Aircraft Hangar Question of the Day!
To my esteemed colleagues: I have an aircraft hangar I am looking at and would like clarification on sprinkler / branchline spacing. I know what I think ;-) However, I would like the combined knowledge of all of you as to the actual requirements of the NFPA standards. The hangar is a 32,000 suare feet Group-I hanger with a door opening to accomodate a 36 ft tail height. The chosen fire protection scheme is Option-3, a closed-head wet-pipe sprinkler system at .17 gpm / 15,000 square feet and a low-level hi-ex foam system. The building is a metal-purlin building with 25 ft bay spacing. NFPA-409 requires a maximum 130 sf sprinkler spacing with a maximum distance of 12 feet between the sprinklers or the branch-lines. NFPA-409 does not reference NFPA-13 for sprinkler or branch-line spacing. Question: In a building with 25 ft bays would one be allowed to space the branch-lines at 12'-6 as indicated in NFPA-13 for storage bays at 25 feet spacing in lieu of the 12 feet as indicated in NFPA-409? Thanks, Ray Vance - SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.comhttp://www.waynefire.com 407-877-5563 office 321-436-2184 mobile ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Aircraft Hangar Questions
Good morning all! Hope everyone had a WONDERFUL Christmas. Let's start off the week with a HIGHLY technical aircraft hangar group of questions that I am sure this esteemed group can adequately handle ;-) Scenario: Group-1 Aircraft Hangar Large Hangar - In excess of 40,000 sq.ft. Tail Height - In excess of 28 ft. Wing Surface Area - In excess of 3000 sq.ft. NFPA-409 allows a choice of three (3) protection criteria: Criteria #1 - Foam-water deluge system with a supplementary protection system. (Read under wing monitor nozzles or other approved protection) Criteria #2 - Wet Automatic sprinklers AND an automatic low-level low-expansion foam system. Criteria #3 - Wet Automatic sprinklers AND an automatic low-level high-expansion foam system. (Low-level meaning a minimum 2ft of depth of the foam blanket to accomodate any flammable/combustible liquids pool fire at the floor level.) Question #1: Based on these protection scheme choices am I correct in my interpretation that the under wing supplementary protection system is ONLY required if Criteria #1 is chosen as the protection criteria for this hangar? Question #2: When utilizing Criteria #3 (High-Ex Foam), am I also correct in my interpretation that the foam solution requirement is the total AREA of the aircraft hangar x 3 cubic feet/min/square ft or 132,000 cfm (44,000 sq.ft. hangar) Question #3: When utilizing Criteria #3 (High-Ex Foam), am I also correct in my interpretation that the sprinkler breakdown factor of 10 cfm/gpm is calculated based on the TOTAL sprinkler system density and demand area requirement of .17 / 15000? (.17/15000 = 2550 gpm x 10 cfm = an additional 25,500 cfm of foam solution) Question #4: When utilizing Criteria #3 (High-Ex Foam), am I also correct in my interpretation that the foam solution shrinkage factor is 1.15 x the SUM of Question #2 and #3 above? (132,000 + 25,500 = 157,500 x 1.15 = 181,125 cfm total foam solution requirement) Question #5: What is the most common detection and releasing method for the hi-ex foam generators? Question #6: How is the column protection requirement normally handled with a Hi-Ex foam system and a wet automatic sprinkler system? I am also providing two (2) foam-water hose reel stations at 60 gpm each for a duration of 20 minutes and two (2) fire pumps. Please offer any advise or direction you may have based on your experiences with this particular scenario. Thanks, Ray Vance - SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.comblocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::outbind://37/www.waynefire.com 407-877-5563 office 321-436-2184 mobile ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Water Filled Pipe in Telecomm Room?
