping. As a result, I never had the low water pressure my neighbors had, nor did I need to replace the piping. I think the sprinkler piping should be flushed prior to shutting off the water and draining the piping. 5. After the building is in place, the piping will need to be assembled. I do not know if the attic piping is steel or plastic, I expect plastic. Whatever the material, I think a hydro-test is a good idea. Any other suggestions? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: calc procedure logic
Ask them if they flowed it at a specified pressure instead of velocity and you will avoid glazed eyes. Speak their language And no, outside its listing they likely won't stand behind it because there is nothing to stand on. Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: ...epilogue... The next time a similar situation comes up I will weigh Options A B: Option A, step 1- start with a listed head with listed RTI and listed Temp rating. step 2- remove RTI, Temp Rating, chance of accidental fusing, and chance of not fusing when it should. step 3- spend a year and a hundred grand getting it listed in this unusual condition. We would measure the pattern at various pressures playing like there used to be operating parts, then re-test playing like there never were, then once more with our backs to the pattern, using a mirror. Option B, step 1- ask the manufacturer if she/he would stand behind the head in the above condition, as elementary as it has become. step 2- if yes to step 1, ask if they have ever flowed water through the head at 28 ft/sec and measured the pattern, and if not will they please and let me know, speaking very slowly. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: calc procedure logic
My recollection of the 7 psi min ehp was to make sure the cap was removed and an acceptable pattern developed. Thought it took 5 psi to clear the waterway so 7 became the min, maybe for pattern, maybe buffer. Mark, that's a Min ehp. With today's hi perf heads we often need lots more, determined also as you illustrated. Glc Sent from my iPhone On May 21, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: For example foam/water deluge .16/entire area, heads 9x9=81, times .16=12.96 gpm/head, throwing 4'-6 each way. The requirement to balance the flows within 15% of each other is physical (we want a fairly uniform blanket on the floor), but the 7 psi min is not physical, unless 5.48 psi will not throw 4'-6. Thanks Mark. -Original Message- From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: calc procedure logic Wouldn't it depend on the application rate, area of protection and orifice size? Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 01:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: calc procedure logic Would the 7 psi minimum operating pressure from NFPA 13 Calculation Procedure apply to open head deluge, since the operating parts have already been ejected clear of the frame and deflector by a ball-peen hammer? Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: calc procedure logic
Except that you are designing outside the standard. Can't recall ever even thinking of approaching an AHJ with 6 psi instead of 7. Sent from my iPhone On May 21, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Thanks John. Assuming that is true, we could say a 1/2 head at 7 psi throws 7'-6 each way. At 7 psi the water hits the deflector going 32.26 ft/sec. v=SQRT(2gh). At 6 psi it would be going 29.87 ft/sec, and would throw 6'-11 each way. -Original Message- From: John O'Connor [mailto:jocon...@nfspk.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: calc procedure logic The 7.0 PSI end head minimum pressure was never intended to kick out the links, seat etc, but to develop the minimum spray pattern required to deliver the specified density. John O'Connor National Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Nashville TN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: calc procedure logic Wouldn't it depend on the application rate, area of protection and orifice size? Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 01:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: calc procedure logic Would the 7 psi minimum operating pressure from NFPA 13 Calculation Procedure apply to open head deluge, since the operating parts have already been ejected clear of the frame and deflector by a ball-peen hammer? Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3162/5841 - Release Date: 05/20/13 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: calc procedure logic
Add some dried sludge and age 20 years. Mark, did u see the clogged drops on a DIPreAction sys up your way? I realize we need to maintain and cure bad ones with testing, but reality testing should include aging and normal degradation of system. Sent from my iPhone On May 21, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: You are confusing velocity with vector. Same head at 50 psi doesn't go much farther. Go grab a head and take a match to it. The link surely clears. The cap if upright stays. If pendant gravity takes care of it. Then you can see how little it takes to clear the cap. Why 7 psi? Why 52,000 sq.ft.? Why 1-12 The list is far too long. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:54 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: calc procedure logic Thanks John. Assuming that is true, we could say a 1/2 head at 7 psi throws 7'-6 each way. At 7 psi the water hits the deflector going 32.26 ft/sec. v=SQRT(2gh). At 6 psi it would be going 29.87 ft/sec, and would throw 6'-11 each way. -Original Message- From: John O'Connor [mailto:jocon...@nfspk.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: calc procedure logic The 7.0 PSI end head minimum pressure was never intended to kick out the links, seat etc, but to develop the minimum spray pattern required to deliver the specified density. John O'Connor National Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Nashville TN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: calc procedure logic Wouldn't it depend on the application rate, area of protection and orifice size? Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 01:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: calc procedure logic Would the 7 psi minimum operating pressure from NFPA 13 Calculation Procedure apply to open head deluge, since the operating parts have already been ejected clear of the frame and deflector by a ball-peen hammer? Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3162/5841 - Release Date: 05/20/13 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: NFPA 22 2013 Water storage re-fill time.
Owner can have an agreement with one (or more) local tanker company to respond with x number of trucks to fill in 8. Heckuva lot cheaper than redundant or double sized tank. This should qualify as a means to fill in 8. Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Morey, Mike mo...@bmwc.com wrote: From NFPA 22 2012: 14.4.1 A permanent pipe connected to a water supply shall be provided to fill the tank, except as provided in 14.4.1.1. 14.4.1.1 Where a permanent water supply is not available to refill the tank, an approved plan shall be permitted for manually refilling the tank. 14.4.1.2 During the time that the tank does not have sufficient capacity to meet the demand of the fire protection system(s), the impairment procedures of NFPA 25 shall be followed. I would suggest maybe you consider (required supply GPM for NFPA duration) - (flow rate of filling source x 8 hr) reserve water in your pond which all but mitigates these requirements anyways, since it sounds like expanding the pond isn't out of the question. In which case your plan would be if we have a fire within 3 days of the first fire we'll hire a company to truck in water and evacuate and impair the building per NFPA 25 until the water arrives and then file that plan away under things that will probably never happen, but just in case. Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com http://www.bmwc.com/ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of Brad Casterline Sent: Fri 5/17/2013 9:13 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 22 2013 Water storage re-fill time. Thanks Bruce. It is truly out in the sticks. 35 GPM well pump. The designer is thinking if he made the pond capacity 300,000 gallons, after a 150,000 gallon fire event the required water would be restored in no time, literally, but it would take 3 days to re-fill the 'tank', and the book says 8 hours max. (the tank A and tank B scenario was my idea, as a way of posing what I was concerned about). I don't know quite what to think yet, just glad I am not an A.H.J. :) -Original Message- From: bver...@comcast.net [mailto:bver...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 22 2013 Water storage re-fill time. Brad, If this tank sits in a place with municipal water, but still needs a tank, I would say you need to design for 8-hrs. Start of what if's... ...What if water department will only allow a rate of fill that is 12-hours. Document well (no pun), and fill tank in twelve. ...What if you are truly in the sticks, and you only have, and can only get, a 20 gpm well. I think some sort of minimal tank for back up, or rent temporary tank system during major schedule maintenance, and live within your means. Of course, restrict activites during this time. While you tank is down is not the time for hot work to support new equipment. bv From: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:42:59 AM Subject: RE: NFPA 22 2013 Water storage re-fill time. ok good, now then, if you are/were an A.H.J., how would you answer this question: How much time do we get to be able to re-fill a water storage tank in 8 hours? for example, 150,000 gallon capacity for demand*duration, say tank A, from which the pump takes suction. Now we build a twin tank B, and connect to tank A with 8 pipe with a shut-off valve normally closed. There is an event and tank A runs dry. We open the shut-off valve and tank A is re-filled in about 18 minutes. The well pump then starts refilling tank B, which will take 3 days. So the question is how much time do we get to be able to re-fill the tank within in 8 hours?. -Original Message- From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:18 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA 22 2013 Water storage re-fill time. asking for a co-worker: 1) Why are water storage tanks required to be re-filled in 8 hours? 2) Would the requirement apply to ponds (man-made with liner in this case)? 3) Are there any alternatives to the requirement? (the pond is large and filled by a well pump with a pumping rate that would take more than 8 hours) many thanks, Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___
Re: Ah Yes.... Velocity....
Written by one of those Terp FPEs, right? Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: There was once a white paper that discussed Porches and Tractors when it came to Velocities... From: rhugg...@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Exposed threads Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:45:02 -0700 To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Just like the velocity limit of 32ft/s rule. Never was valid but often enforced with great zeal. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On May 13, 2013, at 1:34 PM, John O'Connor jocon...@nfspk.com wrote: It is amazing how some rules get hatched and live forever, only to be expanded upon as if the original came down from Mt. Sinai. John O'Connor ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Response times to system deficiencies
I've had to follow 25 when replacing at diesel pump. Royal PIA even for a Spkr geek. Sent from my iPhone On May 7, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org wrote: Obviously there's nothing in 13 since that's an installation standard. The main point is that there is no definitive timeline in NFPA 25. You may want t look at the ROP and ROC since this issue was proposed and rejected by the TC. There is a NITMAM on it but the likelihood of it being added to 25 is about 1%. The reason nothing is added is that 25 already addresses it and if the current process is ignored what good will saying fix within 48 hrs or 2 weeks etc? If it is a serious deficiency, then it's an impairment. If it's an impairment, then chap 15 is suppose to be activated. Notifying the fire dept and insurance carrier, evacuating the building or assigning a fire watch etc etc should minimize the duration before repairs (IF THE PROCESS IS FOLLOWED). Roland On May 6, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Morey, Mike mo...@bmwc.com wrote: I swear this was written down somewhere but I can't seem to find it at the moment. I'm looking for NFPA 13/25/72 and/or IFC guidelines that address how long one has to address a deficiency based on it's severity. We work with a single client, but their operations are split up into dozens of areas that are in effect other clients. We have some resistance when it comes to scheduling and we're trying to build clearer and backed by code (or at least an authoritative source) guidelines for how long maintenance work can wait. Some of the maintenance in question is piddly little stuff, but some of it is pretty serious and we'd like to better qualify how we respond. I'm not real concerned about edition of the code, I have access to the last 15 years or so but recent editions are preferable. Thanks in advance, Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com http://www.bmwc.com/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: K-Factor
Back in the 80s I called CSC to ask how to figure it since we had just put a 5' tall sprinkler atop the building. They said they are determined empirically, lending support to Roland. Glc Sent from my iPhone On May 7, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org wrote: In support of the teacher of the hole, even the listing labs assign the k-factor empirically verses calculating it. (and leave his balloon alone too…) Roland On May 6, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: and none of the math can be applied because neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has enough information (save the savvy sprinkler manufacturer) to actually perform the correct math for a sprinkler application. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Soap box
David Sornsin wrote me after my week in the ICU Feb'12 that he assumed all the nurses were now sprinkler advocates and I was laying in bed in my convention uniform of khakis, blue button down and blazer. So Cathy brought the shirt and blazer for me to wear home, and Cecil got some pics we sent Dave to think that was my hospital garb. Was told I was best dressed departing patient in a wheelchair they'd ever had. Gotta tell ya there are some genuinely wonderful folks on this Forum. I already knew that, but when I got sick there was a lot of confirmation of it. Thanks to all of you for being yourselves. Glc Sent from my iPhone On May 1, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Stay on that box George. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: That well-rounded education is very useful in the workplace. Like the NICET testing forcing us to look at various segments of the industry and see it presented in a complete set of pipe charts. One sees all available so if someone brings up or specs on something OTHER than what we all use- sch 40, thread able LW, 10 and 7, galv and cpvc, your guy doesn't claim the stuff doesn't exist or isn't relatively easy to get- and the be told the plumber has a mile of it to install, 1,000 ft in stock on third floor lockup. Prevents looking stupid. Another benefit is knowing how to gently stop folks from doing something stupid. Saw a guy that always designs to the latest NFPA s on a linked in page of bitching about NICET, and using old editions. We all should know to design to (ok PC- layout to...) the adopted standard since that's what is basis of design. '99 13 for CMS/DOH work. There's so much well- roundedness gives u. Knowing resi and QR heads performance relative to SR so when a fire official with large badge says he has dragged bodies out of sprinklered buildings (while in front of the owner and etc) you can respond that these must have been older with SR heads where we don't expect to save the guy in the room of origin. He acquiesced and we did what we were hired to do. Bit more to it but we put him in his place After months of delay. So formal presentation of our materials is important and you don't get it because of the number of decades you work. I SO wanted to ask this guy if his boss ever objected to him applying more restrictive (costly) solutions that may be in the adopted (contracted?) edition? Didn't code officials object to wrong edition? Did u submit to DOH using 2012 instead of CMS's 1999? I can't help but wonder why the quantum difference in level of getting it between this forum and linked in wild cards. They frankly scare the heck out of me. I'm designing a tunnel and tank farm project that's 920,00 sq meters and 50 Meters tall. Water or foam better, and do we need fire alarm? That's a job for an FPE relaying criteria and additional support to a level 4 with a team of 2s and 3s. Not a newbie. And that's just to translate! Chemo done, soapbox off and enjoy watching my daughter abuse the clutch in the TR6. Thanks for reading. Sent from my iPhone On May 1, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: Todd, The Standard Spray sprinkler was researched and began being used in the late 40's on FM insured projects. The conventional sprinkler remained the sprinkler of choice in NFPA 13 until the 1955 edition. The research done by FM convinced the committee of the superior effectiveness of standard spray sprinklers in most buildings being built at that time. Credit Dr. Bryan (many on this forum know him as Prof) in his book, Standpipes and Sprinkler Systems for the info. This is a textbook for the SST students at Parkland College. And the dates discussed here are part of their general knowledge curriculum. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 13 Committee, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! Subject: Re: Old style deflector From: t...@fpdc.com Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 12:44:50 -0400 To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org No real question other than that. I was in a building with different varieties of sprinklers and they all claim to be from 1954. There was one section with some sprinklers with the old style small deflector (in both pendent and upright) and was wondering if they made that design as late as 1954. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On May 1, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Ron
Re: check valves on dry standpipes
Bet the FF get soaked since they expect that check is in place like every other fdc they've seen. I did a manual dry in mid80s buried in interior pilasters, protected by heat, and put supervisory water in it for supervision, so needed the check. Glc Sent from my iPhone On May 2, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: While back feeding is true they wouldn't take the hose off until they bled down the hose. Each connection off a fire truck has a bleed valve. With no check they'll just need to bleed the hose and volume of the standpipe. I don't see the big deal either way. I didn't read the Code though so don't take that as analysis one is needed or not. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:54 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: check valves on dry standpipes My only thought is when the fire department disconnects their hoses the water can come back through the FDC - some people may still install single clapper FDC's not thinking ahead or the clappers could stick or malfunction as well. Greg - in your case I could understand not needing one, other than the fact it is required. I would check with the AHJ and see if they will agree with you, then you are covered. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: check valves on dry standpipes That is very interesting. I wonder what is the reason one is required? Steve? John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: check valves on dry standpipes We did a manual dry in a parking garage a few years ago, I asked this question to the local AHJ and he did require one. NFPA 14 (2013) - 6.4.2 requires one. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: check valves on dry standpipes T hanks - that makes three!~! On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:45 PM, John Denhardt jdenha...@stricklandfire.comwrote: Agree with you. No check valves required. Fire sprinklers save lives Sent from my iPad On May 1, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Charles Thurston charl...@mbfsg.com wrote: Hello Greg, Is it a Manual Dry system? If so we do not and the AHJs in the area see no reason to. Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 9:38:18 PM, you wrote: Are you required to put check valves on FDC's supplyign dry standpipe systems such as on docks etc? Thanks, -- Best regards, Charlesmailto:charl...@mbfsg.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database:
Re: Old style deflector
That well-rounded education is very useful in the workplace. Like the NICET testing forcing us to look at various segments of the industry and see it presented in a complete set of pipe charts. One sees all available so if someone brings up or specs on something OTHER than what we all use- sch 40, thread able LW, 10 and 7, galv and cpvc, your guy doesn't claim the stuff doesn't exist or isn't relatively easy to get- and the be told the plumber has a mile of it to install, 1,000 ft in stock on third floor lockup. Prevents looking stupid. Another benefit is knowing how to gently stop folks from doing something stupid. Saw a guy that always designs to the latest NFPA s on a linked in page of bitching about NICET, and using old editions. We all should know to design to (ok PC- layout to...) the adopted standard since that's what is basis of design. '99 13 for CMS/DOH work. There's so much well- roundedness gives u. Knowing resi and QR heads performance relative to SR so when a fire official with large badge says he has dragged bodies out of sprinklered buildings (while in front of the owner and etc) you can respond that these must have been older with SR heads where we don't expect to save the guy in the room of origin. He acquiesced and we did what we were hired to do. Bit more to it but we put him in his place After months of delay. So formal presentation of our materials is important and you don't get it because of the number of decades you work. I SO wanted to ask this guy if his boss ever objected to him applying more restrictive (costly) solutions that may be in the adopted (contracted?) edition? Didn't code officials object to wrong edition? Did u submit to DOH using 2012 instead of CMS's 1999? I can't help but wonder why the quantum difference in level of getting it between this forum and linked in wild cards. They frankly scare the heck out of me. I'm designing a tunnel and tank farm project that's 920,00 sq meters and 50 Meters tall. Water or foam better, and do we need fire alarm? That's a job for an FPE relaying criteria and additional support to a level 4 with a team of 2s and 3s. Not a newbie. And that's just to translate! Chemo done, soapbox off and enjoy watching my daughter abuse the clutch in the TR6. Thanks for reading. Sent from my iPhone On May 1, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: Todd, The Standard Spray sprinkler was researched and began being used in the late 40's on FM insured projects. The conventional sprinkler remained the sprinkler of choice in NFPA 13 until the 1955 edition. The research done by FM convinced the committee of the superior effectiveness of standard spray sprinklers in most buildings being built at that time. Credit Dr. Bryan (many on this forum know him as Prof) in his book, Standpipes and Sprinkler Systems for the info. This is a textbook for the SST students at Parkland College. And the dates discussed here are part of their general knowledge curriculum. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 13 Committee, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! Subject: Re: Old style deflector From: t...@fpdc.com Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 12:44:50 -0400 To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org No real question other than that. I was in a building with different varieties of sprinklers and they all claim to be from 1954. There was one section with some sprinklers with the old style small deflector (in both pendent and upright) and was wondering if they made that design as late as 1954. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On May 1, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: What's the rest of the question Todd? On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Thomas Watt firesprinklerssaveli...@gmail.com wrote: Someone in this group is likely to have the answer and an example to prove it. https://www.facebook.com/Collecting.Old.Fire.Sprinkler.Heads On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Todd Williams t...@fpdc.com wrote: Did they make heads for regular use with the old small deflector in 1954? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___
Re: Home sprinkler mandate in MN
Compare MD for including a lot more sprinklered homes. Wouldn't it be great to get $9,000 for a 13d tank and pump? The list gets bigger, my tolerance already gone with the politics of money in PA's Act 1 to get rid of pesky sprinklers. And they know they are lying. I can't call these half truths. Glc Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:26 PM, bver...@comcast.net bver...@comcast.net wrote: How safe is very safe? How far is far? The one true implied item is that fire fatalities are drastically different state to state, or region to region. Compare GA to MN. bv - Original Message - From: Ryan Hinson rhin...@burnsmcd.com To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:44:05 AM Subject: Home sprinkler mandate in MN FYI Here is a chain email letter being sent out by the builder's association in MN regarding the eminent vote on the home sprinkler mandate. There are a lot of lies in there. How do these people sleep at night? Take Action: Contact the 10 Conference Committee members by calling or clicking on their linked email addresses above. You can use the example email below or compose your own message. Example Email: Subj: Vote No on Mandatory Indoor Sprinkler System for MN Homes Dear , I'm a Minnesotan who works in the homebuilding industry. I strongly support the provision in the Omnibus Jobs and Economic Development Finance bill which prohibits a mandate for home sprinkler systems in our state's building code. Newly built homes in Minnesota are a national model for fire safety where fire deaths have virtually disappeared. There are other important factors I'd ask you to consider: * The housing industry plays a critical role in the state's ongoing economic recovery. * Coming out of the recession, consumers are very price-sensitive. * The cost of meeting the home sprinkler mandate is approximately $2.00 per square foot, and twice that for homes with well water. For a 4,500 square foot (unfinished) home, this adds $9,000 -$18,000 to the cost of purchase. * Once installed, a sprinkler system requires more rigorous testing and maintenance than an equally-effective hard-wired smoke alarm system, further increasing costs for homeowners. * The potential impact of a false positive is also significant - while a false alarm for a smoke detector awakens the family, with a sprinkler system the house is flooded. If new home safety was a significant concern in Minnesota today, we would join the groups who are interested in this mandate. However, based on any independent data, Minnesota is a very safe state for new and remodeled homes. Asking families to pay thousands more dollars for their home in an effort to mitigate a negligible risk is contrary to the policy and purpose of the current building code, which states: The construction of buildings should be permitted at the least possible cost consistent with recognized standards of health and safety. Please support the Senate language on this issue, we look forward to a building code free of a home indoor sprinkler system mandate. Sincerely, Your Name, Company Name End example Let the lightning bolts begin... Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Federal Group, PI GP Liaison Burns McDonnell Minneapolis-St. Paul Office 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 Bloomington, MN 55437 Direct: 952-656-3662 Mobile: 320-250-5404 Fax: 952-229-2923 www.burnsmcd.comBLOCKED::www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in MN Proud to be #18 of FORTUNE'S 100 Best Companies to Work For ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Home sprinkler mandate in MN