Actually, there is no requirement anywhere in NFPA-70 or NFPA-13 (that I am aware) of that requires control valves on the piping feeding electrical rooms nor is there any requirement in either document requiring the sprinkler piping to terminate in the electrical room. I know MOST electrical inspectors do not want sprinklers or sprinkler piping within their room, but to this day, not one (1) inspector can indicate to me WHERE these requirements or prohibitions are located and I have not yet found them on my own. To expand these thoughts, there are no requirements in the National Elevator Code for control valves nor piping terminations for elevator shafts nor elevator equipment rooms either (removed from the code in 1996), but we fight the same battles day in and day out with the elevator inspectors as well. Unless there are state-specific or local codes / ordinances that mandate these requirements, it simply is a point of contention between the electrical / elevator inspectors and the sprinkler industry. (We do it to codes and standards but they want something else.) That being said, we simply try to avoid creating these conflicts. However, when building construction features or other site conditions are such that to avoid running thru these spaces is so much more costly, we do, at times, choose to battle the we do not want it mentality. You certainly want to pick and choose your battles carefully ;-) Ray Vance - SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com 407-877-5563 office 321-436-2184 mobile -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Filled Pipe in Telecomm Room? Mike, Usually the Electrical Inspectors that I have dealt with do not want sprinkler main piping that runs through the room. If a main is to pass through then there can be no joints within the space. If a sprinkler head is to be installed then we pipe it in from outside the room and usually are required to install a indicating control valve with tamper switch. G. Tim Stone NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 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 Brown, Mike Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Filled Pipe in Telecomm Room? Yes, we are providing a sprinkler head for the room. Mike Brown Project Designer Sunland Fire Protection 1218 Elon Place High Point, NC 27263 Ph. 336.886.7027 Ext. 140 Fax: 336.886.7024 WWW.SUNLANDFIRE.COM -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water Filled Pipe in Telecomm Room? Nothing prevents you from running it above the room unless there's some military spec saying you can't. NFPA doesn't prevent it. Are you providing a sprinkler in the room? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 craig.pr...@ch2m.com http://www.ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brown, Mike Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Water Filled Pipe in Telecomm Room? I working on a design for an existing military barrack... and the FPE is directing us to run our main through a telecomm room? I am trying to find something saying that I can or can't do this? Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. Mike Brown Project Designer Sunland Fire Protection 1218 Elon Place High Point, NC 27263 Ph. 336.886.7027 Ext. 140 Fax: 336.886.7024 WWW.SUNLANDFIRE.COM http://WWW.SUNLANDFIRE.COM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance
RE: Changing out ESFR
Why change them out at all? I do believe the ESFR sprinklers can continue to be utilized as the protection scheme for the manufacturing area, as well as the remainder of the warehouse, unless the insurance company you are dealing with will not allow it. And the new draft curtains would then not be required. Someone please correct me, if I am wrong ;-) Ray Vance - SET Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com 407-877-5563 office 321-436-2184 mobile -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jay Stough Sent: 2009-09-16 12:14 PM To: Sprinkler -Forum Subject: Changing out ESFR I have a customer that is changing part of the warehouse to a manufacturing area. The warehouse is presently covered by 2 ESFR systems. Can I change the ESFR's to upright sprinklers over the manufacturing area? The spot where we would make the change is at a grooved coupling in the 2-1/2 lines. The ESFR's are 3/4 spaced 9' X 9. We should have the deflector at the 12 level when we spin the pipe (hopefully) or raise them an inch or two. The insurance company is mandating a draft curtain between the two different sprinkler types, so we will have the proper separation. Of course we will have to provide calculations to prove it, but am I missing anything? Jay Stough ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: PODs storage again
Travis, This product commodity falls within the same parameters as boat storage - there is no prescriptive requirement to follow. In fact, NFPA has issued a statement this particular type of storage arrangement is outside the scope of NFPA-13. That being said, I have done a fair amount of research into the PODS type storage arrangements for my own education and can offer the following as a starting point (guidelines) for your consideration. (A) I spoke, at length, with Ms. Elley Klausbruckner at Klausbruckner and Assoc. regarding the general requirements for this PODS type storage and specifically about your particular type of storage arrangement. Ms. Klausbruckner is a fire protection engineer and specializes in HPR risk analysis and protection and has been involved in many warehouse storage arrangements of this PODS/Crate type storage, including the brand name PODS facilities. (B) In all cases except one, they have designed the fire sprinkler system as an Exposed, Unnexpanded, Group-A plastic commodity storage arrangement. (C) In all cases except one, they have designed utilizing ESFR sprinklers, unless the building construction prohibited the ESFR protection. In the scenario where the building construction would not allow ESFR, they designed utilizing the area/density method for the appropriate storage height. (D) In the one case where they did NOT protect as a Group-A plastic commodity the pods/crates were constructed entirely of wood. In this scenario they required a letter from the owner of the facility that the amount of Group-A plastics within the pods/crates at any time were less than 5% to 15% by weight or 5% to 25% by volume. The crate itself was treated as part of the unit load and the entire unit load was classified as a Class-IV commodity. (E) For reference, upholstered furniture is classified as a Class-IV commodity per the IFC 2303.5 (See IFC Figure 2303.7.4) (F) Tyco Fire Products, per their own internal technical document also indicates ESFR protection for PODS type storage that have plastic tops on the containers. (G) An analysis done by Rolf Jensen and Associates and written up in the 2006 Edition of Fire Protection Engineering Magazine suggests the use of ESFR sprinklers for the Group-A plastics scenario as well, but also indicates a dual design area/density as another design option. I know some of our esteemed colleagues are still not entirely comfortable with the determination of the protection schemes for this particular type of storage and there is NO prescriptive direction from NFPA on the subject. However, they have been and are being built all over the country and are being sprinklered in some fashion. We can only provide the protection scheme that is most consistant with the experts in our field, FP engineers with risk analysis experience, and provide the protection scheme as determined by them. The consensus from my personal research, at least at this point, is to protect as an Exposed, Unexpanded, Group-A plastic commodity and provide ESFR protection if the building construction allows. I implore those of you with the expertise above and beyond what Travis and I have to weigh in and provide your insights and experiences into this commodity storage. As always, have and AWESOME day! Ray Vance - SET Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 mobile -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: 2009-03-30 5:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: PODs storage again I tried to search the archives, but keep getting a file not found error. I am looking at a PODs storage warehouse. There was a lot of discussion on the forums a while back, but I can't access all of it. The facility I am looking at has 24' storage. What is the general concensus of the protection req'd for these areas? Thanks in advance for your help. Travis Mack, SET ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Collectors
Mine are 1899 Grinnell. Also have early 1900's glass grenades from KillFyre with mounting brackets / hammers. Ray Vance - SET Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers - Original Message - From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Sat Feb 21 07:44:17 2009 Subject: RE: Collectors I think my oldest is 1905-6, it's a Grinnell as well. I have a bucket of 1915-6 era heads I pulled out of a warehouse in Fall River, MA this past summer. I tripped one with a torch to look at the pieces, I think the seal is silver. Tom Mine isn't as old as that but I have the wrench for it. On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Ed Vining edvinin...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder who among us has the oldest sprinkler? mine is an 1883 Grinnell Ed Vining On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Tom Duross tduro...@comcast.net wrote: I don't know how many of you are buffs or collectors of old sprinklers but I have a few and watch ebay when I see interesting ones. I wish I had got here more than 5 minutes ago because an 1893 Gray just closed on ebay for $447, item 260362058049 in case you want to look. I would have liked to post a notice in case anyone was interested. Tom Duross ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: piping through joist
Mark, No apology needed, but accepted none-the-less! I gave you incorrect information, therefore the resultant conclusion you would have drawn would have been incorrect, as you demonstrated. I should have read my post again before sending to assure the formula was typed correctly, especially coming from my blackberry. Ray Vance - SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 mobile -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark Hasenmyer Sent: 2009-01-12 20:33 To: tra...@firesprinkler.org; m...@firesprinkler.org; SET; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: piping through joist My apologies to Ray for my previous terse response. I took his NO! to refer to the formula I submitted. Travis pointed out it was refering to Travis' question about the 21' length of pipe. I guess reading all those emails last week railing on engineers gave me a complex. Again my apologies to Ray. Mark Hasenmyer, PE -Original Message- From: Travis Mack, SET tm...@mfpdesign.