Is there a truth on advertising law that could lead to cease and resist? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:48 PM, James McHugh jmch...@testandrain.com wrote: ...Minnesota are a national model for fire safety where fire deaths have virtually disappeared tell that to the 50 families in 2012 and 8 so far this year that lost family members in fires in MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bver...@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Home sprinkler mandate in MN How safe is very safe? How far is far? The one true implied item is that fire fatalities are drastically different state to state, or region to region. Compare GA to MN. bv - Original Message - From: Ryan Hinson rhin...@burnsmcd.com To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:44:05 AM Subject: Home sprinkler mandate in MN FYI Here is a chain email letter being sent out by the builder's association in MN regarding the eminent vote on the home sprinkler mandate. There are a lot of lies in there. How do these people sleep at night? Take Action: Contact the 10 Conference Committee members by calling or clicking on their linked email addresses above. You can use the example email below or compose your own message. Example Email: Subj: Vote No on Mandatory Indoor Sprinkler System for MN Homes Dear , I'm a Minnesotan who works in the homebuilding industry. I strongly support the provision in the Omnibus Jobs and Economic Development Finance bill which prohibits a mandate for home sprinkler systems in our state's building code. Newly built homes in Minnesota are a national model for fire safety where fire deaths have virtually disappeared. There are other important factors I'd ask you to consider: * The housing industry plays a critical role in the state's ongoing economic recovery. * Coming out of the recession, consumers are very price-sensitive. * The cost of meeting the home sprinkler mandate is approximately $2.00 per square foot, and twice that for homes with well water. For a 4,500 square foot (unfinished) home, this adds $9,000 -$18,000 to the cost of purchase. * Once installed, a sprinkler system requires more rigorous testing and maintenance than an equally-effective hard-wired smoke alarm system, further increasing costs for homeowners. * The potential impact of a false positive is also significant - while a false alarm for a smoke detector awakens the family, with a sprinkler system the house is flooded. If new home safety was a significant concern in Minnesota today, we would join the groups who are interested in this mandate. However, based on any independent data, Minnesota is a very safe state for new and remodeled homes. Asking families to pay thousands more dollars for their home in an effort to mitigate a negligible risk is contrary to the policy and purpose of the current building code, which states: The construction of buildings should be permitted at the least possible cost consistent with recognized standards of health and safety. Please support the Senate language on this issue, we look forward to a building code free of a home indoor sprinkler system mandate. Sincerely, Your Name, Company Name End example Let the lightning bolts begin... Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Federal Group, PI GP Liaison Burns McDonnell Minneapolis-St. Paul Office 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 Bloomington, MN 55437 Direct: 952-656-3662 Mobile: 320-250-5404 Fax: 952-229-2923 www.burnsmcd.comBLOCKED::www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in MN Proud to be #18 of FORTUNE'S 100 Best Companies to Work For ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: West, TX explosion
Hasn't worked for reining in Big Pharma. It's all relative and those boys work in billions, not millions Just the cost of doing business. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: I'm not suggesting that they had sinister intentions, but I'll betcha a dollar to a dime that we're gonna find out there were all manner of violations and corners cut in their safety program. They were fined $10,000 last summer for safety violations by the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, but that fine was reduced to $5,250 after the company claimed to have made corrections. Are you bleeping kidding me? 5 thousand bucks ain't a pimple on a bear's ass to a good sized company. Here's one thing I'm sure of: make the fine $5,250 for every word in the notice of violation and you'll have an actual deterrent effect. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 10:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: West, TX explosion Just to take some of the sinister connotation out of a facility storing 270 tons or ammonium nitrate (fertilizer), that is only enough to do a single springtime application to about 900 acres of hay fields. Based on the amount of farming in the midsection of the U S, I'm betting there are many, many, and much bigger facilities scattered across rural America. Mark at Aero -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 10:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: West, TX explosion Todd - your numbers aren't exactly right, but there are definitely going to be some very compelling questions asked over the next few days and weeks. The plant had 270 tons of ammonium nitrate; Federal law states that you must make a declaration to Homeland Security if you keep over a ton. The company apparently did file a disaster plan with the EPA, but various reports hint that it was for an airborne release of anhydrous ammonia only, and hadn't been updated since 2011. It has also been reported that the company may have made declarations to state and local agencies, but this begs the question of why there wasn't a HSA declaration and whether or not the good-old-boys network was working to facilitate this local business keeping their ammonium nitrate storage under wraps, so to speak. Timothy McVeigh used approximately 2 tons of this stuff in OKC; 270 tons is a wee bit more than that. The family that owns this business is obviously in deep voodoo, as are the regulatory agencies that missed this - or worse, covered it up. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mackinnon Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: West, TX explosion OMG! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 12:09 PM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: West, TX explosion From reading the latest reports, the fertilizer facility in West, TX that exploded had 270 tons of ammonium nitrate on site. They had previously told authorities that they had nothing hazardous. They were required to file with DHS if they have more than 400 pounds on site and only exceeded that by 1350 times. (Don't forget, Timothy McVeigh used a lot of that at the OK City bombing). Obviously there is a problem at the management level. So when we evaluate facilities for sprinkler protection, how are people handling hazardous materials? As a PE, I will address it one way. If a contractor is looking at it in a design/build project, how is that being addressed? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org
Re: QA/QC Pipe Joining Procedures for DOE
Or ask if you could have a cc of a previously accepted one? File under freedom of info Sent from my iPhone On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Thanks, I'll check it out. Ron Fletcher Aero Phoenix -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 3:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: QA/QC Pipe Joining Procedures for DOE Should of known. More persnickety than NavFac. You know they have a list like this you access. Maybe you can get some guidance there. Ron Greenman ...On the phone On Jan 21, 2013, at 1:32 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: DOE = dept. or energy. A lack of skooling explains the spilling and grammar. Ron Fletcher Aero Phoneix -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: QA/QC Pipe Joining Procedures for DOE Spelling issues? Grammar? If acceptable to NavFac (persnickety bastards at best) what else could be objectionable besides your erudition to the department of Education? [?] On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 AM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Does anyone have a Quality Control/Assurance program (paper work) that has been accepted by DOE? The stuff we have used for COE, GSA and NAVFAC projects has been rejected. Thanks in advance, Ron Fletcher Aero Phoenix ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta chments/20130121/4891303a/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 329.png Type: image/png Size: 628 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta chments/20130121/4891303a/attachment.png ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Wet tents drying at 45'
Hung from two corners and suspended vertically Fresh out of a washing machine. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wet tents drying at 45' Are the tent wet with water only or are there cleaning solutions involved? Are they hung vertically like a shirt or would they be hung by 4 corners, creating an obstruction to discharge? At 03:13 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: Tent drying is a separately walled off area with insulated panels and temperature control. I'm assuming there will be some supports below the BA Fans (20' circumference) so there's something to hang the tents from. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 7:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wet tents drying at 45' Open floor plan? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Wet tents drying at 45' Ok. 2007 #13, steel joist noncombustible construction, and qualify someone has BA Fan interlock off WFS. Glc Sent from my iPhone On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:17 PM, George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: Here's an unusual one. Tent rental firm, they have a 45' high bay with BA Fans and floor heat and a couple Unit heaters. They hoist them with wires and spread them out. Separate high piled rack storage outside this area, so fuel load is just what is hanging. Fire resistant canvass primarily, plus the fun of the window panels being a non expanded plastic. Any ideas? Glc Rowe Sprinkler Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Well, a flow switch is hardly an alarm check valve. if it will deform in forward flow it will deform in backward flow. It canot therefore be a check or one-way valve as it can't check flow in either direction. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: Dude! Show him the pictures in Figure A.8.16.1.1 (2007 edition, similar in 2010) It shows above the Alarm Check and the control valve. But then it also shows BELOW the Alarm Check and BELOW the DPV on a manifold. You show it AFTER a check and Under the Alarm valve just like the pictures in NFPA 13 Congrats, you win. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:57:21 -0500 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org From: t...@fpdc.com Subject: RE: FDC location with riser manifold That has basically been my argument. However, how do I convince him that a riser manifold is not an alarm valve? At 12:59 PM 12/28/2012, you wrote: 2013 edition 8.16.1.1.3.2A listed backflow prevention device shall be considered a check valve, and an additional check valve shall not be required. Your FDC is on the system side of the backflow/check valve. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Todd Williams [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC location with riser manifold I had an AHJ come back with a comment regarding a location of an FDC on a system I designed. The system has a single riser. The water main comes into the building approximately 1'-6 AFF. An elbow is installed and the backflow preventer is running horizontally parallel to the outside wall. The main turns vertical after the BFP and rises up at a riser manifold (not check) and on to the system. After the BFP, I called for a Tee with one outlet looking up and the other horizontal to the check and FDC. For design
RE: Wet tents drying at 45'
The tents are (likely) a vinyl-coated polyester scrim so, despite fire retardant coating, like FR coating on mattress covers, sounds like Group A Uncartoned (exposed) Unexpanded, whether hanging in the drying area or folded and stored in the double row rack storage area. For those that actually miss the fun of NFPA 231C, try FM DS 8-9. Brings back memories, except prelim calcs are easier with today's software and laptops. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:09 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wet tents drying at 45' George, I don't think there is an easy answer to this. The flame spread rating of the tent material would play a big part. Other operations in the space could play in to it. Adds up to a lot of stuff to consider. Sounds like it need a little engineering first. My guess from several hundred miles away would be at least OH2. Todd At 09:42 AM 1/3/2013, you wrote: Hung from two corners and suspended vertically Fresh out of a washing machine. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wet tents drying at 45' Are the tent wet with water only or are there cleaning solutions involved? Are they hung vertically like a shirt or would they be hung by 4 corners, creating an obstruction to discharge? At 03:13 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote: Tent drying is a separately walled off area with insulated panels and temperature control. I'm assuming there will be some supports below the BA Fans (20' circumference) so there's something to hang the tents from. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 7:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wet tents drying at 45' Open floor plan? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Wet tents drying at 45' Ok. 2007 #13, steel joist noncombustible construction, and qualify someone has BA Fan interlock off WFS. Glc Sent from my iPhone On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:17 PM, George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: Here's an unusual one. Tent rental firm, they have a 45' high bay with BA Fans and floor heat and a couple Unit heaters. They hoist them with wires and spread them out. Separate high piled rack storage outside this area, so fuel load is just what is hanging. Fire resistant canvass primarily, plus the fun of the window panels being a non expanded plastic. Any ideas? Glc Rowe Sprinkler Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Well, a flow switch is hardly an alarm check valve. if it will deform in forward flow it will deform in backward flow. It canot therefore be a check or one-way valve as it can't check flow in either direction. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: Dude! Show him the pictures in Figure A.8.16.1.1 (2007 edition, similar in 2010) It shows above the Alarm Check and the control valve. But then it also shows BELOW the Alarm Check and BELOW the DPV on a manifold. You show it AFTER a check and Under the Alarm valve just like the pictures in NFPA 13 Congrats, you win. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:57:21 -0500 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org From: t...@fpdc.com Subject: RE: FDC location with riser manifold That has basically been my argument. However, how do I convince him
RE: Ch 17 NFPA 13 (07ed)
Look at 2.3.6.5on pgs 52-53 of FM DS 8-9. One level IRAS at 5' OC and lower the roof storage height to whats shown. A lot easier to protect, and allows up to 20' clear. After 20', false ceiling, Equivalency FPE, etc. none of which are pretty. Assuming AHJ would allow specific FM DS criteria since 13 doesn't. I've rarely had a problem. Lots of solutions out there without the blessings of the 13 TC and the delay in getting adopted- both in the standard and in your hometown. Could u use ATTIC heads if you're under 1989 13 since they weren't out until 92? On basis of superior performance )vs SSU), itd be stupid to ignore a better answer. Ok, badge-heavy sound better than stoopid? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:58 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Ch 17 NFPA 13 (07ed) What happens when the clearance from the ceiling to storage exceeds 10ft for rack storage of plastic? Is this outside the scope of NFPA 13? Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection 262-784-7900 (w) 262-784-8401 (f) 414-349-0468 (cell) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130103/8f0de086/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Wet tents drying at 45'
Tent drying is a separately walled off area with insulated panels and temperature control. I'm assuming there will be some supports below the BA Fans (20' circumference) so there's something to hang the tents from. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 7:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wet tents drying at 45' Open floor plan? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Wet tents drying at 45' Ok. 2007 #13, steel joist noncombustible construction, and qualify someone has BA Fan interlock off WFS. Glc Sent from my iPhone On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:17 PM, George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: Here's an unusual one. Tent rental firm, they have a 45' high bay with BA Fans and floor heat and a couple Unit heaters. They hoist them with wires and spread them out. Separate high piled rack storage outside this area, so fuel load is just what is hanging. Fire resistant canvass primarily, plus the fun of the window panels being a non expanded plastic. Any ideas? Glc Rowe Sprinkler Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Well, a flow switch is hardly an alarm check valve. if it will deform in forward flow it will deform in backward flow. It canot therefore be a check or one-way valve as it can't check flow in either direction. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: Dude! Show him the pictures in Figure A.8.16.1.1 (2007 edition, similar in 2010) It shows above the Alarm Check and the control valve. But then it also shows BELOW the Alarm Check and BELOW the DPV on a manifold. You show it AFTER a check and Under the Alarm valve just like the pictures in NFPA 13 Congrats, you win. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:57:21 -0500 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org From: t...@fpdc.com Subject: RE: FDC location with riser manifold That has basically been my argument. However, how do I convince him that a riser manifold is not an alarm valve? At 12:59 PM 12/28/2012, you wrote: 2013 edition 8.16.1.1.3.2A listed backflow prevention device shall be considered a check valve, and an additional check valve shall not be required. Your FDC is on the system side of the backflow/check valve. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Todd Williams [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC location with riser manifold I had an AHJ come back with a comment regarding a location of an FDC on a system I designed. The system has a single riser. The water main comes into the building approximately 1'-6 AFF. An elbow is installed and the backflow preventer is running horizontally parallel to the outside wall. The main turns vertical after the BFP and rises up at a riser manifold (not check) and on to the system. After the BFP, I called for a Tee with one outlet looking up and the other horizontal to the check and FDC. For design reasons, this has a significant advantage. The AHJ's contention is that the BFP needs to be taken off above the manifold because that is what is says in NFPA 13. Section 8.16.2.4.2 (1) states it shall be installed on the system side of the system control, check and alarm valves. His contention is that it says a riser manifold is an alarm valve, which requires the FDC to be taken off above. My contention is that since it is not a check valve, then it doesn't make a d i fference if it is above or below. The AHJ is an NFPA 13 fundamentalist and if it is not in there, it isn't the truth. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com
Wet tents drying at 45'
Here's an unusual one. Tent rental firm, they have a 45' high bay with BA Fans and floor heat and a couple Unit heaters. They hoist them with wires and spread them out. Separate high piled rack storage outside this area, so fuel load is just what is hanging. Fire resistant canvass primarily, plus the fun of the window panels being a non expanded plastic. Any ideas? Glc Rowe Sprinkler Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Well, a flow switch is hardly an alarm check valve. if it will deform in forward flow it will deform in backward flow. It canot therefore be a check or one-way valve as it can't check flow in either direction. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: Dude! Show him the pictures in Figure A.8.16.1.1 (2007 edition, similar in 2010) It shows above the Alarm Check and the control valve. But then it also shows BELOW the Alarm Check and BELOW the DPV on a manifold. You show it AFTER a check and Under the Alarm valve just like the pictures in NFPA 13 Congrats, you win. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:57:21 -0500 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org From: t...@fpdc.com Subject: RE: FDC location with riser manifold That has basically been my argument. However, how do I convince him that a riser manifold is not an alarm valve? At 12:59 PM 12/28/2012, you wrote: 2013 edition 8.16.1.1.3.2A listed backflow prevention device shall be considered a check valve, and an additional check valve shall not be required. Your FDC is on the system side of the backflow/check valve. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Todd Williams [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC location with riser manifold I had an AHJ come back with a comment regarding a location of an FDC on a system I designed. The system has a single riser. The water main comes into the building approximately 1'-6 AFF. An elbow is installed and the backflow preventer is running horizontally parallel to the outside wall. The main turns vertical after the BFP and rises up at a riser manifold (not check) and on to the system. After the BFP, I called for a Tee with one outlet looking up and the other horizontal to the check and FDC. For design reasons, this has a significant advantage. The AHJ's contention is that the BFP needs to be taken off above the manifold because that is what is says in NFPA 13. Section 8.16.2.4.2 (1) states it shall be installed on the system side of the system control, check and alarm valves. His contention is that it says a riser manifold is an alarm valve, which requires the FDC to be taken off above. My contention is that since it is not a check valve, then it doesn't make a d i fference if it is above or below. The AHJ is an NFPA 13 fundamentalist and if it is not in there, it isn't the truth. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121228/9e009fd0/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405
Re: Wet tents drying at 45'
Ok. 2007 #13, steel joist noncombustible construction, and qualify someone has BA Fan interlock off WFS. Glc Sent from my iPhone On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:17 PM, George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: Here's an unusual one. Tent rental firm, they have a 45' high bay with BA Fans and floor heat and a couple Unit heaters. They hoist them with wires and spread them out. Separate high piled rack storage outside this area, so fuel load is just what is hanging. Fire resistant canvass primarily, plus the fun of the window panels being a non expanded plastic. Any ideas? Glc Rowe Sprinkler Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Well, a flow switch is hardly an alarm check valve. if it will deform in forward flow it will deform in backward flow. It canot therefore be a check or one-way valve as it can't check flow in either direction. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo prodesigngr...@msn.com wrote: Dude! Show him the pictures in Figure A.8.16.1.1 (2007 edition, similar in 2010) It shows above the Alarm Check and the control valve. But then it also shows BELOW the Alarm Check and BELOW the DPV on a manifold. You show it AFTER a check and Under the Alarm valve just like the pictures in NFPA 13 Congrats, you win. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:57:21 -0500 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org From: t...@fpdc.com Subject: RE: FDC location with riser manifold That has basically been my argument. However, how do I convince him that a riser manifold is not an alarm valve? At 12:59 PM 12/28/2012, you wrote: 2013 edition 8.16.1.1.3.2A listed backflow prevention device shall be considered a check valve, and an additional check valve shall not be required. Your FDC is on the system side of the backflow/check valve. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Todd Williams [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC location with riser manifold I had an AHJ come back with a comment regarding a location of an FDC on a system I designed. The system has a single riser. The water main comes into the building approximately 1'-6 AFF. An elbow is installed and the backflow preventer is running horizontally parallel to the outside wall. The main turns vertical after the BFP and rises up at a riser manifold (not check) and on to the system. After the BFP, I called for a Tee with one outlet looking up and the other horizontal to the check and FDC. For design reasons, this has a significant advantage. The AHJ's contention is that the BFP needs to be taken off above the manifold because that is what is says in NFPA 13. Section 8.16.2.4.2 (1) states it shall be installed on the system side of the system control, check and alarm valves. His contention is that it says a riser manifold is an alarm valve, which requires the FDC to be taken off above. My contention is that since it is not a check valve, then it doesn't make a d i fference if it is above or below. The AHJ is an NFPA 13 fundamentalist and if it is not in there, it isn't the truth. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121228/9e009fd0/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum
Re: advice
I can see a case for libel, too. Even if not pursued, watch the look on the supervisors face when mentioned. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 14, 2012, at 8:40 AM, craig.pr...@ch2m.com craig.pr...@ch2m.com wrote: Referred to Law enforcement, really? Because someone said something bad about someone? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 7:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: advice Colleagues. That sort of behavior is unacceptable and should be referred to law enforcement. There are plenty of good ahj's out there that remain objective and impartial . When we don't know something we ask for clarification from the applicant. Most respond with additional documentation to support compliance resulting in permits being issued. That's why its imperative that plan review and inspection only be performed by qualified impartial and independent persons. Last but not least, a suggestion to the industry ;-) would be to standardize documentation so that PR's and Inspectors don't have to hunt around for stuff. We have applicants who's documentation includes actual code cites and details for significant items such as coverage, obstructions, fire rated construction, hangers, bracing, bfp etc. It makes the review that much easier because it demonstrates to the reviewer that code requirements were consulted. Food for thought. John Drucker - Mobile Email - Original Message - From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Fri Dec 14 06:25:46 2012 Subject: RE: advice I, too had an experience like this I shared here some years ago. Turned out the FD plan reviewer had a competitor friend look at the plans for him and he bled all over them with little or no reason for his comments. All out of spite for losing the work. When I took them to the State Fire Marshall's Office and asked for a second review they must have spoken to him because he called and said he needed a 'revised' set for review. I made one change from all the original comments (moved the dry sidewalls from the side wall of the garage to the rear side to 'avoid' an open garage door) and mailed them to him. Long story short, he had no knowledge of design or hydraulics but what his buddy told him and held up a subdivision for 2 months. I passed on the remaining buildings. TD -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:35 AM To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: advice Probably already been done. At 12:09 PM 12/13/2012, you wrote: #@* !#@% ^%$* !@#$@#$ Might be a good start? LOL. Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of ParsleyConsulting Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:57 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: advice I have to admit I'm completely at a loss for how to respond to a written review comment a friend of mine received yesterday. It read as follows: The person that ran the hydraulic calculations has obviously not been trained to use the program and is not knowledgeable in sprinkler system design. As you might well imagine he's quite upset. Anyone have advice on how to proceed? -- PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.nete-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.comwebsite ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
RE: 20 PSI Minimum
I recently went to size a break tank where a strong supply nearly met the flow requirements and a pump was a given. Since you need to have a refill rate equal to 110% of the system demand, and we didn't, there wasn't any point in pursuing it. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 3:13 PM To: FORUM Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum The requirement is part of the Clean Water Act and has been mandated as part of Federal Law. It is adopted and enforced by every US State's EPA (or equivalent). You can draw the pressure in potable water supplies below 20 psi but then you must issue a boil order and provide evidence that the weater is not contaminated. There are some VERY hefty fines associated with non-compliance. And to Ron's point, not everyone enforces the rules so heavily.. The pressure limiting devices (PLD's) that throttle work very well for such circumstances. So Tim, if your system's calculated demand flow would draw the city water supply in the street to a pressure below 20 psi, you'll need to weigh the cost of a PLD or a tank (or find a way to get the demand flow down!) It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! From: g...@rowesprinkler.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:48 -0500 Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum The surprise comes to those of us on the outside who aren't familiar with the local rules and regulations. Boy, there are many of us who have learned this one the hard way, even despite due diligence. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum If the water department mandate is to not allow the municipal supply to drop below 20 psi the FD has no choice but to comply and bring in tankers if necessary. This was the plan for a project we had about three years ago where this very requirement was in place. The FD knew of the water purveyor's 20 psi requirement and had a contingency plan for areas of the municipality where the water supply was weak. This is typically not a surprise to the FD and the water dept. The surprise comes to those of us on the outside who aren't familiar with the local rules and regulations. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum So in this situation, should the responding fire company stop boosting the FDC from a hydrant at 19 PSI? None that I know would stop. Mark at Aero -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum Are we talking a low suction cut-off, but of the supply NOT suction to a pump? I suppose the water co wouldn't want the pressure to go below 20, but it flies in the face of all we stand for to have a shut-off inserted for stopping the operation of the sprinkler system if the supply pressure is below 20 PSI. You could save a lot of first floor lives with 20 PSI. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:34 PM To: sprinklerforum
RE: 20 PSI Minimum
Are we talking a low suction cut-off, but of the supply NOT suction to a pump? I suppose the water co wouldn't want the pressure to go below 20, but it flies in the face of all we stand for to have a shut-off inserted for stopping the operation of the sprinkler system if the supply pressure is below 20 PSI. You could save a lot of first floor lives with 20 PSI. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 20 PSI Minimum Hello Timothy, This is the first post I've seen on 20 psi minimum. Can you give me more details on this? Thanks, Owen Evans -Original Message- From: Timothy W Goins tgo...@rgv.rr.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 9:23 am Subject: 20 PSI Minimum How are others addressing the 20 PSI minimum operating pressures of the fire sprinkler system? Here is a quote from a spec that I have received. The fire protection systems shall not be designed to operate if the residual pressure of the existing water service falls to 20 psi or lower at design flow requirements. Timothy W Goins A T Services For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;. KJV Romans 1:16 Reply to mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121112/9c2eef0f/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121112/3adace85/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: 20 PSI Minimum
The surprise comes to those of us on the outside who aren't familiar with the local rules and regulations. Boy, there are many of us who have learned this one the hard way, even despite due diligence. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum If the water department mandate is to not allow the municipal supply to drop below 20 psi the FD has no choice but to comply and bring in tankers if necessary. This was the plan for a project we had about three years ago where this very requirement was in place. The FD knew of the water purveyor's 20 psi requirement and had a contingency plan for areas of the municipality where the water supply was weak. This is typically not a surprise to the FD and the water dept. The surprise comes to those of us on the outside who aren't familiar with the local rules and regulations. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum So in this situation, should the responding fire company stop boosting the FDC from a hydrant at 19 PSI? None that I know would stop. Mark at Aero -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum Are we talking a low suction cut-off, but of the supply NOT suction to a pump? I suppose the water co wouldn't want the pressure to go below 20, but it flies in the face of all we stand for to have a shut-off inserted for stopping the operation of the sprinkler system if the supply pressure is below 20 PSI. You could save a lot of first floor lives with 20 PSI. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 20 PSI Minimum Hello Timothy, This is the first post I've seen on 20 psi minimum. Can you give me more details on this? Thanks, Owen Evans -Original Message- From: Timothy W Goins tgo...@rgv.rr.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 9:23 am Subject: 20 PSI Minimum How are others addressing the 20 PSI minimum operating pressures of the fire sprinkler system? Here is a quote from a spec that I have received. The fire protection systems shall not be designed to operate if the residual pressure of the existing water service falls to 20 psi or lower at design flow requirements. Timothy W Goins A T Services For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;. KJV Romans 1:16 Reply to mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121112/9c2eef0f/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121112/3adace85/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo
RE: Project Specifications
If we were writing Code, someone would have yelled out Undefinable and we wouldn't have put it in the document. If the firm issuing this is competent, I don't see a problem. They're just as frustrated trying to educate some unwashed contractors as we are in trying to educate some plumbing PEs with fatal errors in their docs. If they're not a competent FPE house, then RLH. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 10:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Project Specifications Or perhaps less than normal assistance can be billed extra. I asked for a small soda at the Burger King. I was informed that they didn't have have small, only large and regular. I asked what size regular was and was told it's like a medium. So I said, Then that would be between a large and a small size? She replied yes. I said well then I want the small one regular is bigger than. She said regular was the smallest they had. I don't know of any manuals instructing contractors to bury the job ib RFIs, and so I'll accept that they exist on David's word, but what's excessive? We have a Sesame Street predicament here. On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Bruce Verhei bver...@comcast.net wrote: Another way to view this is that words should not be interpreted to have a ridiculous meaning. That excessive assistance will be back charged makes clear that normal amount of assistance will not be back charged. Bv Sent from my Motorola ATRIXT 4G on ATT -Original message- From: Failla, Daniel fail...@charleston-sc.gov To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 14:36:58 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: Project Specifications So are Architects/General Contractor going to start back charging for RFI's? I have had projects with 8 RFI's because of issues with the bid documents and the classic statement on the drawing, Contractor shall not deviate without written approval. Dan Failla Our Town Fire Sprinkler Designs Charleston, SC FMO -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Project Specifications Found something new in a FP spec that I think is worth sharing. Spec's are copyrighted by a nationally known FP consultant. Excessive assistance provided by the Architect/General Contractor to the Contractor, at the Contractor's request, shall be at cost to the Contractor, via back charge, ... And it goes on to say that just because they charged for the assistance it doesn't imply direction or approval. It's odd that there is no Excessive Interference clause. Ron Fletcher Aero - Phoenix ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20121106/0ba4ae81/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121106/6ec0ff8d/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Project Specifications
Life would be simpler if 90% of the bid docs we get weren't completely silent beyond meet code or contained fatal errors. My favorite is when they fluff out their notes with snippets of #13, like specifying the MRA, say .1/1500. Oh- so if there's unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces we don't need to go to 3,000 SF? And we can't take the remote area reduction? How does THAT benefit the Owner? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Project Specifications While I understand what David and some others are saying about excessive RFI's from incompetent sprinkler companies etc I believe that your post points out what most of know to be true the majority of the time Most RFI's are created by sprinkler companies needing information that wasn't provided by the A/E team for us to do a proper design. The implication that I get when I read that phrase is ... you figure it out don't bother me with it or I am going to charge you for my time. Reminds me of the stuff we see often where the typical warehouse building has 30 sidewalls and the documents say to sprinkler per NFPA yet we have no idea how or what is being stored. Also, I am trying to figure out how slowing the job down increases profit? Kinda always thought the opposite was usually true... Rod at Rapid -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Project Specifications Found something new in a FP spec that I think is worth sharing. Spec's are copyrighted by a nationally known FP consultant. Excessive assistance provided by the Architect/General Contractor to the Contractor, at the Contractor's request, shall be at cost to the Contractor, via back charge, ... And it goes on to say that just because they charged for the assistance it doesn't imply direction or approval. It's odd that there is no Excessive Interference clause. Ron Fletcher Aero - Phoenix ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Sodium Silicate
Triggers an RPZ Plugs heads Need much more? Turns to glass when exposed to air, hence the sealing action. Imagine cross connection and a resident drinks it. That, my friend, is the type of negligence that pierces the corporate veil and puts you where you belong. Not using it is a noo-brainer. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of njarendt tds.net Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sodium Silicate Several reasons Sodium silicate is a white powder that is readily soluble in water, producing an alkaline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline solution. It is one of a number of related compounds which include sodium orthosilicatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthosilicate, Na4SiO4, sodium pyrosilicatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrosilicateaction=editredlink=1, Na6Si2O7, and others. All are glassy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassy, colourless and dissolve in water. Sodium silicate is stable in neutral http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH and alkaline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline solutionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution. In acidic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidic solutions, the silicatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicateion reacts with hydrogen ions to form silicic acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicic_acid, which when heated and roasted forms silica gel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel, a hard, glassy substance. The absence in the US of mandatory aging tests, whereby PFP systems are made to undergo system performance tests *after* the aging and humidity exposures, are at the root of the continued availability, in North Americahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America, of PFP products that can become inoperable within weeks of installation. Norm On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:08 AM, tcf...@bellsouth.net tcf...@bellsouth.netwrote: Stops up drops and heads. It will collect in low points also and cause obstruction. Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint - Reply message - From: JSM Fire Pro jsm...@cableone.net To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Sodium Silicate Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 11:48 PM Why does NFPA 13 not permit this additive for fire sprinkler systems? Thanks in advance. J. Scott Mitchell, PE ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20121031/6d0f685f/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- *If You See Something Suspicious Say Something! 1-866-HLS-TIPS.* Norman Arendt, CHS III, CMAS, PhD, CFEII President Infragard Madison Members Alliance Middleton Fire District Plan Reviewer and Investigator PCII and CVI Certified -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121031/4c02f53e/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Stainless Steel Pipe
What the other Sornsin brother called mini-dams a decade ago on this Forum. Being from Fargo, ND, and growing up the son of a sprinkler contractor, I'll assume he understands a bit about dry systems. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 8:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stainless Steel Pipe Brad, Could their reasoning be because with cut groove there isn't a bump in the pipe to potentially trap the small amount of water? I could see where they might think this would become a potential weak point corrosion issue later on. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stainless Steel Pipe I know George, and it is not illegal! Several years ago I tried to reason out why the Corp of Eng stopped allowing roll grooved galvanized-- I gave up and started asking sprinkler people-- the best I got was that roll grooving deforms the inside wall and the galv flakes off. A good fab shop would limit the problem by cleaning and spray galving the ends, but in the hustle-bustle of C.O.J. and field roll groove, the same amount of QC might not happen. Since we cannot cut groove thinwall, all galv for the Corps ends up S40. Are there any portable cut-groovers around anymore? -Original Message- From: George Church [mailto:g...@rowesprinkler.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stainless Steel Pipe There's a heckuva lot of roll grooved galv S10 installed in sprinkler systems. We have 7 miles of it in one freezer that comes to mind.with TriSeals, of course. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stainless Steel Pipe Great thanks-- exactly what I was wondering! Nobody wants any 'stainless flakes' clogging up their concentrate lines :) -Original Message- From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Stainless Steel Pipe Nope. It's stainless throughout the wall thickness. It's also more malleable than carbon steel so it roll grooves just fine. Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 05:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stainless Steel Pipe Thanks Mark. Assuming stainless is like galvanized, it should be Cut Grooved only? -Original Message- From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 11:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Stainless Steel Pipe Yes Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 03:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Stainless Steel Pipe Can S.S. pipe be grooved? 2, 2.5, 3, for foam concentrate. thanks, Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20121026/ed1e9faf/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org
RE: Stainless Steel Pipe
There's a heckuva lot of roll grooved galv S10 installed in sprinkler systems. We have 7 miles of it in one freezer that comes to mind.with TriSeals, of course. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stainless Steel Pipe Great thanks-- exactly what I was wondering! Nobody wants any 'stainless flakes' clogging up their concentrate lines :) -Original Message- From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Stainless Steel Pipe Nope. It's stainless throughout the wall thickness. It's also more malleable than carbon steel so it roll grooves just fine. Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 05:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stainless Steel Pipe Thanks Mark. Assuming stainless is like galvanized, it should be Cut Grooved only? -Original Message- From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 11:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Stainless Steel Pipe Yes Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 03:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Stainless Steel Pipe Can S.S. pipe be grooved? 2, 2.5, 3, for foam concentrate. thanks, Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20121026/ed1e9faf/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: trip time per nfpa 25
Fortunately for us, it's been when our inspector is there wondering why 80 PSI and zero air doesn't raise the clapper. And the time the DPV acted with smart logic- somehow it knew the attic low point wasn't drained, so when it broke, the DPV didn't trip and cause all that nasty water damage. We've replaced 4 of them so far. There's a special lube you get to apply to the actuator pin, and in areas of hard water like here, this might need to occur quarterly. PIA for our techies, can't think a maintenance guy would do it. And since they pay us to come in annually, and Vic wouldn't pay for the other three trips, we wrote em a letter advising of the local water problem. Wasn't important enough to them to pay us and lube (building went into the Bank by default) but it was important for us to note it and make the offer. That low air pressure may help it trip faster, but it may well increase transit times. For max performance, I like the 4 second elec accel trip and a higher residual air supply preventing water from filling toward non-flowing pipes. Made some huge volume systems work quickly when you wouldn't have thought it would work at all. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Richard Mote Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: trip time per nfpa 25 Was it a Victaulic #756 or #768? Look closely at the differential piston if it is a #756 some time they stick. Richard L. Mote ET NICET Cert. No. 067611 Designer Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. 7993 Route 522, Suite 1 P.O. Box 407 Middleburg, PA 17842 P 570.837.7647 F 570.837.6335 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Key Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: trip time per nfpa 25 Very good feedback. This system was installed in 2006 and is a Victaulic dpv. We have none of the original acceptance test paperwork but would make an assumption that it would have passed then. It appears to be a small system. Mike ,you are right about the by-pass line as it appears that there is not one installed. Air Compressor is in a hidden crawl space below the floor. My thought was that something has restricted the air release in the inspectors test but have not taken it apart. Thanks for everyones help C.Gregg Key, SET Key Fire Protection Services,Inc Project Manager (O) 706-790-3473 (C) 706-220-8821 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Cabral Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Cc: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: trip time per nfpa 25 I would check to make sure that the air supply to the DPV is working as it should. The time to trip should never be that long. Is the by-pass open? Sounds like the make-up air is supplying to much air. The make up air needs to be restricted. The supply line to the Inspectors Test can be larger than 1 it can't be less than 1 however the standard does no say it can't be larger than 1. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Todd Letterman tletter...@haifire.com wrote: It is also not going to trip or be severely delayed if there is a water column occurrence holding the clapper shut. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: trip time per nfpa 25 I don't believe their is any reference to how long is too long except in 13 (pre 2010) where a system of between 500 750 gallons is required to have a QOD if the water delivery time to the inspectors test exceeds 60 seconds. I think there is a presumption that a system of less than 500 gallons will trip in a timely manner, that over 750 gallons won't without a QOD, and that in between one is questionable. From there the one minute trip time came to be the conventional standard, although the book only referred to water delivery time after the trip occurred. In the 2010 edition times are specified. See section 7.2.3.6 Dry Pipe System Water Delivery. Although entitled as water delivery time it tells you that the delivery time countdown starts at normal air pressure which suggests pre-trip, tto the actual trip, and finishing with water at the test port. On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Gregg Key gr...@keyfps.com wrote: Our inspector ask an interesting question today. How long is too long of a time for a dry valve to
RE: K25 Standard Response Storage
So far as I know from a recent bid, that's it. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: K25 Standard Response Storage Found it. Victaulic LP46. Ron Fletcher Aero - Phoenix -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 8:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: K25 Standard Response Storage FM 8-9, Table 8, 40 ft. roof lists a K25 standard response head at 30 psi. K25 quick response (ESFR) requires 40 psi. Does anyone know which company makes a SR K25 Storage sprinkler? Thanks in advance. Ron Fletcher Aero - Phoenix ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Wood pellet manufacturing