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: piping through joist the formula is L = (A/6)*B A = Depth of joist in inches B = spacing of joists in decimal feet L = max length of pipe in decimal feet For 24 deep joists at 5' on center 24/6*5 = 20' 36 at 5' on center gives you a 30' stick of pipe. I think Ray just typed a (-) for a (*). I knew what he meant :-) This is the one I was taught about 20 years ago. I just wasn't sure how accurate it was. I always knew it was pretty conservative. This particular job, when it hits right on the 20' mark for several miles of 3' sch 40, we wanted to be sure. Thanks again from everyone. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark Hasenmyer Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: piping through joist Okay Ray so you are telling me that with your formula if the joists are 24 deep and 5' apart I can get a -1 length of pipe through it? Or for joists 36 deep and 5' apart the maximum length I can get through the joists is 1'? Seems to me your formula is wrong. I just copied it from the pocket guide. Mark Hasenmyer, PE MEH Fire Protection Engineering LLC 1311 River Oaks Drive Flower Mound, TX 75028 Office (972) 874-2662 Fax (972) 874-5591 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:28 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: piping through joist NO! Travis, the formula is (A/6)-B A is the depth of the joist and B is the spacing between the joist. It is very accurate up to 2 1/2 pipe and reasonably accurate for 3 and 4 Ray Vance - SET Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers - Original Message - From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon Jan 12 18:00:37 2009 Subject: piping through joist Does anyone have a moderately accurate formula for determining the longest length of pipe I can fit in a joist space. The project in question has 24 deep joists at 5' on center. It is looking like 3 sch 40 branch lines (military project). Will a 21' length of pipe work? What is the longest I can get through there? Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Dr Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com tm...@mfpdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __ NOD32 3760 (20090112) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject
Re: piping through joist
NO! Travis, the formula is (A/6)-B A is the depth of the joist and B is the spacing between the joist. It is very accurate up to 2 1/2 pipe and reasonably accurate for 3 and 4 Ray Vance - SET Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers - Original Message - From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon Jan 12 18:00:37 2009 Subject: piping through joist Does anyone have a moderately accurate formula for determining the longest length of pipe I can fit in a joist space. The project in question has 24 deep joists at 5' on center. It is looking like 3 sch 40 branch lines (military project). Will a 21' length of pipe work? What is the longest I can get through there? Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Dr Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com tm...@mfpdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: piping through joist
Sorry for the typing error (new blackberry) The formula should have been (A/6)*B or a 20ft length. Thanks for catching my error! Ray - Original Message - From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon Jan 12 19:25:29 2009 Subject: RE: piping through joist Okay Ray so you are telling me that with your formula if the joists are 24 deep and 5' apart I can get a -1 length of pipe through it? Or for joists 36 deep and 5' apart the maximum length I can get through the joists is 1'? Seems to me your formula is wrong. I just copied it from the pocket guide. Mark Hasenmyer, PE MEH Fire Protection Engineering LLC 1311 River Oaks Drive Flower Mound, TX 75028 Office (972) 874-2662 Fax (972) 874-5591 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:28 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: piping through joist NO! Travis, the formula is (A/6)-B A is the depth of the joist and B is the spacing between the joist. It is very accurate up to 2 1/2 pipe and reasonably accurate for 3 and 4 Ray Vance - SET Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers - Original Message - From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon Jan 12 18:00:37 2009 Subject: piping through joist Does anyone have a moderately accurate formula for determining the longest length of pipe I can fit in a joist space. The project in question has 24 deep joists at 5' on center. It is looking like 3 sch 40 branch lines (military project). Will a 21' length of pipe work? What is the longest I can get through there? Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Dr Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com tm...@mfpdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mech/Electrical room classification (wa Existing Pipe ScheduledSystem Water Supply)
Rooms housing emergengy generators and diesel fire pump rooms should be protected as EH1, per NFPA-37, Internal Combustion Engines standard. Ray Vance - SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 mobile -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: 2008-11-18 17:07 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mech/Electrical room classification (wa Existing Pipe ScheduledSystem Water Supply) I knew there was a SF limit but without looking it up I said 600 SF(Just too lazy today!). Thanks Ed! 400 Sf and my post remains unchanged. The question is can we call Electric and mechanical rooms OH I? I'd say that one limit is if the ceiling is less than 9'-6 (18 clear below heads should not be more than 8'-0 high storage) why not? How about emergency generator or fire pump rooms?(NFPA 20, 5.12.1.1.2 only says fully sprinklered, no Design density.) Same kind of thing? For kitchens see A21.36.1, or 5.3.1. And if you look at A5.4.1, Elevator Equipment rooms and pits should be EX I if you CANNOT prove the Hyd. Fluid is Non-Combustible I would say that if the rest of the building is OH II then don't sweat the M/E rooms, just use the same coverage. But if the rest of the building is LH, then you may want to look at the actual conditions in the space. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 With modern odd names and more from other cultures all electrical rooms are now labeled as Electa's office and the mechanical room is Phan's office. BTW I've also just always done the OH thing in mech/electrical and let's throw in kitchens. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: FLOW / PITOT READINGS
Tim, Here is my two cents worth (it was worth a dime before the current economic crisis!) Also, could you answer a few questions so a better analysis could be made? (1) Did you do the proper two-hydrant flow test? (2) What was the full flow test for the area (static, residual, and flow) (3) How far away from the pressure reading hydrant did you do the pitot (flow) reading? (4) What size underground line was this test taken from? (5) Was it dead-end or a circulating (looped/gridded) main? (6) Was there any significant elevation change between the flow and pressure hydrants? (7) If it is a dead-end line, did you flow the hydrant on the end of the line or take the pressure readings from the end hydrant? All things being equal, a pitot reading should be pretty much the same as the residual pressure reading minus the elevation difference between the hydrants, any friction loss in the piping system associated with the distance between the two hydrants, the friction loss thru the type of hydrant in place, and the actual coefficient of the tested opening. Typically, when you have such a dicrepency between the residual pressure and the pitot readings there is an obstruction somewhere in the line, or a valve is closed (or partially closed) somewhere in the piping system and you are not getting the proper available flow thru the test hydrant. I am also not getting the warm and fuzzies regarding the flow test paper information either, just based on the numbers you indicate. It is entirely possible the flow test you are referencing is also incorrect or was not performed properly. Ray Vance - SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson Sent: 2008-10-14 21:43 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FLOW / PITOT READINGS Am I ignorant on this subject? Please let me know. If you flow a 2 1/2 hydrant, and the pitot reading is 55 psi the gpm will always be 1250. Right? (I understand you factor in the coefficient of the hydrant nozzle). My pitot gauge manufac tured by Potter shows BOTH gpm AND psi. I'm looking at a flow test paper. Through a 2.5 hydrant outlet. Residual is 90 psi @ 840 GPM. Is this possible? Forest Wilson Cherokee Fire Pro. a ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Pesticides Storage
Esteemed Collegues: Can anyone give guidance on a Pesticides Storage warehouse and the approriate fire protection requirements? NFPA-434 doesn't give prescriptove requiremetns or a definitive path to follow. It only indicates a risk analysis be done by a competent individual (I read PE or FPE) to determine the extent and type of fire protection to be provide. Without regard to storage arrangement and heights, what TYPE of commodity would be appropriate to consider, since the amount stored is over 10,000 lbs and is extermely varied in the types and configurations of products to be stored? I am leaning towards NFPA-30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids to begin my analysis, but would like the opinions of anyone who has had experience with this process. Thanks in advance, Ray Vance -SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.comblocked::blocked::http://www.waynefire.com/ (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pesticides Storage
Thanks Todd. I have already gone down that path and the client is in the process of getting the MSDS sheets for us. We have been given a set of design documents from an engineering firm indicating an area/density requirement, but no information was given as to the storage height, storage arrangement, commodity classification, building height, clearances, container types or sizes, etc. so an informed decision can be made relating to the appropriate protection scheme. Fortunately, the containment requirements of NFPA 434 have been addressed, but the fire protection portion is definitely lacking in sufficient detail to determine an adequate direction. Ray Vance - SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: 2008-10-16 11:39 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Pesticides Storage Ray, Get MSDS's on the stuff and see exactly what you are dealing with. At 11:29 AM 10/16/2008, you wrote: Esteemed Collegues: Can anyone give guidance on a Pesticides Storage warehouse and the approriate fire protection requirements? NFPA-434 doesn't give prescriptove requiremetns or a definitive path to follow. It only indicates a risk analysis be done by a competent individual (I read PE or FPE) to determine the extent and type of fire protection to be provide. Without regard to storage arrangement and heights, what TYPE of commodity would be appropriate to consider, since the amount stored is over 10,000 lbs and is extermely varied in the types and configurations of products to be stored? I am leaning towards NFPA-30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids to begin my analysis, but would like the opinions of anyone who has had experience with this process. Thanks in advance, Ray Vance -SET Chief Sales Designer Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.comblocked::blocked::http://www.waynefire.com/ (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: overhang concealed space