But Todd- You're hired to just list the job? Do it. Can't see where that could possibly involve liability, but with the legal decisions one sees, I'd write a letter to the contractor you're listing for and note your concerns, list it, and send em an invoice. Think of all the NFPA 25 inspections that are on systems that you KNOW are wrong. Send concerns in a sep letter, and check the appropriate boxes without lifting a ceiling tile- cause you don't wanna know. And suppliers aren't required to do anything but fill the POs eve if they see a load of CPVC pipe go out with a 55 gal drum of premixed wrong AF. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jack C Kilavuz Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wood pellet manufacturing And grinding process will involve some metals parts (nails, metal bands, screws etc.) sparking over freshly ground sawdust blown with hot air in cyclones towards the dust collectors, as a side showexplosion detection and suppression may need to be considered I reckon. Sorry for my two-bobs worth. Cheers Jack -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Thursday, 18 October, 2012 3:53 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wood pellet manufacturing It's not al that cool, Brad. I have since found out that it is not pellets they are making. They take old pallets, grind them up and compress them in to bricks for burning (somewhere). The problem that a design was done by one of my competitors based on 16 ft storage of Class II commodities (solid stacks of lumber or plywood) and the fire marshal has accepted it. My client picked up the job and wants me to do the fabrication list from the Engineer's plans (the Engineer works for a competing contractor and is complete enough so you could actually do that, with minor modification). No need to do new plans because we have an accepted set of drawings, right? The problems I see are: 1) Pallet storage, 2) A grinding and separating process, most likely with dust collection, 3) Some kind of drying kiln, 4) Some kind of compressing with or without a combustible binder and 5) Storage of finished products. None of this, with the possible exception of #5, was addressed by the Engineer. Once these questions are answered, then the fun begins. At 09:36 AM 10/17/2012, you wrote: You get all the cool projects Todd! How often is it that the product we are protecting is meant to be burned? This means you have all the thermal properties required to determine the quantity and combustibility of the contents, AND the heat release rate! (~7500 btu/lb, 85% burning efficiency). If someone had not forgotten to attach numbers to low, moderate and high in NFPA 13 you would be almost done :) -Original Message- From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] [mailto:johnson...@mail.nih.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Wood pellet manufacturing Based on 5.4.1, I would start with EH1 for manufacturing area and Class III for storage area per 5.6.3. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Support Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Todd Williams [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Wood pellet manufacturing Spelling is correct. The pellets are for pellet stoves. At 07:37 PM 10/16/2012, you wrote: First thing, verify the spelling? If it is pellets, OH2 for the actual manufacturing area and OH4.5 and double the outside hose for the areas where they get bunched up awaitng shipment. What are they used for anyway, sling-shot amo? Quoting Todd Williams t...@fpdc.com: Any insight into protecting a wood pellet manufacturing facility? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
RE: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons
And I believe the Academy is certifying the inspectors in FL and other locales as an alternative to NICET. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Wagner Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons Bill, NICET has an excellent program for Sprinkler Inspectors and many states like North Carolina use this program for licensing of individual Inspectors and for licensing of Companies. George George Wagner Executive Director American Fire Sprinkler Association Virginia Chapter 4558 Sandy Valley Road Mechanicsville, Virginia 23111 Home-804-779-3921 Cell-804-514-3154 wagn...@mindspring.com www.afsavirginia.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons What are the qualifications for an NFPA 25 sprinkler system inspector? Seems pretty open ended to me. We routinely look for NICET qualifications for designers but what about the inspectors? I'm trying to establish a specification for NFPA 25 inspections and originally thought I'd say qualified persons per NFPA 25 but now I'm not so sure. Is there a NICET program focused on inspections? Thank you. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: 13R balcony protection
I suppose it's just since we apply the codes and standards as adopted so most AHJs don't know and don't care if we can model something or draw other conclusions than what they're reading in black and white, day in and day out. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: 13R balcony protection
Yup. Just that my priorities have changed and I don't do as much sprinkler work on weekends now. Got slapped upside the head with a new timetable. Knock yourself out, however- don't let life pass you by in the meantime. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 10:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 13R balcony protection Agree George-- I do not see how it could be otherwise. Expert witnesses for the prosecution and the defense both can prove whatever they want to using modeling :(. I use it to get a second opinion of what my gut is telling me, and for something enjoyable and fascinating to do home nights and weekends. I have used FDS far more for designing smoke exhaust and EVAC, than sprinkler models- also fascinating (to me) and more satisfying in that smoke control systems can be tested 'full scale' and not be destructive doing so. -Original Message- From: George Church [mailto:g...@rowesprinkler.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 7:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 13R balcony protection I suppose it's just since we apply the codes and standards as adopted so most AHJs don't know and don't care if we can model something or draw other conclusions than what they're reading in black and white, day in and day out. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Fire pump annual test
Pressure limiting device Governor on the diesel to lower speed at churn so as not to exceed 170 PSI discharge pressure. Used when the water supply exhibits relatively high static and low residual, and you need 170 at rated capacity. See NFPA 20 2003 for first invocation against using the main relief valve to truncate the water supply down into the retention pond. The #20 TC was afraid the main relief could stick open, and your FP water is running out the relief valve instead of discharging thru open sprinklers. Clarke makes a line of variable speed diesels rather than the single RPM conventionals. This particular one had variable pitch vanes in the turbo to meet emissions standards. Due to a limited # of offerings in the line, especially in the larger sizes, this was oversized by maybe 250 HP or so. No time to visit archives today. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 8:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Fire pump annual test on 2nd thought (calc), 65-70% is closer, I bet. 78% is 4500 @ 170. by the way, what does PLD stand for? Quoting bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com: George, 78% efficient at overload.. not too shabby! Do you recall the rated RPM? If I assume a 14 impeller diam. I get 2600 RPM. I thought about converting the 400 speed reduction to the pump room temperature rise but said nahhh.. it would be negligible against the 1st law of testosterone, Lol, brad ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Air Supply
But the cure (air leakage test performed every 3 years) is only cured when: a) its adopted b) its enforced. Parallel to when an EOR leaves boiler plate in his spec for compliance with the latest edition of a particular code or standard. Why would you penalize the Owner's wallet for compliance with a more stringent code or standard when the AHJ hasn't? If there's an exception or change that came into a later code, any sharp-eyed Forumite would know to ask if they could apply a more recent code or standard, and properly apply the entirety of that document, assuming a reasonable AHJ. We recently received a bid pkg for a nursing home retrofit that cited latest when PA's DOH, like all nationally as I understand it, have NO option but to enforce the 1999 edition of NFPA 13- and no trying to sneak in a later standard, it cannot be accepted because CMS, the funding authority and hammer behind the Aug 2013 nursing home mandate for fully sprinklered, accepts NOTHING but the 99 edition of 13 with whatever TIAs were issued as of the date of CMS adoption of the 2000 LSC invoking 99 #13. Currently we here in PA have no obligation other than risk management to comply with any of the string of NFPA directives on AF since they're not part of the PA Uniform Construction Code. And we recently saw a set of our competitor's dwgs as I mentioned then, dry system grid installed in the 2000 or so. Signed off by a NICET Level IV, just as the grocery store designed to the largest room (other than the sales area that was ignored) and had 2- 2 city connections ganged together into two Lowe's swing checks and a 3/4 boiler drain for a ITC and main drain. A whole 67 gallons a minute protected this grocery with light hazard spacing. I'll give em credit that they used QR sprinklers, but passing a test and applying the standards to a job are two different things. TGIF George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Air Supply If you use nitrogen (7.6.2.7) it now kicks you over to 7.2.6.5 (Automatic Air Maintenance). Must admit, I see no reason to use an air tank and plenty not to (as George already said). I'd say an air cylinder would be not different than a nitrogen cylinder when it comes to requiring an AMD. If you do not have a low pressure alarm, the pressure gauge has to be checked weekly instead of monthly. Now that dry pipe system have to have an air leakage test performed every 3 years, there shouldn't be any systems (or at least as many) needing a compressor running full time to keep it from tripping. Roland On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: Looking over a job where the EOR wants to use cylinders to supply the air for a dry system. There is plenty of power to the building so that's not the issue. They are showing lab air cylinders from both air (NC) and nitrogen (NO) into an AMD into the system. I get automatic air is not required. But I'm seeing NFPA 13 '12-7.2.6.5.1 limiting air supply when AUTOMATIC to dependable shop system or a compressor. I don't see bottles being allowed. Or that is to say I don't see bottles as being a dependable shop system. I assume some of you have done bottles for the air to a dry system? As I read you can have them if someone manually opens a valve and refills the system when needed? Of course this is even confusing. Is there something on a manual fill system that requires daily checking? Or are they relying on the low pressure alarm to note when time to refill? Actually, the low pressure alarm isn't even required, right, so are they waiting for a system trip to know when to add air? If manual is allowed isn't an AMD off a bottle a little better but not quite the full blown compressor? Why would they restrict the middle on the order of worst to best? Who wants to straighten me out 'cuz none of us here have ever seen bottles used on a system? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Air Supply
$ You've got a belt and suspenders cost for a customer who, by code, only needs one. And it didn't have to be the more expensive N2 version. So when presenting the idea of minimizing future corrosion, he's got the following, grabbing $ out of the air: 1. plant air- $600 for an AMD 2. Compressor- $1500 3. Bottle and HP AMD- $3000 4. Generator- 15000 5. Gen and bottle- $18,000 I'm seriously just trying to illustrate order of magnitude, anyone else doing bottles and generators now can chime in if I'm off by a factor of 5 or 10. But costs vary with system size etc. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Charles Thurston Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 11:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Air Supply Hello, Use bottled nitrogen for the 30 minute refill time and the nitrogen generator for the pressure maintenance of the system. Friday, October 5, 2012, 10:55:28 AM, you wrote: Ron, I requested a technical interpretation from NFPA for that exact question. My question was: NFPA 13, 2010, 7.2.6.2.2 states; The air supply shall have a capacity capable of restoring normal air pressure in the system within 30 minutes. It does not state that the system shall be restored to normal system pressure in 30 minutes. It states that the air supply shall be capable of restoring the system to normal pressure in 30 minutes. My question is, If you can prove through calculations that the air supply is capable of restoring normal pressure in 30 minutes, would it be acceptable to actually take longer than 30 minutes to restore normal pressure? The purpose for the delayed fill time would be to use a nitrogen generator as a pressure source instead of an air compressor. If an empty system was initially pressurized with nitrogen, that would eliminate the purging process that would be necessary if the system was first pressurized with air and then the air slowly replaced by nitrogen over time. This would help to slow any oxygen corrosion that might be initiated if the system was filled with air. Membrane type oxygen generators work by forcing air into a membrane that separates the nitrogen from the oxygen. The CFM output of a nitrogen generator is about 50% less than the CFM of the air compressor supplying the nitrogen generator. The nitrogen generator has a bypass loop so the system could be filled directly from the compressor if desired. This is similar to the fill and maintain modes of an Air Maintenance Device. Their response was: The intent of NFPA 13, 2010 edition §7.2.6.2.2 is to provide a guideline which will protect the owner of the system from someone installing an undersized compressor which would render systems out of service for elongated periods of time while increasing service costs. The compressor is not required to be listed, in fact - a compressor is not required. The compressed gas supply may be from a reliable plant air source or nitrogen tanks with a regulator. The committee intent is to have the system returned to service within the 30 minute timeframe - regardless of the source for compressed air or nitrogen. It is assumed that a nitrogen generator (or other approved compressed gas) will provide nitrogen over the subsequent hours of operation and replace the air used for initial charging. Regards, mike Mike Henke CET Sprinkler Product Manager 314-595-6740 direct mi...@pottersignal.com www.pottersignal.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Air Supply I'm curious where the 30 minute fill came from. Convenience to FDs? I'd certainly not want my highly paid and trained engine company hanging around for a couple of extra hours to watch the system fill. But if I'm likely have the service guy from the sprinkler company, or even my owned trained maintenance, hanging around, and I'm willing to pay for him to watch the paint dry, and I'm so concerned with my system as to have bought a nitrogen generator instead of using that nasty moisture holding air, why not ignore that code section? Or is the 30 minute rule there just because we needed a definitive time frame and 30 minutes sounded reasonable at the time? Or is there another, more compelling reason? Curious minds want to know. On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Tom Duross tduro...@comcast.net wrote: Most generators, if not all, have a nitrogen storage tank. The one I used put out 70 PSI requiring an AMD and we still had a riser mount air compressor
RE: Stupid closet question...
Small until you do a large complex and add 30% of the heads-OUCH! George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 12:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stupid closet question... Duane, Thanks for the excellent analysis and clear delineation of the small yet significant differences. Rod at Rapid -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 7:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stupid closet question... Based on NFPA 13, 2010 edition and NFPA 101, 2009 edition. Annex D is not part of the enforceable section of NFPA 13, unless a jurisdiction specifically adopts it (see section heading). In this case, Annex D is copied from NFPA 101, so if a jurisdiction adopts NFPA 101, it is enforceable from that perspective, but I would go do NFPA 101 directly, not Annex D of NFPA 13. As for the differences in requirements, per NFPA 101:1.2 the purpose of this code is to provide safety to life from fire while NFPA 13:1.2 has a purpose to provide a reasonable degree of protection for life and property. The two codes have slightly different purposes, hence they may have different design requirements for sprinklers. The committee agreed in the 2009 ROP to move NFPA 101 requirements to the Annex (see proposal 13-444). More importantly, the paragraphs you mention are for different occupancies. The exception from NFPA 13:8.15.8.2 to eliminate sprinklers in closets not exceeding 24 sq. ft. is for Hotels and Motels only. The exception from Annex D or NFPA 101:30.3.5.4 to exclude sprinklers in closets 12 sq. ft. or less is for New Apartments only. Interestingly, NFPA 101:31.3.5.4 permits the exclusion of sprinklers in closets not exceeding 24 sq. ft. for Existing Apartments. So, in reality, the NFPA 13 and Annex D references you cited do not contradict because they are for different occupancies. However, if you look at NFPA 101:29.3.5.5, Existing hotels and Dorms have the exception to exclude sprinklers in closets not exceeding 24 sq. ft. But this is for Existing Hotels and Dorms only, there is not an exception in NFPA 101 for New Hotels and Dorms. This is arguably a difference from NFPA 13 to NFPA 101. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Support Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Curtis Tower [mailto:cur...@centralfireprotection.net] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Stupid closet question... Of course, I was only speaking of adopted codes. I'm not familiar with all of the various code sets available for a jurisdiction to consider; however, the prevalent code set in Texas is IFC. IFC references NFPA 13 and 13R specifically for its installation requirements. What I was ultimately alluding to was that if a jurisdiction had adopted NFPA 101, then it appeared that closets 12s.f. could be omitted. This question came up from a chapter contained in NFPA 2007, Special Occupancy Requirements, Section 21.20.13.2.1. At the end of the sub-section NFPA 101, 30.3.5.4 was bracketed. It is my understanding that a fair amount within that chapter was erroneously included in the 2007 standard. Fast forward to the 2010 Edition, and it was moved to a new Annex D. I think this was to try to alleviate any confusion on what was required. Annex D was titled Sprinkler System Information from the 2009 Edition of the Life Safety Code. My understanding is that if the adopted cod e is anything other than NFPA 101, then the exceptions and omissions stated withing Annex D may and probably do not apply. Of course, I'm always open to debate. Curtis - Original Message - From: Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 6:26 PM Subject: Re: Stupid closet question... This is the conventional wisdom Curtis but I disagree. All model codes and standards are simply books until adopted, no matter what they are called. I'll use Washington as an example: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) stipulates there will be a building code. The Building Code itself derives from the International Building Code (currently the 2009 edition) and all the references and amendments as proposed by the State Building Code Council as submitted to the governor and adopted by the legislature. In its final form it is called the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter
RE: Air Supply
Mind sharing the system volume for that much generator $? You well know the volume range is huge, and with electronic accelerators now allowing reliably faster trip times, we've done some warehouse conversions that were monstrous. The one I'm thinking of had FM blessing, and a high pressure supply that got the delivery time needed, but I'm sure there are lots of other systems, and we've seen em especially in recycled old mill type buildings, where the Owner didn't want to pay for heat so there's a bunch of 8 risers with 6 DPVs. Not that an 8 would make any difference in delivery time in some low or medium pressure situations. Tick tick tick George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 4:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Air Supply George, the generator I bought with an autopurge valve for the line to the ITV, a sensor for checking N2 concentration, storage tank, was $6800. I'm gambling on limited data here that this 10K investment on a system will save my customer from having to replace 50K in pipe and fittings only 30 years old (30 years or less from now, not to mention the inconvenience, details, etc.). Bottles are cheap but I was leery about a couple of 5000 PSI bombs 20' from bedrooms. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 11:22 AM To: Charles Thurston; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Air Supply $ You've got a belt and suspenders cost for a customer who, by code, only needs one. And it didn't have to be the more expensive N2 version. So when presenting the idea of minimizing future corrosion, he's got the following, grabbing $ out of the air: 1. plant air- $600 for an AMD 2. Compressor- $1500 3. Bottle and HP AMD- $3000 4. Generator- 15000 5. Gen and bottle- $18,000 I'm seriously just trying to illustrate order of magnitude, anyone else doing bottles and generators now can chime in if I'm off by a factor of 5 or 10. But costs vary with system size etc. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Charles Thurston Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 11:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Air Supply Hello, Use bottled nitrogen for the 30 minute refill time and the nitrogen generator for the pressure maintenance of the system. Friday, October 5, 2012, 10:55:28 AM, you wrote: Ron, I requested a technical interpretation from NFPA for that exact question. My question was: NFPA 13, 2010, 7.2.6.2.2 states; The air supply shall have a capacity capable of restoring normal air pressure in the system within 30 minutes. It does not state that the system shall be restored to normal system pressure in 30 minutes. It states that the air supply shall be capable of restoring the system to normal pressure in 30 minutes. My question is, If you can prove through calculations that the air supply is capable of restoring normal pressure in 30 minutes, would it be acceptable to actually take longer than 30 minutes to restore normal pressure? The purpose for the delayed fill time would be to use a nitrogen generator as a pressure source instead of an air compressor. If an empty system was initially pressurized with nitrogen, that would eliminate the purging process that would be necessary if the system was first pressurized with air and then the air slowly replaced by nitrogen over time. This would help to slow any oxygen corrosion that might be initiated if the system was filled with air. Membrane type oxygen generators work by forcing air into a membrane that separates the nitrogen from the oxygen. The CFM output of a nitrogen generator is about 50% less than the CFM of the air compressor supplying the nitrogen generator. The nitrogen generator has a bypass loop so the system could be filled directly from the compressor if desired. This is similar to the fill and maintain modes of an Air Maintenance Device. Their response was: The intent of NFPA 13, 2010 edition §7.2.6.2.2 is to provide a guideline which will protect the owner of the system from someone installing an undersized compressor which would render systems out of service for elongated periods of time while increasing service costs. The compressor is not required to be listed, in fact - a compressor is not required. The compressed gas supply may
RE: Roof piping system
I'd think it would move similar to a deluge valve when the pumper hits it. How about hilti hdi-p drop-ins with rod up to riser clamps, with galv pipe nips over them. Allows maintain pitch. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 4:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Roof piping system Bidding on a repair to a dry standpipe system with underground supply that leaked below floor of an apartment building. Running the pipe through the hall way to 4 standpipes is particularly difficult. An option is to run galvanized pipe on the flat concrete roof to connect all 4 risers to one FDC. Pipe will be supported on blocks with grooved ells and tees. Does this pipe require restraint anchoring to the concrete roof deck? If so at what spacing? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5307 - Release Date: 10/03/12 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121003/72e7e791/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Fire pump annual test
I'd agree, but sometimes it isn't much. We had a 572 HP diesel for a 3,000 @ 170 PLD that dropped like 400 RPM from churn to 150% (4,500 GPM!!!) Limited selection in the big variable speed diesel drivers. Had to increase pumproom 2' in width to fit the testosterone in. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of djj8...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 2:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Fire pump annual test When testing a fire pump, pump speed ALWAYS drops with increased flow. In a message dated 10/3/2012 8:43:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com writes: Tom, let me back-up and try to benefit from your experience. The speed is not suppose to change, but it does, right? Years ago I helped a fitter with some annual tests-- no matter what the rating, we took all the readings at several (increasing) flow rates. I think I remember the speed dropping, if only slightly, otherwise why measure it more than once! It seems 'illegal' to not drop. BTW- good advice on not using the individual 2.5 valves to calibrate the flow- it is hard to forget having to use both hands, elbows and forearms to keep them from vibrating out of whack while being screamed at by an old.edu fitter, ankle deep in water, hung-over, no rubber boots or coffee, early morning, mid- November in Kansas :) -Original Message- From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 5:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire pump annual test Tom, I guess once we equate what goes out of the tachometer with what goes into the thermometer, the speed does not change-- the magic of the second law of thermodynamics! (or, as you put it-- 'Pump affinity'). Quoting Tom Duross tduro...@comcast.net: Brad, we measure rpm as a means of adjusting pressures to rated speed. These pumps are magic and speed is not supposed to change. Pump affinity. Also, when you have more than one pipe size difference between discharge and suction, you should adjust for velocity pressure (or read discharge after the increaser). ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121003/ff9da196/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Air Supply
First, why would you add air when the N2 alone is the cat's meow to minimize corrosion? Next, with an AMD it's an auto air supply until its empty. If they keep a spare bottle and there's a low air whistle, and you haven't installed a leaker, then they can change it when they come in for work the next day. That is like a dream dry sys air supply, you could even connect the reserve so if the one guy who knows how to do it is on vacation, they don't freeze the system. Someone could keep an eye on it, too- like if they have quarterlies... So you can tailor a setup that makes sense and is reliable and adds longevity. You can't account for every situation so I'm not going to try to address the code side. We used bottles to avoid an air compressor in explosion-proof rated areas. Back when the WMAG was the only alarm days. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matthew J. Willis Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 4:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Air Supply Guess I am confused now. 5.1 is Labeled Automatic. Do sections 7.2.6.2.1 2 apply? (07) 7.2.6.7 Nitrogen references you back to 5.1 Automatic... R/ Matt -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Air Supply Looking over a job where the EOR wants to use cylinders to supply the air for a dry system. There is plenty of power to the building so that's not the issue. They are showing lab air cylinders from both air (NC) and nitrogen (NO) into an AMD into the system. I get automatic air is not required. But I'm seeing NFPA 13 '12-7.2.6.5.1 limiting air supply when AUTOMATIC to dependable shop system or a compressor. I don't see bottles being allowed. Or that is to say I don't see bottles as being a dependable shop system. I assume some of you have done bottles for the air to a dry system? As I read you can have them if someone manually opens a valve and refills the system when needed? Of course this is even confusing. Is there something on a manual fill system that requires daily checking? Or are they relying on the low pressure alarm to note when time to refill? Actually, the low pressure alarm isn't even required, right, so are they waiting for a system trip to know when to add air? If manual is allowed isn't an AMD off a bottle a little better but not quite the full blown compressor? Why would they restrict the middle on the order of worst to best? Who wants to straighten me out 'cuz none of us here have ever seen bottles used on a system? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.commailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.comhttp://www.burnsmcd.com/ Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20121004/0e12d424/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators
Might be quicker to ask the specifying EOR where this is permited in #20 because you can't find it and you, and 600 of your sprinkler friends, have never seen it done. Might be a reason. Plus it might a-make him think b-make him look at #20 c-make him figure it out while you do something productive. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators We do a good share of pumps, doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. I would definitely run it by the pump representative and get their thoughts. Curious to see who is requiring this and how it shakes out. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators This does not sound like a good idea to me. After a cursory glance at 20, the Handbook, and a couple of others books I couldn't find anything to back up my gut opinion. I'm curious as to what others think and know. On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Gregg Key gr...@keyfps.com wrote: Formites and fire protection friends, Has anyone here ever installed an electric fire pump on these spring type isolators? We usually install them on a pad, but recently had someone require us to install on the isolators. Any help would be appreciated. C.Gregg Key, SET Key Fire Protection Services,Inc Project Manager (O) 706-790-3473 (C) 706-220-8821 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20121001/4b8a028c/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators
How much is a 10 x 96 long flex coupling? Well, two of them Any cost overruns could be covered by a quarter slot, mount a saddle to it (western) and hit the button! George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 5:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators Looks like someone did a cut and paste from a general mechanical spec and just painted it red for fire protection. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Key Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 5:48 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators Good input guys, I thought it was a cook book spec but needed some info to reply. BTW here is the actual spec section Mount fire pump(s) on vibration spring-type isolators. Provide hot dipped galvanized housings and neoprene coated springs. Minimum horizontal stiffness shall equal to 75 percent vertical stiffness with working deflection between 0.3 and 0.6 of maximum deflection. Provide with leveling devices with minimum 1/4 inch (6 mm) thick neoprene sound pads and zinc chromate plated hardware. 1. Sound Pads: Size for minimum deflection of 0.05 inch (1.2 mm) and meet requirements for neoprene pad isolators. 2. Restraint: Provide heavy mounting frame and limit stops. C.Gregg Key, SET Key Fire Protection Services,Inc Project Manager (O) 706-790-3473 (C) 706-220-8821 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 5:38 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators They're called vibration arresters and I can see where there will be alignment problems. Ask your pump supplier if he has a listed assembly that uses them, if not supply a letter indicating such to the EOR and a RFI for farther instructions. For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes... HCS Romans 1:16 On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Todd Williams t...@fpdc.com wrote: Lets think about this. The pump is going to be on springs and will be able to move up and down and side to side. When the pump starts, the impeller will rotate creating a torque. The torque will push down on some springs and lift up on others. Whereas the torque is usually absorbed by the pad, it will now be absorbed by the pipe and fittings attached to it (until the springs max out). I will be outside with a catcher's mitt to collect the flying debris. At 05:05 PM 10/1/2012, you wrote: Might be quicker to ask the specifying EOR where this is permited in #20 because you can't find it and you, and 600 of your sprinkler friends, have never seen it done. Might be a reason. Plus it might a-make him think b-make him look at #20 c-make him figure it out while you do something productive. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators We do a good share of pumps, doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. I would definitely run it by the pump representative and get their thoughts. Curious to see who is requiring this and how it shakes out. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators This does not sound like a good idea to me. After a cursory glance at 20, the Handbook, and a couple of others books I couldn't find anything to back up my gut opinion. I'm curious as to what others think and know. On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Gregg Key gr...@keyfps.com wrote: Formites and
RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement
I believe that's the intent of having 286*F in storage with less demanding criteria than 165*F. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement From a heat release aspect, and having had a somewhat recent furniture store fire nearby, I think you'll get hot enough fast enough to start popping heads very quickly. In fact I'd think that the 286 heads would be better at keeping the rings not really covering the fire from going off too soon. Not based on data mind you, just me thinking, and that's a dangerous course to steer by. On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.comwrote: Snake oil sales talk at its finest. I believe that part of the reasoning behind section 8.3.23 (new to the 2010 ed., BTW) was for applications such as this. I agree with you that replacement of the sprinklers is not required. Is the AHJ working from the 2010 edition or an earlier one - could that be the issue? Steve -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement Let's just say that I value the very broad base of experience you have amassed in working in the California market. :-) Mark at Aero -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement Just to clarify - are you lumping me into the set of professionals, or hoping that I know of one who can speak to this issue? SL -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement I have a Friday question for the forum, and maybe Roland is able to respond with some intent perspective. In a 27' high industrial spec building, we installed sprinkler heads rated at 286 degree. This was permitted, installed, inspected and approved. The owner now has a tenant lease which will build out the entire building as a retail furniture showroom, no ceiling and no storage. The local fire inspector is siting NFPA 2002 Edition section 8.3.2.2, Where maximum ceiling temperatures exceed 100 degrees F, sprinklers with temperature ratings in accordance with the maximum ceiling temperatures of Table 6.2.5.1 shall be used. , as a requirement to remove all the sprinklers in the building and replace them with 212 degree F sprinklers. My contention is that the next section, 8.3.2.3 High temperature sprinklers shall be permitted to be used throughout ordinary and extra hazard occupancies and as allowed in this standard and other NFPA codes and standards., allows the ex isting 286 degree sprinklers to remain and be in compliance with NFPA 13. What say the professionals, Roland, Steve, George, Ron, Rod, Anyone .? Mark at Aero ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
RE: galvanized to steel connections
Too late to make you r modifications and paint the whole thing red before calling for inspection? Doubt any of us are providing a blast finish onsite. Letter from Allied on XL and black? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 4:58 PM To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Subject: galvanized to steel connections If zinc reacted with steel wouldn't it occur on galvanized pipe itself as well. Zinc does react with steel, and that is the precise method by which it is used to protect the steel. The zinc is the 'white knight' that falls on its sword to save the steel. However, if the steel is hermetically sealed in a film of zinc, then there is no physical motivation for the sacrifice, because the complete circuit has not been 'set up.' When there is a complete film of zinc, there is no electrolyte (usually water) to act as one of the 'wires ' that carry current in a completed circuit. In the real world, pipe is not always unloaded from the truck, let alone shipped to the distributor from the foundry, with actions taken with consideration that the zinc needs to treated with kid gloves to maintain its hermetically sealed status. While the steel doesn't have to be * hermetically* sealed, the fewer imperfections, the less the zinc has to work at sacrificing. When the breaks in the zinc film are small (~ 2 mm) and there is water over/in/on the break, the zinc does what the zinc is supposed to do -- react by corroding away into the water as the cation in a newly dissolved salt. But as the breaks in the zinc become bigger it gets more and more difficult for the zinc on the perimeter-of-the-break to effectively protect the steel pipe furthest from this zinc. In the case of the questioner, there obviously is a 'substantial break' in the zinc film occuring at the zinc-steel pipe union. Zinc will corrode on that interface, if there is water present. This is where a well cleaned and painted steel surface comes in (my bad for not mentioning earlier that sandblasting a zinc coating is probably not the best design that has been offered up). A painted steel surface prevents (ideally) the water from acting as the necessary-and-previously-missing-wire that completes the galvanic cell circuitry. Now, new evidence has been introduced. We now know the steel-zinc interface occurs indoors. While an indoor steel-zinc interface may appear to be better than an outdoor steel-zinc interface, unfortunately, nuances and devilish details enter here that keep corrosion engineers busier than fitters. Steel-zinc interfaces outdoors in Yellowknife, NWT are usually quite dry, because water freezes out of the air up there. Corrosion in Yellowknife, is relatively slow. Outdoors at Dead Horse Point, UT is not very corrosive either, not because it is cold, but because it again, is so dry. Depending upon where your 'indoors' is located with respect to outdoors, you could have very ripe conditions for accelerated corrosion. Consider air conditioning in a St. Louey, MO office in late August (I think they used to offer tropical pay to foreign consulars there). As the A/C drops the air temperature down to its dew point, that water vapor is going to last as long as cross at a KKK convention if a sprinkler pipe is around to absorb heat from its condensation. If you want examples of steel-zinc corrosion happening indoors, I can refer you to the man who can provide you that photo forum. While it does not make for inspiring, charismatic or a reassuring FOX news interview , the answers to corrosion remains: 'Not if, but when'. And if 'when', then that depends. scot deal excelsior fire -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120928/17335134/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement
You can lead an AHJ to water but you can't make him think. Or see what you think is obvious. Might want to print out responses from the Forum and show him what your peers say and cite (save this for when he still says No). George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement All said and done, I think it's pretty clear that the intent is to allow the use of those sprinklers. SL From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 11:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement The 2002 version of 8.3.2.3 differs from 2010 only by the inclusion of intermediate temp in the text. The store will be display in room style settings, no storage. The roof is at 27 feet and is a panelized wood structure with open web wood joist on 8' centers, and I agree with you on the benefit of the 286* F sprinklers providing better performance. Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement At home this morning and don't have the 2002 NFPA 13 laying around, but it may be that if the older standard doesn't include the conditional application granted in 8.3.2.3 (2010 ed.) then he or she is holding you to the letter of the 2002. You might want to point out that the intent of any TC can generally be found in the latest edition of a standard. When you say furniture retail, is this going to be a showroom only, with the sales floor done up as rooms for display only? Or will there be an area for storage as well, and what fire load overall do you anticipate? Seems to me that even a moderate load of furniture can still generate a pretty high release of energy and the 286 sprinklers (as Ron mentioned, I think) may well respond more symettrically. What is the height of the deck above and what's it framed with? SL From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 5:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement What we have is High temp heads installed in an ordinary hazard occupancy. I believe 8.3.2.3 does explicitly allow this. The inspector has a different opinion. My position is 8.3.2.3 doesn't leave room for opinions, and wasn't intended to! Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Bruce Verhei [mailto:bver...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement Mark My understanding of this is to ensure that ordinary temp heads are replaced with at least intermediate heads are installed to prevent head operation in absence of a fire. Bv Sent from my Motorola ATRIX(tm) 4G on ATT -Original message- From: Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 22:40:08 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement as Todd already said, it is explicitly allowed by 8.3.2.3 unless the AHJ is trying to call it a light hazard occupancy. Roland On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, mphe...@aerofire.com mphe...@aerofire.com wrote: I have a Friday question for the forum, and maybe Roland is able to respond with some intent perspective. In a 27' high industrial spec building, we installed sprinkler heads rated at 286 degree. This was permitted, installed, inspected and approved. The owner now has a tenant lease which will build out the entire building as a retail furniture showroom, no ceiling and no storage. The local fire inspector is siting NFPA 2002 Edition section 8.3.2.2, Where maximum ceiling temperatures exceed 100 degrees F, sprinklers with temperature ratings in accordance with the maximum ceiling temperatures of Table 6.2.5.1 shall be used. , as a requirement to remove all the sprinklers in the building and replace them with 212 degree F sprinklers. My contention is that the next section, 8.3.2.3 High temperature sprinklers shall be permitted to be used throughout ordinary and extra hazard occupancies and as allowed in this standard and other NFPA codes and standards., allows the existing 286 degree sprinklers to remain
RE: Excellent comments from a smart guy
If it's a low ceiling, and you can get max 7' storage in it or less, OH1? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Excellent comments from a smart guy Not to prolong the prolongation but ... Galen's comments were based in part on CA amendments, so like much of what we discuss here in the forum, there isn't necessarily one global solution. I'm not sure as to what other states may do, but generally the applicability of 13R is governed by construction type and whether or not the sprinklers are counted as a substitution or not. Once common miss is that 13R systems are used (or proposed) in buildings taking an additional story and the building code says you can't do that, it must be 13. As to the specifics of the thread, you are - of course - technically correct in that you pick a design basis and stay with it. But in the case of this basement I'm still not understanding of the compartmentalization or reduction in density issues that have been raised. Whether the BOD is 13R or 13 is irrelevant: it's an area outside the dwelling unit, it's not misc. storage (an accessory use) it's GENERAL storage (a dedicated use) and every way I look at it the design comes back to OH2 per NFPA 13. The foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the opinion or intent of the NFPA 13D/13R Technical Committee on Residential Sprinkler Systems. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Excellent comments from a smart guy Not to prolong this discussion, but... Basement Storage in Multi-Residential: According to the Building ode the common storage area located in the basement of a Group R-2 multi-residential building such as apartments or condos would be a Group -1 occupancy which must be separated from the R-2 by one-hour fire barriers. While the R-2 may be protected by a 13R system, the S-1 must e protected by a full 13 system. Isn't it more accurate to say that given the S-1 occupancy in the basement, and R-2 on the floors above, the system is to be designed to NFPA 13R, with the storage areas getting their protection criteria from NFPA 13? The point being: you don't design a building to both NFPA 13 and 13R. It sounds like semantics, but it more than that because being part of a larger NFPA 13R building, that storage area does NOT necessitate all of the design requirements of NFPA 13. Mark A. Sornsin, PE| Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc.| Fargo, ND mark.sorn...@ulteig.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Basements storage in multiple dwellings
There are some exceptions for storage areas that are broken into maybe 500 SF max areas being allowed to bbe .05 with resi's, I believe. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Basements storage in multiple dwellings You said it was as storage basement - what do you mean by the reference ... under the exception residential fire loading ...? SL -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of kmick44...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Basements storage in multiple dwellings Ok then that leads to nfpa 13 with quick response sprinkler and room design method @ 0.1 density or could that qualify under the exception residential fire loading of 13R outside the dwelling -Original Message- From: Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Wed, Sep 19, 2012 11:07 am Subject: RE: Basements storage in multiple dwellings Basements that are not used as a dwelling unit in a conforming esidential building are addressed in NFPA 13R, 7.2 Design Criteria - utside Dwelling Unit. The foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the pinion or intent of the NFPA 13D/13R Technical Committee on Residential prinkler Systems. Steve Leyton rotection Design Consulting an Diego, CA Original Message- rom: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mick44...@aol.com ent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:54 AM o: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org ubject: Basements storage in multiple dwellings an 13R be used in a common storage area basement a multiple dwelling. s the Basement considered part of dwelling if it is used as accessory torage to dwelling section 6.2.2 of 13 R permits residential sprinklers n certain areas with similar fire loading - next part -- n HTML attachment was scrubbed... RL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ents/20120919/ac602e51/attachment.html __ prinklerforum mailing list prinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org ttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ prinklerforum mailing list prinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org ttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120919/53f1c60f/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Basements storage in multiple dwellings
Remember only a handful of 13 requirements apply George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of kmick44...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:06 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Basements storage in multiple dwellings thanks G right now cellar is approx 1200 sf i'm going to treat it as a separate space use the Rm dsg method @ 0.1 with QR sprinklers. -Original Message- From: George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com To: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thu, Sep 20, 2012 9:50 am Subject: RE: Basements storage in multiple dwellings There are some exceptions for storage areas that are broken into maybe 500 SF ax areas being allowed to bbe .05 with resi's, I believe. eorge L. Church, Jr., CET owe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. O Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 77-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax l...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- rom: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] n Behalf Of Steve Leyton ent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:57 AM o: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org ubject: RE: Basements storage in multiple dwellings You said it was as storage basement - what do you mean by the reference ... nder the exception residential fire loading ...? SL Original Message- rom: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mick44...@aol.com ent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:47 AM o: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org ubject: Re: Basements storage in multiple dwellings Ok hen that leads to nfpa 13 with quick response sprinkler and room design method 0.1 density or could that qualify under the exception residential fire oading of 13R outside the dwelling Original Message- rom: Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com o: sprinklerforum sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org ent: Wed, Sep 19, 2012 11:07 am ubject: RE: Basements storage in multiple dwellings asements that are not used as a dwelling unit in a conforming esidential uilding are addressed in NFPA 13R, 7.2 Design Criteria - utside Dwelling Unit. he foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the pinion r intent of the NFPA 13D/13R Technical Committee on Residential prinkler ystems. teve Leyton otection Design Consulting n Diego, CA Original Message- om: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org ailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mick44...@aol.com nt: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:54 AM : sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org bject: Basements storage in multiple dwellings an 13R be used in a common storage area basement a multiple dwelling. the Basement considered part of dwelling if it is used as accessory torage to welling section 6.2.2 of 13 R permits residential sprinklers n certain areas ith similar fire loading - next part -- HTML attachment was scrubbed... L: ttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach nts/20120919/ac602e51/attachment.html _ rinklerforum mailing list rinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org tp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _ rinklerforum mailing list rinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org tp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - next part -- n HTML attachment was scrubbed... RL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ents/20120919/53f1c60f/attachment.html __ prinklerforum mailing list prinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org ttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ prinklerforum mailing list prinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org ttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ prinklerforum mailing list prinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org ttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120920/dc6a3358/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Sprinkler design for class IV rack storage
I'd say Special Application, usually a larger K Factor that reduces pressure demand compared to what you might ordinarily used. Think of a K25 ESFR's ability to reduce pressure requirements to eliminate the need for a fire pump since you only need 15 PSI instead of 75. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cesar Lira Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler design for class IV rack storage Hi Scot. Could you explain what do you mean with Ergo named S.A.? C.L.R. -Mensaje original- De: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] En nombre de å... Enviado el: jueves, 20 de septiembre de 2012 03:34 a.m. Para: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Asunto: Sprinkler design for class IV rack storage Andrei: You might be able to avoid a pump if you go in-rack. but your client probably will experience a broken in-rack sprinkler in their future operations, and be quite upset. Special application sprinklers usually offer an advantage by reducing the demand for pressure-volume work (i.e. pump size), ergo their name SA. Control-mode, ceiling-only will probably demand a bit more pressure-volume work from your source, but the sprinkler might be a bit less expensive that SA. Since you are attempting to design a sprinkler system without having to replace a fire pump, it appears you will need to pursue each option and see what the demand is, relative to the supply your pump offers. There are slight improvements that can be made to pump performance, based upon changing out impellers, but that is only if the demand is close to the pump's current supply capacity. There is no single 'best' answer. You, as designer need to weigh your variables and make a judgment (and describe the rationale) for the stakeholders as to why you choose what you chose. scot deal excelsior fire -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120920/1bef6c88/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Star Phantom cut sheet