Todd, In my opinion, you are correct in that you are actually addressing two very specific issues: (1) The combustible concealed space created by the framing of the overhang (2) The use of the space BENEATH the combustible overhang Each of the scenarios needs to be addressed separately and again I am in agreement with you. The combustible concealed space created by the framing needs to be protected in accordance with ONE of the allowable protection schemes per NFPA-13, most likely either sprinklered or filled with nocombustible insulation. The space beneath the overhang should not be required to have sprinkler protection since it is less than 4ft wide and I am presuming no combustibles are stored or handled beneath it. Ray Vance - SET Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: 2008-10-01 14:12 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: overhang concealed space I am working on a project on a wood frame building which has a 3' wide overhang around the perimeter. The framing is likewise wood, the space between the joists is greater than 6 and the space is separated from the main building by 2x4 blocking. My claim is that is is a combustible concealed space and requires protection and the architect's claim is that it is an overhang less than 4 ft, so sprinklers are not required. I said that is for below the overhang only, but he disagrees. I should be able to argue this successfully but I've been working too many 12 hour days and weekends so I'm a little cooked at the moment. Am I on target? This is a child care occupancy. The building permit was issued on 8/8 and they have to turn over the building on 11/5. I got the design contract 5 days ago. There is no time to get a big argument going, so this needs to be solved fast. Thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Panel Construction vs room less than 300 sqft.
Not to make you feel wordsmith challenged, but You also have the Concentric Vertical Birdcage piping layout I used once in an attic area. Picture a rectangular building with a wood truss roof system where all the trusses run from the exterior wall towards the center of the building. (Think PYRAMID!) Ran a looped piping system (all 1 pipe) around the attic at each sprinkler level then made it a grid by feeding it from both ends and tying in all (4) looped lines to the cross main (1 1/4) on each end. When the AHJ asked what this piping system was called I said (in my most authoritative voice) a Concentric Vertical Birdcage piping system ;-) He was S impressed, he took the rest of the day off and went for coffee... Said his head was hurting, or something to that effect. OK, no more post from me today ;-) Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Panel Construction vs room less than 300 sqft. I love that Staggered Pine Tree sprinkler layout! How does that vary from the Maple layout? (Just being a smart A**) I wish I had the word smith talent to think of things like Staggered Pine Tree Layout Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Panel Construction vs room less than 300 sqft. this morning Andrew Weisfield wrote. So we have a staggered pine tree sprinkler layout with deflectors at about 20 inches below the deck. ___ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) --- Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into 'The Players Hall of Fame' at The Great Games of Business http://www.greatgame.com Wayne Automatic Fire Spinklers, Inc. 'Best Places to Work' http://tinyurl.com/ov335 by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: New topic Round 2
Unless I am sadly mistaken... And I regularly am ;-) The function of maximum sprinkler spacing is either: (1)a function of the required design density, as addressed by NFPA-13 and all the previously referenced tables... (2) or a function of the listing of the sprinkler you wish to utilize, (ie extended coverage, ESFR, etc) It also appears to me that it doesn't matter whether it is high-piled storage or miscellaneous storage, by definition. The requirements are still predicated on the required design density (ie 0.25 gpm or /= 0.25 gpm) OR the sprinkler's listing. The only other caveat that comes into play are any other specific requirements or allowances for spacing in high-piled storage arrangements, such as in-rack sprinklers, etc. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: New topic Round 2 Also add Table 8.8.2.1.2 for Extended Coverage for Storage Here's a related wrinkle. Well actual the text says High PIled storage which is defined as storage greater than 12 ft high. What about Group A plastic greater than 5 ft (which falls in full storage vs Class I-IV going to Chap 13 - Misc and the Occupancy Hazard Approach) Roland On Aug 6, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Jay Stough wrote: Try table 8.6.2.2.1(d). Joseph C. Stough SET, CFPS ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) --- Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into 'The Players Hall of Fame' at The Great Games of Business http://www.greatgame.com Wayne Automatic Fire Spinklers, Inc. 'Best Places to Work' http://tinyurl.com/ov335 by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Fire Flow Calculation