Might want to know that there wasn't anything preventing a couple of those springs being used to attach the cover plate, so the drop length might or might not be the one you calculated, or the one that didn't have to be recut if you had some spare springs. Please don't ask me why I know this, I was lowly and not in control of that situation, wasn't widespread. More recently I found out a competitors discovery that the plastic protective cap can be used, with the end cut off, as a coupling to eliminate the need to cut your drops longer- just shove the circular part of the cap back on, and it engaged the cover plate nicely. Wouldn't have known without getting above the ceiling. Do we give em credit for creativity in the midst of lowering the coverage area to a couple feet? Maybe we should appoint someone to collect emails from us old fats, war stories with names changed to protect those with the expense accounts. Be some great reading. And remember-lap dances are NOT expensible, as the one training video I saw kept mentioning. And there's the new sound track for that scene from A Few Good Men you may have seen, Did you submit those drawings? with Jack Nicholson and Tom cruise with sprinkler soundtrack. Hilarious. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:24 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Star Phantom cut sheet Thanks will do. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Star Phantom cut sheet Dewayne, I don't know if you've gotten this yet or not, but if you call Tyco technical support, they will email you any data sheet you need from their back catalog. 1-800-381-9312, Option 2, then option 1 will get you to the sprinkler guys. Hope this helps. Benjamin Young On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Dewayne Martinez deway...@dbfp.net wrote: Does anyone have a cut sheet for an old Star Phantom PH1 concealed sprinkler they can send me off forum. I need to do some head replacements and need to know what current head will work. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection 262-784-7900 (w) 262-784-8401 (f) 414-349-0468 (cell) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120918/8e288105/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120918/40220efb/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Shutoff at Service Entrance
How do you know that we didn't harden ANY buildings after 9/11? Data on all buildings in the world? You jump your mentor over no data, then make a claim as all-encompassing as that? I'd be surprised if SOMEONE didn't do SOMETHING to harden their building after that terrible catastrophe. It's a really big world to make NO, ALL, NEVER and ALWAYS work correctly in a sentence. I'll always bet there's ONE exception to a general statement like that. I don't believe harden is defined as making a building able to survive a 747 hit, so wouldn't a couple concrete barriers at the entry harden them? We protected the Army Heritage and Education Center (AHEC) at the War College in Carlisle, PA. Art and Tommy D are grinning, they've been to Carlisle. Anyway, there was a rep from the anti-terrorist task group in attendance at every meeting. There's not a swale that can hide a terrorist and the building was secure and protected far beyond what would have been before 9/11. That's one. I've often installed valves at service entrances out of my pocket since it's the right thing to do. IF you need it, it's there. Fully get it doesn't have to be there, agree a WFS doesn't have to be. But I don't want an open 2.5 FHV on an unsupervised standpipe filling th4e stair tower so we have WFS at the entrance. So I've wasted $500 of my money numerous times in the past. I sleep well at night-priceless. I am glad my daughter's no longer working at the Empire State Building, tho her living in NYC, routinely riding the subway at night, doesn't bother me a bit. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Shutoff at Service Entrance Hard to take a swing at my friend and mentor here but anecdotal without data to suggest this is a common problem worth addressing. Would the WFS not been installed if the pipe ran outside the wall? If the mis-installed connection came loose (there are thousands of flexible couplings out there that have not let loose and every catastrophic coupling failure I've ever seen--no more than half a dozen--have all been installation errors although I suppose there is an occasional defective part) before opening and it was outside the wall the damage would have been as severe. Everything is entropic. All organized structures want to disorganize. That means buildings want to fall down, parts want to break, installers want to cut corners. What level of quality control do we need to lessen the effects of entropy, and for how much? Prescriptive codes establish a minimum level that we can't go below. We can certainly spend more to mitigate but it's the owner's money, not ours, and we'd better be able to justify extras, redundancies, higher quality of materials than those that just meet a minimum, with real arguments that the man with the money can understand and make informed decisions from. Not only didn't we harden every big building in America after 9-11, but we didn't harden any buildings. Had 9-11 been followed by an airplane hitting the Seats Tower, and then the Trans-america Building, the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, etc., then at some point the reoccurrence of iconic American structures collapsing might have sent us to a different assessment. On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Ed Vining edvinin...@gmail.com wrote: We had a designer who insisted on having a waterflow indicator inside the building wall when this situation existed. He even set it up with a longer retard than the system WFI's and a circuit that squashed the main WFI when a system WFI operated. No sense confusing the FF's. A flexible connection let go very early one morning, before the building was occupied. The building owner was grateful for the WFI. Ed Vining, retired, guest. 4819 John Muir Rd Martinez CA 94553 925-228-8792 Cell 925-787-0465 On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Jarron Gass jg...@zoominternet.net wrote: My concern is probably shifting more to whether or not this should have a flow switch for that portion of the piping. I can accept that there is a shutoff outside in the meter pit, but i feel like this should be monitored. That is probably more a want than a need. ~Jarron Sent from my Verizon Wireless Droid -Original message- From: jhoff...@kcp.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 22:12:31 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Shutoff at Service Entrance Well for a real life situation where this exists, albeit in a very large building in Kansas City --- picture a 1000 feet by 2000 feet building. 10-inch fire
RE: wax coated - quick response sprinkler
Some of the Teflon white coatings are listed corrosion proof, use a deep dish stainless escutcheon not recessed and you're free of listing the combo of spkr and esc. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matthew J. Willis Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: wax coated - quick response sprinkler Check with the Manf. One I used offered poly coated as standard. The problem you are going to run into is the esch. They are not coated, and are listed only with their respective manf. (semi-recessed of course). R/ Matt -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larrimer, Peter A (CEOSH) Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: wax coated - quick response sprinkler Most learned forum. Can anyone tell me if there is a wax coated - quick response sprinkler on the market? I have a facility looking for one for a swimming pool application. Thanks Pete Larrimer Dept of VA -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120914/6468cd7c/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: NJ windowless Basements N.J.A.C. 5:70-4.7
So treat it conceptually as a manual wet standpipe with sprinklers on it. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 1:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NJ windowless Basements N.J.A.C. 5:70-4.7 Joel wrote; And there is no hydraulic requirements? What Dave said below. Remember (Emphasis in CAPS) (h) In all buildings, any windowless basement or story located below the seventh story shall be equipped throughout with an automatic fire suppression system INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW JERSEY UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION CODE. So you'll need to follow IBC 903, NFPA 13 and NSPC 10.5 with the exception of the automatic water supply. You'll need to make some water supply assumptions. Prudent is to determine what normal street supply would be even though damp systems don’t require an automatic water supply. From there determine the hazard and assign density, calculate coverage and pipe sizes. Remember back flow protection. In a nutshell design it as if the water supply was automatic. Hope that helps, John Drucker, CET Fire Protection Subcode Official Fire/Building/Electrical Inspector Fire Marshals Office Borough of Red Bank, NJ Not the official position of any agency, association, committee or otherwise. Obtain required applications, permits, inspections and approvals from Authority(s) Having Jurisdiction. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fyremarshal34 Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NJ windowless Basements N.J.A.C. 5:70-4.7 It is supposed to be designed as if it had a normal water supply. The FDC being the water source if it is ever needed but the sprinklers and piping will provide proper density. That's why you need the supervised smoke detection to get an early alarm. Get the FD there and get adequate water to the system. Dave Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Sep 16, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Joel Chaim activefireprotect...@gmail.com wrote: And there is no hydraulic requirements? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NJ windowless Basements N.J.A.C. 5:70-4.7 Hi Joel, Yes it's called a damp system, heres the code section... N.J.A.C. 5:70-4.7 Fire suppression systems (h) In all buildings, any windowless basement or story located below the seventh story shall be equipped throughout with an automatic fire suppression system installed in accordance with the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code. 1. Stories or basements shall not be considered windowless when there is provided on at least one side of such story or basement fire fighter access through openings, such as windows, doors or access panels, that are located entirely above the adjoining grade level. 2. Such openings shall be at least: i. 32 inches by 48 inches in size, spaced not more than 100 feet apart in each story or basement; or ii. 22 inches by 42 inches in size, spaced not more than 30 feet apart in each story or basement. 3. All openings for fire fighter access shall conform to all the following: i. Openings shall be unobstructed to allow fire fighting and rescue operations from the exterior; and ii. Openings in stories at or above grade shall have a sill height of not more than 36 inches as measured from the finished floor level. Openings in basements shall have no sill height restrictions; and iii. Openings shall be readily identifiable and openable from the outside or shall be glazed with plain flat glass. 4. When openings in a story are provided on only one side and the opposite wall of such story is more than 75 feet from such openings, the story shall be considered windowless unless openings as specified above are provided on at least two sides of the exterior walls of the story. 5. If any portion of a basement is located more than 75 feet from openings as specified above, the basement shall be considered windowless. 6. Windowless basements not exceeding 3,000 square feet in area shall be exempt from this automatic suppression requirement, provided a supervised automatic fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code. 7. In windowless basements greater than 3,000 square feet, but not exceeding 10,000 square feet in area, the required suppression system need not be connected to a water
RE: 9/11/2001
Sometimes I wonder if events like that are given so some of us have the opportunity to Be heroes Do unusually nice things for people Do remarkable things. I've had so many people do such wonderful things for me that I wonder if that might be why we have cancer- so folks can rise to the occasion. I'll ask St Peter when I get up there, got a couple of other things I've been wondering about, anyway. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: 9/11/2001 In remembrance of 9/11/2001 WTC Pentagon Shanksville PA May they rest in peace. John Drucker, CET Former Project Manager World Trade Center NYC Special Projects Siemens Fire Safety 1993-2001 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Golf Ball Commodity Class
Take Chris with you. He may have to take it home, but their oven is already trashed. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matthew J. Willis Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:21 AM To: 'Charles Thurston'; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Golf Ball Commodity Class About 40 years ago I placed one in our oven. When my mother pre-heated this old gas box, the ball expanded very quick and bounced around the inside of the oven creating damage. Later I cut one open and found the inside to be basically lots of tight wound rubber bands around a hard rubber super ball. Not sure what they are made of now, but I hear there is a golf course up the street here. I could go ask if I can come in to conduct testing... R/ Matt -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Charles Thurston Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 4:27 PM To: Matsuda, Richard Subject: Re: Golf Ball Commodity Class Hello Richard, 40 years ago We used to coat em in lighter fluid, THEN hit em down the street when I lived in Arlington, Tx Friday, September 7, 2012, 4:03:45 PM, you wrote: Heck, it's Friday afternoon so I'll take a swing at this. I have to agree with Steve and Chris...probably some kind of plastic. If not Group A, then Group B or Group C would make it Class fore or Class 3. What I'd really like to do is go out to the driving range and try burning a bucket of balls to see how big a fire I get...hit a few and burn a few. I love this forum...not only for the technical interpretations, but also for the interesting topics offered for discussion. Hope y'all have a great weekend. rick -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Golf Ball Commodity Class Chris, et al: The reason that nobody went there is that it was so obvious you don't get credit for even the slightest measure of creativity. Most, but not all golf balls these days are two piece. The center of them is generally rubber and the exterior is a type of plastic. I would say - from what I've read on manufacturer's sites and the web at large, that this would be a Group A. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Golf Ball Commodity Class Thank you. I was figuring minimum four and after looking I can base it on that or the next level up and not be way out of wack - and provide my basis in my scope. That way if its something else once they do their homework, it can be adjusted. Thanks, Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Golf Ball Commodity Class Clearly Fooour! Sorry had to go there. And I assume you and I are the only ones working because no one else jumped on that. I'm thinking free flowing plastics? But reading the definition I have a hard time believing they will block the flue. A pile though may create a smothering effect. I'm sticking with plain old plastics because it's an 'and' on block the flue and smother. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 1:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Golf Ball Commodity Class Anybody ever do rack storage of packaged Golf Balls? I am working on a budget and trying to come up with the commodity class. Thank you, Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell http://www.keyfireprotection.com www.keyfireprotection.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Re: drum drip in cold spaces
Todd Looks like you have the answer. If they refuse to accept it, you are off the hook. Glc Sent from my iPhone On Sep 4, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Todd Williams t...@fpdc.com wrote: Roland, I'm not the EOR on this project, just the plebe doing the shop drawings. The EOR put very little thought into the dry system for the attic so now the dormers on both ends of the building are trapped. So far he has been resistant to letting us put the DDs into the mechanical closet in the apartment below. Hopefully the site visit tomorrow will resolve some of it. Interestingly, in CT, if you want to use something in an edition of NFPA 13 post 2002 that isn't included in 2002, you have to get a modification from the State Fire Marshal. At 03:50 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote: As the EOR, ensuring your client is well aware of the NFPA 25 requirements for draining all auxiliary drains as often as necessary is time well spent. From a design side, making sure they can find and readily access all of them and they are shown on your plans as per current editions (24.6.2(13) 2010 ed) is also time well spent. Roland On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Todd Williams wrote: I am working on a dry system where we have to install some drum drips. However, they will be installed in the cold spaces (outside, not cooler/freezer). Do these need to be protected from freezing? Any suggestions how? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: drum drip in cold spaces
What edition of 13? 13R? applies? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: drum drip in cold spaces I am working on a dry system where we have to install some drum drips. However, they will be installed in the cold spaces (outside, not cooler/freezer). Do these need to be protected from freezing? Any suggestions how? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: drum drip in cold spaces
And as mentioned in a different manner- after draining, open the bottom valve, lift a bucket of AF solution up around it, reach in and shut the lower valve- frost proofing. Doubt the flammability matters if the brass in the valve melts and allows the solution out in advance of water from the DPV. After water arrives, massive dilution. Maybe not politically correct, but your service techs get more sleep at night. Course this is looking to lower the cost of ITM, which may or may not be your goal. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: drum drip in cold spaces As the EOR, ensuring your client is well aware of the NFPA 25 requirements for draining all auxiliary drains as often as necessary is time well spent. From a design side, making sure they can find and readily access all of them and they are shown on your plans as per current editions (24.6.2(13) 2010 ed) is also time well spent. Roland On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Todd Williams wrote: I am working on a dry system where we have to install some drum drips. However, they will be installed in the cold spaces (outside, not cooler/freezer). Do these need to be protected from freezing? Any suggestions how? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: Attic Remote Area
We just protected an OH2 store with a #22 tank and a pair of single phase #20 pumps when 3 phase wasn't available. Cheaper than a pressure tank(s). Glc Sent from my iPhone On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: Well I don't know how you get 30 minutes if only rocked on one side per: 11.2.3.3.3 To utilize the room design method, all rooms shall be enclosed with walls having a fire-resistance rating equal to the water supply duration indicated in Table 11.2.3.1.2. And in #2 - 2,260 still isn't enough unless you meet the same rating issue wherever an additional 275 sq.ft. might be. I have used room design in these cases a couple times particularly where the water supply was an issue. Imagine no three phase power and no water. Cutting a small attic in half saves the day with a single phase pump and small tank. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Lindholm Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:41 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: Attic Remote Area Yes, I was thinking about using the room design method. In this instance, there would be not reasonable was to remove the sheet rock in example #1, and pretty tough to do anything in example #2. Is there any reason not to use the room design method here? Greg Lindholm From: rhugg...@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Attic Remote Area Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:26:16 -0700 concur, we ignore even rated walls unless using room design method. There is new guidance on how to address small subsystems (such as dry- pipe on loading docks or preaction in computer room) in the 2013 edition of NFPA 13. This use to be a particularly tricky issue when applying logic for an answer when the sub-system like a loading dock uses spray sprinklers and the adjacent warehouse system uses ESFR. See the June issue of Sprinkler Age for more information. Roland On Aug 31, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: 1. Assuming they are the same system. Yes, where does it say you can reduce the area below 2,535? Getting the total area is almost a Cardinal rule. Only way out is room design method if it applies. But that entails being reasonably sure the required walls will remain after the legendary cable guy comes through. One reason the room design method is flawed, owners can take down walls without even thinking sprinklers (as long as they are 6' apart). I guarantee during inspection no one knows if it room design or not. I know we can't plan for the future. 2. Same answer. Chris Cahill, PE* -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta chments/20120831/1ff2322f/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120831/aaf31bdb/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Antifreeze Update
Dewayne, I had a short off-Forum debate with a friend when the AFSA release came out- citing we MUST address known problems when we're aware of them. I would debate that all day if I had the time. On a parallel of when TIA's apply- CMS uses the 1999 edition on a certain date for nursing homes nationwide- or at least the ones that want Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements. Discussions direct with CMS made it clear that they enforce that date of the 1999 #13 and NOTHING ELSE matters. A case was attempted to be made that more recent editions of #13 are simply a conglomeration of all the TIAs from prior editions...it went nowhere with CMS, and the pitch was made by a nationally respected FPE and former member of the Standards Council. With that in mind, if I had the right to an opinion, it would be that unless your AHJ has adopted the TIAs they are not LAW. Now any fool of a contractor I would HOPE would not induce any antifreeze above the concentrations NFPA's testing didn't show as safe, since that COULD, again IMHO if I had one, bring in NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESS STUPIDITY, or other things that might land a sprinkler contractor in jail or without a business or other assets due to a judge or jury wondering how someone could kill another with a sprinkler system. I no longer have any limits on how stupid I believe some of us contractors can be. Wish I could report a better state of the industry, but I can't. So I wouldn't worry about the lack of UL listing, but don't induce anything that goes BOOM and if I were your attorney, I'd be ok. But I'm a sprinkler contractor, and while I play PE without a license way too often, I don't give legal advice without caveats to consult with the guy who would be at the table with you trying to keep your butt out of jail. You can't make enough on any job to risk losing your freedom or all your assets. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update I am a bit confused on the matter of when to apply these TIA's. In jurisdictions using older editions of NFPA, the TIA would not apply(correct?) but since we, as contractors, know of the hazards there is a potential liability issue if we don't follow the TIA? We are currently purchasing a factory pre-mixed glycerin solution at the recommended NFPA ratio. It appears from the NFPA 13 TIA that unless the manufacturer gets a UL of FM listing that we can no longer use this product, correct? Thanks, Dewayne -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze Update Yep except for those already under bid, a discussion with the AHJ to follow the NFPA 25 criteria is worth a shot. Also when servicing an existing system, unless less than 30% for PG or 38% for Glycerin, you have to proof it's acceptable in order to keep it. Well the ITM guy doesn't but he has to flag it for the owner with documentation showing he advised them of the issue and the owner has to obtain proof (deterministic risk assessment). Roland On Aug 23, 2012, at 2:14 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Is the bottom line no new NFPA 13 antifreeze systems for now? Ron Fletcher Aero - Phoneix ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Antifreeze Update
If you were in Rod's or Frozen Mark's neighborhood, where you need 180% concentrations to keep from freezing, I'd would argue that's reckless (and stupid). But if you're doing what NFPA said with the exception of it not being listed, I'd say until there is a listed one on the market the case could be made for continuing to do your business as you have, so long as you don't install the chance of explosion. We didn't stop installing fire pumps when #20 said you need a PLD or VSD not a main relief truncating the supply in order to control excess churn pressure. But once a listed VSD and/or PLD was on the market, you should have switched over to using the listed product. Let's face it, haven't we, forever, been using the FM-Approved version of devices on FM jobs UNLESS NONE WAS AVAILABLE, in which case we used a UL listed version as the best we could do, and just what we all used if it was something that might not have needed- or with some oddball devices, that no one bothered to obtain- a UL listing either. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update Thanks George, this is the same way we have been looking at it. I was just wondering how the other contractors were handling the situation. We know that our competition has not stopped using A/F yet and to bid these same buildings with dry sprinkler systems would cost us a lot of business. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update Dewayne, I had a short off-Forum debate with a friend when the AFSA release came out- citing we MUST address known problems when we're aware of them. I would debate that all day if I had the time. On a parallel of when TIA's apply- CMS uses the 1999 edition on a certain date for nursing homes nationwide- or at least the ones that want Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements. Discussions direct with CMS made it clear that they enforce that date of the 1999 #13 and NOTHING ELSE matters. A case was attempted to be made that more recent editions of #13 are simply a conglomeration of all the TIAs from prior editions...it went nowhere with CMS, and the pitch was made by a nationally respected FPE and former member of the Standards Council. With that in mind, if I had the right to an opinion, it would be that unless your AHJ has adopted the TIAs they are not LAW. Now any fool of a contractor I would HOPE would not induce any antifreeze above the concentrations NFPA's testing didn't show as safe, since that COULD, again IMHO if I had one, bring in NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESS STUPIDITY, or other things that might land a sprinkler contractor in jail or without a business or other assets due to a judge or jury wondering how someone could kill another with a sprinkler system. I no longer have any limits on how stupid I believe some of us contractors can be. Wish I could report a better state of the industry, but I can't. So I wouldn't worry about the lack of UL listing, but don't induce anything that goes BOOM and if I were your attorney, I'd be ok. But I'm a sprinkler contractor, and while I play PE without a license way too often, I don't give legal advice without caveats to consult with the guy who would be at the table with you trying to keep your butt out of jail. You can't make enough on any job to risk losing your freedom or all your assets. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update I am a bit confused on the matter of when to apply these TIA's. In jurisdictions using older editions of NFPA, the TIA would not apply(correct?) but since we, as contractors, know of the hazards there is a potential liability issue if we don't follow the TIA? We are currently purchasing a factory pre-mixed glycerin solution at the recommended NFPA ratio. It appears from the NFPA 13 TIA that unless the manufacturer gets a UL of FM listing that we can no longer use this product, correct? Thanks, Dewayne -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, August
RE: Antifreeze Update
Hard to imagine having enough paperwork to document the introduction of solutions we've just proved can explode and kill those we're charged with protecting. For those of you who don't know, while Scott wasn't in nJ for the fireball, he was at UL for the replication of those fireballs and he said it was unlike anything he's seen. How do we politically correctly say it scared the Shiite out of him? And we've got folks putting this in today? Like I said, little in the How stupid can we be dept surprises me any longer. When the owner in ND or MN has an AF system, and doesn't want to spend the money to switch to dry- or likely hasn't GOT the money to do so, or if it's a CPVC system that can't go dry and its all occupied residential, drywall ceilings- the cost could be simply astronomical and beyond the $ of mere mortals, real estate LLCs and small corporations- then what choices do they have? If I knew that, I'd be in Mark, Rod's and Scott's backyards selling it. And this need will, soon, stimulate the development of suitable solutions. Until then- call Scott or Mark and get the opinion of a qualified PE (this is where I'd insert the Iowa dig if I wasn't in defensive mode and this being a serious life-safety discussion) as to options and make the best of it. Maybe a 10 PSI dry system of CPVC with 4 second trip Vizor or QRS switch could be done as a workable non-lethal band-aid? Better than napalm. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update in Rod and Mark's neighborhood there are contractors using propylene glycol in CPVC systems (that's a no no) over 50% (that's another no no) and they know it because what else can they do?. Scott Futrell (763) 425-1001 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update If you were in Rod's or Frozen Mark's neighborhood, where you need 180% concentrations to keep from freezing, I'd would argue that's reckless (and stupid). But if you're doing what NFPA said with the exception of it not being listed, I'd say until there is a listed one on the market the case could be made for continuing to do your business as you have, so long as you don't install the chance of explosion. We didn't stop installing fire pumps when #20 said you need a PLD or VSD not a main relief truncating the supply in order to control excess churn pressure. But once a listed VSD and/or PLD was on the market, you should have switched over to using the listed product. Let's face it, haven't we, forever, been using the FM-Approved version of devices on FM jobs UNLESS NONE WAS AVAILABLE, in which case we used a UL listed version as the best we could do, and just what we all used if it was something that might not have needed- or with some oddball devices, that no one bothered to obtain- a UL listing either. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update Thanks George, this is the same way we have been looking at it. I was just wondering how the other contractors were handling the situation. We know that our competition has not stopped using A/F yet and to bid these same buildings with dry sprinkler systems would cost us a lot of business. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update Dewayne, I had a short off-Forum debate with a friend when the AFSA release came out- citing we MUST address known problems when we're aware of them. I would debate that all day if I had the time. On a parallel of when TIA's apply- CMS uses the 1999 edition on a certain date for nursing homes nationwide- or at least the ones that want Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements. Discussions direct with CMS made it clear that they enforce that date of the 1999 #13 and NOTHING ELSE matters. A case was attempted to be made that more recent editions of #13 are simply a conglomeration of all the TIAs from prior editions
RE: Supervised vales in pump room
Imagine adding up all the years of experience, in various locales and different points of view (contractor, AHJ, mfrs, insurance, FPEs, etc) that are applied to situations like yours? P R I C E L E S S Makes the membership dues of AFSA seem trivial in comparisonyes, it's that time of year. Although my health precludes me from flying at this time, I'd urge all of you to consider attendance at AFSa's convention, and membership if you haven't. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 9:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Supervised vales in pump room My thanks to everyone for the information. This forum is awesome. Ron Fletcher Aero - Phoneix -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 4:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Supervised vales in pump room And... NFPA 20 2010:4.16.2 Supervised Closed. The test outlet control valves shall be supervised closed. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Support Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 7:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Supervised vales in pump room If leaving the valve in the wrong position will impair the operation of the sprinkler system, then the valve must be supervised, see below. NFPA 101 2012:9.7.2.1 Supervisory Signals. Where supervised automatic sprinkler systems are required by another section of this Code, supervisory attachments shall be installed and monitored for integrity in accordance with NFPA 72 , National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, and a distinctive supervisory signal shall be provided to indicate a condition that would impair the satisfactory operation of the sprinkler system. Supervisory signals shall sound and shall be displayed either at a location within the protected building that is constantly attended by qualified personnel or at an approved, remotely located receiving facility. Also... IBC 2012:903.4 Sprinkler system supervision and alarms. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures and waterflow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit. Exceptions: 1. Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one- and two-family dwellings. 2. Limited area systems serving fewer than 20 sprinklers. 3. Automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA 13R where a common supply main is used to supply both domestic water and the automatic sprinkler system, and a separate shutoff valve for the automatic sprinkler system is not provided. 4. Jockey pump control valves that are sealed or locked in the open position. 5. Control valves to commercial kitchen hoods, paint spray booths or dip tanks that are sealed or locked in the open position. 6. Valves controlling the fuel supply to fire pump engines that are sealed or locked in the open position. 7. Trim valves to pressure switches in dry, preaction and deluge sprinkler systems that are sealed or locked in the open position. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Support Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: rfletc...@aerofire.com [mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 1:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Supervised vales in pump room I'm not sure NFPA #25 would apply to a new installation. NFPA 20 requires the pump enclosure to be supervised or controlled but I found nothing requiring valve supervision. I don't have access to the codes on line right now so I can't look it up without going old skool using a book and that's too much trouble for Friday. I think IFC requires supply valves to be supervised. Ron Fletcher Aero - Phoenix -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Morey, Mike Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 10:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Supervised vales in pump room There is no blanket requirement, NFPA 25 2010 4.16 covers what valves must be supervised, personally I think it's rather poorly worded, but if you read through the
RE: Ventilation for diesel driven fire pump room
I'd agree, FWIW. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Sprinkler Forum Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 7:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Ventilation for diesel driven fire pump room Aha perfect time to jump in... I have been going through these calcs on Clarke's website all yesterday. I have a situation where we are looking at 125 degree ambient temperature (outside) and about 120 degree water that will be used for the heat exchanger. Using a delta t of 10 degrees F for the pump room I am getting about 20,000 cfm needed for ventilation of the engine I have selected. So I have derated the engine based on 130 degrees temp in the pump room ( I know the code says 120 is max but what can we do that's what we're starting at outside). We may also have to go with a larger cooling loop also given the water temperature. So here's the question. I have selected a diesel engine because we do not have a reliable power supply, so... What about the ventilation fans? If the power goes out because of this unreliable power supply, I wont have the ventilation fans. Just wondering if anyone has dealt with looking at the reliability of the ventilation fans before. I looked at FM data sheets and did not see it addressed as well as NFPA 20. My current solution will be to provide a small genset for the just the fans and the motorized dampers that are part of the ventilation system. This is preferrable (I think) to going with electric pumps with a larger generator. Justin Reid Sent from my iPhone On Aug 24, 2012, at 3:55 AM, å... eurekaig...@gmail.com wrote: NFPA 20; consider not just combustion air, but cooling air for the convective/radiative heat leaving the engine, cooling air needed by radiator, flow path restrictions, etc. Also consider highest expected maximum ambient temperature (with its derating) and consider altitude (and its derating). Scot Deal excelsior fire -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta chments/20120824/c95d0dc8/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Remote Area Question
Another thing to consider is that, while prone to awsh$t moments like the rest of us and a bit over 30 yrs old, Roland does have one of those MD FPE wall plaques, along with some TC experience which helps when you try to read between the lines. Oh, and there's that Standards Council thing, I just got an email this AM with final standards council decision on an appeal by the chair of one of my TCs and its pretty clear the Standards Council is in charge. And if I have any questions on it, I could ask a guy that was there for the intent- AFSA membership has its priviliges. And as I wanted to say earlier, and experience has its wrinkles. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Remote Area Question well... i'm not a lost cause yet. i'll give it some more thought. thanks. Quoting Roland Huggins rhugg...@firesprinkler.org: I was hoping I'd be able to convert you :) The question of the most demanding would be WHICH cross main you drop the rectangle on. Roland On Aug 23, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Brad Casterline wrote: Roland, the way you see it is worth a great deal to a great number of people. The way I see it is worth a great deal to me, not because of semantics, but because of intent, along the lines of reasoning as detailed by Ron G in his original post on this thread. I see a 1.2x area parallel to the branch lines as a required calc, with supplemental calcs as necessary, and, again, the most demanding is not obvious in this example, as I see it. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Sprinklers in Non Combustible Stair Shaft
So assuming there IS an intermediate landing, you're to protect below it. If there ISN'T an intermediate landing, then you'd be protecting under the 2nd floor landing. If the area under the landing is walled off, you don't need to protect it (assuming noncombustible construction in a stair tower, etc... George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers in Non Combustible Stair Shaft George, If I'm understanding the question my read is that you're supposed to cover under the first landing because of the likelihood of debris gathering there and/or the likelihood of that becoming a storage area. Stairs and landings are considered clear of or with very little debris and protected from the ceiling of the stairwell. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, George Medina Jr fireg...@aol.com wrote: Ok, I need a little clarification on another obviously simple question again (mental block). NFPA-13, 2010 Ed. Section 8.15.3.2.1 Does the reference to 'the first accessible landing' include the portion of the stairs from the ground to the mid landing and between the mid landing and the 2nd floor? George Medina Jr. Sr. Fire Sprinkler Designer -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120820/1123e4d8/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120820/6fef65df/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flange Question
Maybe with SS304 1/4 bolts? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Richard Carr Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 12:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flange Question According to my data it will not fit, the 5 x 11 250# has a bolt hole dimension of 7, the 6 x 11 125# has a 7 9/16 bolt hole dimension. Richard Carr, SET Branch Manager Cox Fire Protection, Inc 6555 Grace Lane. Jacksonville, Fl. 32205 rc...@coxfire.com 904-781-8227 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 12:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flange Question I have a field condition.. Does anyone know if a 6x11 125# flange (9 1/2) will bolt onto a 5x11 250# flange (9 1/4)? Just use 3/4 bolts? Thanks, TD ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Residential FM approved heads
I thought there were one or two, since about a year ago I pointed out in an RFI questioning the need for FM-Apvd resi hds, that they cut our selection from 14 to 2 or 3 sprinklers. Did you look in the FM Approval Guide? I don't recall if I looked on mfr sites or FM. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 8:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Residential FM approved heads Maybe a quick call to FM is a good idea. Maybe this is why QR heads are an acceptable substitute foor residential heads in all but 13D (where FM doesn't have any ponies). On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Rod DiBona r...@rapidfireinc.com wrote: I don't see any residential heads that are FM approved. So we have a national motel chain that says that our material must all be FM approved. Unless I am missing something we won't have res heads in this motel. Anyone else deal with this before? [Description: LOGO_10] Rod DiBona Vice President Rapid Fire Protection office : (605)348-2342 fax : (605)348-0108 cell : (605)391-3553 www.rapidfireinc.comhttp://www.rapidfireinc.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120811/7039e6e3/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6561 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120811/7039e6e3/attachment.jpg ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120811/342b58e2/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
web site about Lubrizol - Blazemaster - Issues
Jim, looks like things will be heating up this summer. For better or worse, this guy wants to get his point across to a larger audience, sounds frustrated enough to do battle in public if that is what it takes. I gotta admire that unless proven looney. Doesn't sound like it. Glc Sent from my iPhoneke it On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Jim Davidson jdavid...@davidsonassociates.net wrote: Hope you all are having a great summer. The following is a new website about the above noted product. For all who are using Blazemaster products this should be interesting reading. The web site is http://lubrizol-blazemaster-issues.com/. Regards Jim -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120808/cda8e084/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: 13R pump listing
Rod, Go back and read Tim's citation. 2007 is our PA adopted version. In it, no reason non-22 tanks store FP water to unlisted pump from Lowes to 13R system with no connection to domestic. Don't have to like it, can change it in a later edition, but until PA adopts an edition requiring NFPA 20 pumps, I can buy and install that talco pump and they provide me a completely compliant, in PA, solution. Rare to find newest is adopted, especially with Builders wanting to postpone reality- and in PA doing a darn good job of it. But I sure don't see a requirement for 20 pumps only unless the domestic supply is involved. Maybe someone could cite 2007 and build a case, but I don't see it in my copy or Tim's. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Rod DiBona r...@rapidfireinc.com wrote: Thank you Steve and Tim for your response. Frustrating to see a manufacturer selling all over the country an unlisted 13R pump that many AHJ's will approve and having to compete against contractors willing to use it. Looks like it is time for us to pass on this knowledge to the approving AHJ. I shared Ricks concerns but see the logic behind the instant diagnostics by the residents on a combined supply pointed out by Steve. Good information once again. Rod at Rapid -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 13R pump listing Correct, as I said in last email and as Tim points out with regard to said pump having to be of a type that is automatically operated. Yes, the pump will have to be sized for both domestic and fire sprinkler demands, whichever is greater, and the fire sprinkler demand will have to be augmented per the domestic plumbing fixture load table in 13R. As for jurisdiction or concerns over a domestic pump not providing adequate service, look at it this way: the building management (and/or residents) will respond immediately to an impairment in the pump if it impacts their domestic water service. Whatever qualitative issues there may be with an unlisted pump (and I'm not saying there are any, necessarily), are mitigated by the immediacy of the inherent diagnostic advantage you have with a combined water supply. The foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the opinion or intent of the NFPA 13D/13R Technical Committee on Residential Sprinkler Systems. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matsuda, Richard Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 1:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 13R pump listing This is what I thought about the stored water supply...so now I have a question that's bothered me ever since NFPA-13R put in the requirement for a listed fire pump installed per NFPA-20. NFPA-13R allows the use of a domestic water to supply the fire sprinkler system. So if we have a poor water supply and the plumber installs a domestic water pump for the domestic water system, then are we allowed to supply the fire sprinkler system with this domestic water system and domestic pump? Of course the pump would have to be large enough to supply both the domestic and sprinkler demands simultaneously, but do we have any jurisdiction over the installation of the domestic pump? I guess we could argue that we will not allow them to supply the sprinkler system using this domestic water supply and encourage them to install a fire pump per NFPA-20. rick matsuda city of dallas, building inspection dept -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 13R pump listing Rod, Read NFPA 13R, (2010 ed.) 9.3 Source, (4) A stored water source with an automatically operated pump. Notice it does not state Fire Pump. 9.4 says that where a fire pump is installed, the pump shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 20. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum- boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:38 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: 13R pump listing It is my understanding that any pump used for 13R must be
RE: Chubb Insurance Company Fall 2012 Hands On Fire Protection Seminars
Liberty Mutual offers similar, on behalf of Mr. Hague who has contributed much to the advancement of NFPA standards in his career. And you don't have to go to NJ! :) George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 4:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Chubb Insurance Company Fall 2012 Hands On Fire Protection Seminars FALL SEMESTER Module 8 Standpipe Systems 09/17/12 Module 6 Warehouse Fire Protection 09/18/12 Module 7 Sprinkler Plan Review 09/20/12 Module 1 Water Supplies Sprinkler Systems 10/09/12 Module 2 Dry Pipe, Deluge Pre-Action Sprinkler Systems 10/10/12 Module 3 Automatic Fire Pumps 10/11/12 Module 5 Fire Detection Alarm Systems 10/12/12 Module 4 Maintaining Water-Based Fire Protection Systems 11/13/12 Chubb Insurance Company, a large US based Property Insurance Company, has opened their fire protection training facility to the general public. They offer a 20%discountnt to Building and Fire Officials as well as members of the American Fire Sprinkler Association. Class size is limited to 32. Each day is 8 hours, 6.5 of classroom time. A 1 day seminar is $350 with discount it is $280, a 2 day seminar is $680 with discount it is $540. A video of the facility here: http://www.chubb.com/businesses/service/chubb5974.html Chubb Insurance Company Training Center is located in Warren, NJ, 07059,45 min from NYC. See http://www.chubb.com/lcu for more information and how to sign up for seminars. The facility is one of few in the USA where students see the fire protection equipment in operation. Fires are started to demonstrate how sprinklers operate during a fire. Learn how to conduct a fire pump test by actually flowing a diesel and electric fire pump, trip and reset dry pipe valves, deluge, single, double and cycling on/off preaction valves, flow a fire hydrant and take pitot readings and graph the test results. They do not just read the code to you, they explain how things work, and then demonstrate by hands on learning. All equipment is operational and is demonstrated during seminars and includes the following: Electric Booster Pump Diesel Vertical Turbine Fire Pump Wet Pipe Riser 3 Dry Pipe Risers Single Interlocked Pre-Action Riser Double Interlocked Pre-Action Riser Cycling On/Off Pre-Action Riser Deluge Sprinkler Riser Fire Detection Devices including: Vesda Air Sampling, Infrared, Ionization, Photoelectric, Projection Beam, Thermal, and Ultraviolet Wireless Fire Detection System Rolling Steel Fire Door Indoor and outdoor fire hydrants Enclosed sprinkler activation area Chubb Loss Control University is an AIA CEU approved provider. The following organizations have approved Chubb Loss Control University to provide CEU seminars: NJ Division of Fire Safety, NJ UCC, NY Building Officials, CT Building Officials, PA Building Officials and NY Professional Engineers. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120801/a0225729/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Stage/platform
Well, I'd qualify that- With some of us, it's a person standing and speaking and waving their arms. Don't feel singled out Steve, BC is right there with you. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stage/platform Already part of my argument; it's an elementary school, so I'm doubtful that Pirates of Penzance is going to be the spring play. Actually, a performance isn't a defined term - spoken word is a form of performance art, and it's nothing more than a person standing and speaking. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of njarendt tds.net Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Stage/platform Based on recently conversations with a state plan reviewer about schools a stage is a stage if performances occur on it. Norm On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.comwrote: Friends, Romans, Forumite and Drucker: I have a plans reviewer with whom we are dancing about on the subject of defining a platform vs. a stage. Probably the largest part of the conversation has to do with overhead hanging curtains. The definition of a stage is basically a space within a building used for entertainment or presentations that includes overhead hanging curtains, drops, scenery or stage effects other than lighting and sound. My take is that this space in an elementary school MP buildings is a platform because it only has lighting and sound overhead. Their take is that it's a stage because it has a curtain that can be drawn across its front. Anyone have a more specific definition or code citation for what constitutes an overhead hanging curtain? Steve Leyton ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- *If You See Something Suspicious Say Something! 1-866-HLS-TIPS.* Norman Arendt, CHS III, CMAS, PhD, CFEII President Infragard Madison Members Alliance Middleton Fire District Plan Reviewer and Investigator PCII and CVI Certified -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ments/20120725/17485d84/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Draftsperson test exercise
Just so I know if I had a shot at a job- and I did pass ASCOA's Bennett Test of Mechanical Comprehension, etc. back in 74- It's noon, right? Checking the ability to handle a fact given in English, despite induced cognitive dissonance of a stopped or wrong clock. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:04 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draftsperson test exercise Mike, When I was in the position to hire I used to use two tests. The first one was a math test with simple word problems that used sprinkler terminology. For example, You are to design a tree type fire sprinkler system. The sprinkler heads are spaced 13'-0 on center along the branch lines, and they are spaced 12'-0 on center between branch lines. A remote area of 1500 square feet is required. Answer the following: a) How many square feet will be covered per sprinkler head? Another question, It is noon. You look at the clock. The big hand is on three. The little hand is on five. What time is it? I also gave a CAD test by providing all the required components of a simple riser. They were than given a picture of the finished product and given 30 minutes to assemble as much of it as possible. Both of these tests really helped weed out those who didn't have the aptitude to design. Some applicants walked out, some just sat there, and some asked questions. Most couldn't answer simple math problems. I thought that this was a pretty good system to find out what a person was capable of without hiring someone with a good resume only to find out that they buffaloed their way in. Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Morey, Mike Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Draftsperson test exercise Anyone happen to have some sort of test exercise for potential draftspeople? I was going to create a small test building, maybe an OH2 shop and 2-3 LH offices, but I figured I'd ask before I took the time. I'm not looking to test for sprinkler knowledge so much as the ability to draft in CAD and solve relatively simple problems when presented with some basic sprinkler rules. Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120719/5e395f93/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5140 - Release Date: 07/18/12 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: ESFR within 7 foot sphere of unit heater
And unit heaters aren't as typical in big box ESFR DC's as Cambridge units. Like roof fans, skylights, etc- move em to miss us, we're not adding 4 90's in the BL's. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR within 7 foot sphere of unit heater Thanks Roland, nothing wrong with doing a little marketing! I'll check it out, and then go on line to see if anything has changed for the particular head. Brad Member: AFSA :) -Original Message- From: Roland Huggins [mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 1:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR within 7 foot sphere of unit heater As a blatant plug for AFSA materials, there is a Reference Guide to Automatic Sprinklers that covers such things for all types of sprinklers. It's updated annually. Roland On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Brad Casterline wrote: From what I have just been told, there are no listed ESFR above K-14, with 286F rated temp. Due to 100 s.f. max. spacing, it is difficult to stay far enough away from unit heaters to use intermediate temp. Is the answer obviously 'move the heater'? Anybody ever dealt with this? thanks, Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120705/b9491236/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Re: Head replacement on pipe sched
I cant think of any reasons why the 13-96 reqmnt for QR in LH wouldn't apply or be a problem. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 2, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Morey, Mike mo...@bmwc.com wrote: Educational is classified as LH, if you're replacing all the heads they should definitely be QR, the explanitory material (at least in the 2010 handbook) suggests even if you overdesign the denisty above LH, if the standard would catagorize it as LH the heads should still be QR. Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of Todd - FPDC Sent: Mon 7/2/2012 11:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Head replacement on pipe sched I am recommending replacing all of the sprinklers on a pipe schedule system in a school. SR or QR heads? Sent from my iPhone ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3923 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120702/d471fc4f/attachment.bin ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Reliable Power
Some good points, but I wouldn't hold my breath on reading the reality posted in a public spot. Even the family of a US Govt employee who was killed my US-govt issued armament, let alone Congress, can't get a straight answer on how that happened. While I'd love to see the summary of a lot of these- from our builder sold 26 more houses last year because sprinklers weren't installed, so he could stay in business and if we were alive, we could buy our replacement home from him, but we're not to military and public works SNAFUs, its not likely to happen anytime soon. If we can't visualize and work toward what it should be, we're part of the problem. I'll admit to my share, but I can taper it with significant windmill jousting at times, too. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 6:44 PM To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Subject: Reliable Power It might be consdidered that areas prone to unacceptably high risk to electrical failure (e.g. tsunami, earthquaqe, flood, volcano, avalanche, corrosion, lightning, even vandalism, etc.) should take these natural or 'environmental' disasters into consideration as to whether a provided electrical power is reliable or not. If we are doing life safety design, or *getting paid under the rubric of such* a title, then it is encumbant to do due diligence. If evidence of electrical interruptions is chosen to be avoided, then that decision should be documented and signed off by the responsible person(s), and preferably posted in an obvious and public space on the affected property. If our decisions put other lives in relatively increased jeapordy, and this is the nature of our business, we should 'cowboy up' on such decisions, and make the motivations transparent (i.e. cost savings, time savings, or my favorite (we didn't want to publiclly address a change in design strategy because that would create the appearance of us not know what we were doing [so we will simply leave the users of our utility at increased jeapardy]). This comments is not directed at anyone in particular; it is more a commentary on the way life safety decisions are all too often executed, behind closed doors and then sealed from review. The more these decisions are made transparent, the faster we will find those decisions that will create statistics and not events, and the sooner the younger generation will learn what is an 'acceptable' risk (something that changes with culture and financing). scot deal excelsior fire -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120703/fc1b0767/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Calculating Pressure Reducing Valves
Just south of Wilkes-Barre, north of Blue Ball... Mr Leyton knows more about PA than most SoCal'ers. Nice chuckle on a TGIF! George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Calculating Pressure Reducing Valves Hazen-Williams, PA Gotta love it! Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Heads Under Duct
I'd agree. Maybe this strategy would work; a veteran FM field engineer looking at a round duct and the possible need for dropping a sprinkler under it: Is the building going to burn down because of it, or the lack of it? Since this particular duct was a short run above a corridor between Truckers Lounge and Bathrooms, with no potential storage and ESFRs above it throughout 1.1m SF, we did not need to add the sprinkler. What are you protecting? Inches of dust on concrete? Class II (gum wrappers) to 4 high under a 12 high roof deck ? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:41 AM To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Subject: Heads Under Duct I vote to not put sprinklers under this duct. I have 95% confidence that a fire will not overwhelm property or persons, given the limited information on the situation as described, i.e. sprinklers throughout at ceiling level regular inspection, testing and maintenance program for sprinklers no combustible liquids such that accumulation 1 cm is possible no old, sick or young children are sleeping in the building Sincere thanks is extended for all the hard effort that Code framers offer us with the prescriptions they share; prescriptions make life easier. But prescriptions are not the best solution in every application. scot deal excelsior fire -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120620/63954b51/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Grocery Store commodity classifications
Oddly enough, retail fireworks in a display setting are only an OH2 risk- we did substantial research into our first one, have done several for a guy with a chain, and since he only stores 6' high in the back, it's all OH2. Sure we know we're only going to control a non-firecracker fire, hopefully before the fireworks catch fire, but at least so far as protecting per the I-Codes, all we saw was OH2. Sure you COULD protect it with UV detection and pre-primed nozzles, but understand his competitors are selling out of a tent. If they store their fireworks in the back to 16', that doesn't fit with OH2, but that's not what we had. Wouldn't surprise me if the others are bidding the whole store OH2 and excluding protection above 12' high.hence no other questions. I'd look at what FM required in grocery stores, maybe .25/2500 in stock areas, as an informed guide to what's reasonable. Believe their corresponding retail area was .15/2500. Specify what you include and qualify your bid so you don't just sit and watch the bidding process pass you by waiting for info that won't be coming. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Morey, Mike Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Grocery Store commodity classifications Ohio and even moreso Indiana yes, and sparklers which are the most common even in restrictive areas are actually extremely dangerous when tightly packed together as they'd be found in a display. A big enough bundle of them will go up like thermite. At least in a couple month window around the 4th of July and New Years in Indiana (I don't remember them being so prevalent in Ohio around that time) Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of Bruce Verhei Sent: Wed 6/20/2012 12:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Grocery Store commodity classifications All Are fireworks sales in grocery stores common in some areas? Bruce Sent from my Motorola ATRIX(tm) 4G on ATT -Original message- From: Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 12:33:58 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: Grocery Store commodity classifications Let's see - aerosol's, plastics, flammable liquids, maybe some propane, fireworks and encapsulated commodities all found in most stores I've been in. When 6' shelves OH II is common. I've done some local areas of HPS for the bulk items encapsulated class III (27 packs of paper towels). If the whole thing is really say 16' rack storage I don't know how you go less than plastics. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:13 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Grocery Store commodity classifications Lots of different commodities. Probably have to work with more than set of criteria. You need to get more details from them. At 07:59 AM 6/20/2012, you wrote: I am working on a grocery store and they will be utilizing rack storage less than 20'. I have no information on the stored commodity, I am looking for direction on what classification of commodity others have used as a basis of design. -- Craig Leadbetter Safeguard of Marquette PO Box 116 Marquette, MI 49855 (O) 906-475-9955 (F) 906-475-5474 (C) 906-362-5393 craigleadbet...@gmail.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120620/2ef1604b/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
RE: Drop out ceiling tile area
Todd, I've never heard of any restriction on the size of an area with meltouts. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Drop out ceiling tile area System. Looking if there is any restriction beyond the 52K At 11:22 AM 6/14/2012, you wrote: 52,000 sqft is the restriction for any light or ordinary system per level. You did say system, not head, correct? On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Bob b...@firebyknight.com wrote: Todd, Simply depends on the construction. Wood 3' or , 130 sf; wood 3', 168 sf; just about everything else, 225 sf. You can even use EC's. There is also the combustible concealed space rule. These can be used up to 144 sf. Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Drop out ceiling tile area Is there a restriction on the square footage that can be protected by a system above a drop-out ceiling? A fire marshal was telling me that there is a restriction in NFPA 13, but I've never heard of it and can't find it. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2433/5069 - Release Date: 06/14/12 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120614/ba1a0509/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Radio Station Broadcast Studios
I don't think Travelers sells special sprinklers, but insurance coverage. Flex drops? Bottle of clean agent? Certainly not the first radio station with A.S. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:48 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Radio Station Broadcast Studios Toni, Do you represent the company that makes these retractable sprinkler heads? Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum- boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gumkowski,Anthony Charles Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:29 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: RE: Radio Station Broadcast Studios How about the Retractable Telescoping sprinkler head designed for anechoic chambers? See http://www.ramayes.com/Retractable_Telescoping_Sprinkler_Head.htm Tony Gumkowski, PE -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum- boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Radio Station Broadcast Studios An architect has contacted me concerning remodeling of an existing radio station. They have broadcast studios which are isolated double walls which are structurally independent of the building framing in order to isolate any foreign noise or vibration from coming into the room. For the proposed additions to take place, we would be required to sprinkler the entire building. Owners concerns: To have sprinkler head connected to a rigid steel pipe filled with water is throwing the sound engineer over the edge. Has anyone run across this scenario before? Any thoughts you might have are greatly appreciated. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 mailto:tston...@comcast.net tston...@comcast.net -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta c hments/20120614/b33afa1f/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum == = === This communication, including attachments, is confidential, may be subject to legal privileges, and is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Any use, duplication, disclosure or dissemination of this communication, other than by the addressee, is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy this communication and all copies. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: 2007 12.2.1 Small hose stations
You could add a system of heat or smokes for early warning; you could upgrade density or remote area size, for equal or better protection. Think outside the box if you're using Equivalency. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 2007 12.2.1 Small hose stations But there is an allowance for a performance based design and/or new technology. The AHJ could approve a performance based design using current FM data sheets or 2010 NFPA #13 requirements. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 4:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 2007 12.2.1 Small hose stations May not help if '02 is the adopted code. AHJ technically doesn't have the authority just to use another code. And it would be hard to use alternate methods if the base is hose stations. How do you take them out but provide equivalent protection. Don't get me wrong hose stations IMHO have very limited uses. If you are really paranoid even if granted you are liable should anything go wrong. Yes I find it hard to believe there is any scenario where hose stations or not make the difference but that's why I'm not an insurance lawyer. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 1:38 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: 2007 12.2.1 Small hose stations We have an AHJ that is still using 2002 #13 and wants to make a building owner install about 70 1.5 hose racks because it is required by code. Rather than just tell them that the 07 and 10 #13 makes them optional I would like to give them a copy of the substantiation from the ROP and/or ROC. Does anyone know how I can get a copy of those documents. Thanks in advance, Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
dry grid prohibition
Would anyone know when dry grids were taken out of NFPA 13? My recollection is mid 1980's, but don't have a copy to check. We've encountered a dry-pipe system installed circa 1999, purported to be in accordance with NFPA 13- 1994 according to the signature of a NICET Level IV, complete with little NICET symbol that looks like a sealoh well. But each of the four wings is protected by a small gridded system. Can someone say whether or not dry grids were permitted in the 1994 edition of 13? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: dry grid prohibition
Limitations discusses the problem of excessive delays in water delivery for gridded dry systems. The next NFPA 13 Edition following 1989 is the 1991. Under Subsection 3-2.3.1 Volume Limitations is Subsection 3-2.3.2 that states, Gridded dry pipe systems shall not be install ed. This is the first occurrence in NFPA 13 for the ban on gridded dry pipe systems. The commentary in the 1991 Handbook state that in more the 90 percent of the installations of gridded dry pipe systems, the times for delivering water to the inspector's test connection were excessive. The commentary further state that in some cases it took as long as 10 minutes for the water to be delivered to the inspectors test. In conclusion, NFPA 13 up to the 1991 Edition allowed gridded dry pipe systems. The 1991 Edition banned the use of gridded dry pipe systems Dan -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 7:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: dry grid prohibition Would anyone know when dry grids were taken out of NFPA 13? My recollection is mid 1980's, but don't have a copy to check. We've encountered a dry-pipe system installed circa 1999, purported to be in accordance with NFPA 13- 1994 according to the signature of a NICET Level IV, complete with little NICET symbol that looks like a sealoh well. But each of the four wings is protected by a small gridded system. Can someone say whether or not dry grids were permitted in the 1994 edition of 13? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120611/b5019145/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: RTI
The amount of significant digits we work to in various aspects is quite varied. Some folks believe calc programs down to the .001 level when it all comes down to a gauge bouncing around in a variable water supply with uncontrolled changes. Yet we worry about inches in other areas. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 7:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI never mind (coffee worked), it's called 'nobody makes them because they would not be UL Listed', and it points out the amazing (to me) tolerances sprinklers are manufactured to. -Original Message- From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE:RTI correction, meter, not feet. i should have looked in 13 instead of trying to recall and thinking i needed to convert. but i now have another (perhaps stupid) question re the definition of fast response and standard response: if fast is RTI=50 or less and standard is 80 or more, what is in between called? I am really more interested in the reasoning for the DEFINITION in NFPA #13, not some box of heads in RTI limbo. Any TC members out there not totally fed-up with me yet? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
In a planter it'll pick up all the fertilizer, dog poop, and whatever else is soluble. Assume the FD will dump and flush their tank- likely as much water as the system took to put it out before they got there. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Really RW? We have a few problems with corrosion and MIC in potable water. What else might be in these RW system that is going to eat up our systems or I suppose might be better as a slim chance. Can the chemical makeup of RW change over time and seasons further complicating what is does to our systems? What's the FD going to wash and flush? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 Special Applications and Installations. The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that
RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants
Makes you wonder what we did before all the DCDA, RPZ, etc. Oh, that's right- a single check, sometimes with a cheater meter, and/or an ALV or DPV. Gosh, remember how many people used to get sick and/or die from our sprinkler systems before we added $1200 to $10,000 per system for REAL BFPs? Hmmno, now that I think about it, I don't recall a single one. And I believe we had a tread about it in the Forum's infancy, and no one else did, either. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Really RW? We have a few problems with corrosion and MIC in potable water. What else might be in these RW system that is going to eat up our systems or I suppose might be better as a slim chance. Can the chemical makeup of RW change over time and seasons further complicating what is does to our systems? What's the FD going to wash and flush? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? - Original Message - From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative solution. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device
RE: BFP's Addendum
Great point, Bob- imagine 8 UG, 8 riser, later on a 1 AF connection for a one or two head AF system off, say a 4 CM. Wouldn't be 1 RPZ? Love it- the RPZ separating the non-toxic AF from our stinky sprinkler water with soot in it (just look at my dress!). Sure today's premix is tomorrow's Prestone, but I just don't see it going thru a 1/32 hole, thru a crossmain a couple hundred feet, thru a DCDA, and then into the domestic at the FF T to poison the occupants. But they're banning 32 oz sodas in NYC George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:48 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: BFP's Addendum Jerry, If this is correct I'm thinking this must be a local amendment. I've never read anything that would suggest this in any manufactures literature. As well, how would that affect an antifreeze loop that's remote? Would you have to use the same size BFP as the piping it comes off of instead of reducing down to what the hydraulics allow? Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of accentf...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: BFP's Addendum Ladies/Gentlemen: I recently learned, through a reliable source, that the BFP - inside a structure - is required to be be the same size as the underground water supply pipine: 6 UG requires 6 BFP, etc. - no 'down-sizing' at base of riser. My source (certified BFP tech) says this is a requirement of USC listing. This was from a presentation at our State SFPE meeting on BFP's...Just wondering if everyone else knew this requirement (none of us did). Regards to All- Jerry accentf...@aol.com Jerry D. Watts, SFPE President/Co-Founder ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd* Santa Fe/Albuquerque/Silver City/Roswell/Artesia New Mexico Seattle, WA San Diego, CA Phoenix, AZ (800) 503.1961 *Licensed Fire Engineers - Architects/Inspectors/Fire Investigators: AZ CA CO NM NV NY TX UT KS MD MS -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120606/8e54d828/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2433/5052 - Release Date: 06/06/12 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: BFP's Addendum
Fire code official in a Pgh, PA suburb circa 1981 used to circle the BFP on EVERY submittal and note Not required by Fire Code Official. Believe years later a brother in law parallel to this story got caught, and of course the very savvy code guy had sterile hands. We'd talk after a jobsite mtg, but he bought his own coffee. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:22 PM To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: BFP's Addendum Or maybe it's the certain town in MA where the Fire Marshal's (or Building Official, I don't remember which) brother-in-law sold backflow preventers. Only one specific manufacturer would be approved and it had to be as large as possible. At 01:48 PM 6/6/2012, you wrote: Jerry, If this is correct I'm thinking this must be a local amendment. I've never read anything that would suggest this in any manufactures literature. As well, how would that affect an antifreeze loop that's remote? Would you have to use the same size BFP as the piping it comes off of instead of reducing down to what the hydraulics allow? Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of accentf...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: BFP's Addendum Ladies/Gentlemen: I recently learned, through a reliable source, that the BFP - inside a structure - is required to be be the same size as the underground water supply pipine: 6 UG requires 6 BFP, etc. - no 'down-sizing' at base of riser. My source (certified BFP tech) says this is a requirement of USC listing. This was from a presentation at our State SFPE meeting on BFP's...Just wondering if everyone else knew this requirement (none of us did). Regards to All- Jerry accentf...@aol.com Jerry D. Watts, SFPE President/Co-Founder ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd* Santa Fe/Albuquerque/Silver City/Roswell/Artesia New Mexico Seattle, WA San Diego, CA Phoenix, AZ (800) 503.1961 *Licensed Fire Engineers - Architects/Inspectors/Fire Investigators: AZ CA CO NM NV NY TX UT KS MD MS -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hment s/20120606/8e54d828/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2433/5052 - Release Date: 06/06/12 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