To REALLY make things interesting, the ISO method of calculation is for an unsprinklered building only. ISO defines the Needed Fire Flow for a sprinklered building to be the sprinkler system demand plus the appropriately required hose demand! I recently authored a CEU approves course for the State of Florida on Needed Fire Flows and included this little tidbit into my class presentations. You should have seen the faces of everyone in the class ;-) The looks were like kids getting caught with their hands in a cookie jar! The thing to remember is that regardless of the method utilized, the AHJ has the final approving authority on the method utilized, the sprinkler system credit, etc. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:53 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Flow Calculation The other thing to remember about the ISO Fire Flows is that they limit the maximum flow to 3500 Gpm @ 20 Psi per hyd. To most of you this will sound like water from heaven. Up here in the hill's, we often have 3500 @ 80, and lose the ability to flatten the supply curve. Usually not a big deal until we get some more heavy Industry, but something to think about. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Flow Calculation The reason for the ISO method being more atractive is that ISO allows the Effective Area to be calculated utilizing 2hr fire separations for compartmentalization. In simpler words, you are allowed to calculate the fire flow based on the LARGEST effective area bounded by 2hr construction. This also allows 2hr floor assemblies to be utilized as boundaries as well. In addition, if your structure is two stories or greater, there is an allowance for protected vertical openings vs. unprotected vertical openings. The fire protection handbook has a very good section on Needed Fire Flow and lays out most of the ISO method requirements and allowances. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Flow Calculation There was an article by Ken Isman from the OFSA (Other Fire Sprinkler Association) in Sprinkler Quarterly recently (April? A group of people standing by a fire truck on cover) which ran thru some of the fire flow calculations, and in it he referenced a previous SQ article from 2003 which had more detail on the subject. He discusses the difference between the IFC and ISO methods of determining fire flows, and I recollect the ISO method was more attractive for reasons I don't recall at this time. If you have access to SQ, this might be exactly what you're looking for. George Church Rowe Sprinkler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:54 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Flow Calculation Ron, Just a few questions to stimulate the ole thought processes this morning ;-) (1) What fire flow calculation method are you required (or allowed) to utilize in the jurisdiction you are referencing? (2) Have you calculated the effective area based on the allowed compartmentalization of the method you are using? (Such as 2hr fire separations, 4hr fire separations, etc.) (3) How is the 200k sqft addition separated from the 150k sqft existing building? (4) How is the 50k sqft unsprinklered area separated out of the 150k sqft existing area? (5) What reduction in fire flow does you local authority allow for sprinklers and is there a possibility of an alternate reduction percentage (ie. 50% instead of 75%) based on the way the 50k sqft area is separated out of the 150k sqft area? (6) What was the orginal fire flow requirement for the existing 150k sqft building and how was the unsprinklered 50k sqft addressed at that time? Maybe we can get a better determination of the actual conditions you are dealing with and a more definitive number than ALL or NONE in the fire flow calculation process with a little more information from which to work. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Fire Flow Calculation Looking
RE: Fire Flow Calculation
Ron, Just a few questions to stimulate the ole thought processes this morning ;-) (1) What fire flow calculation method are you required (or allowed) to utilize in the jurisdiction you are referencing? (2) Have you calculated the effective area based on the allowed compartmentalization of the method you are using? (Such as 2hr fire separations, 4hr fire separations, etc.) (3) How is the 200k sqft addition separated from the 150k sqft existing building? (4) How is the 50k sqft unsprinklered area separated out of the 150k sqft existing area? (5) What reduction in fire flow does you local authority allow for sprinklers and is there a possibility of an alternate reduction percentage (ie. 50% instead of 75%) based on the way the 50k sqft area is separated out of the 150k sqft area? (6) What was the orginal fire flow requirement for the existing 150k sqft building and how was the unsprinklered 50k sqft addressed at that time? Maybe we can get a better determination of the actual conditions you are dealing with and a more definitive number than ALL or NONE in the fire flow calculation process with a little more information from which to work. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Fire Flow Calculation Looking for help to determine required fire flow. New addition to hospital is 200k sqft. 150k sqft existing building with 50k sqft of the 150k not sprinklered. Construction type is I-FR. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) --- Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into 'The Players Hall of Fame' at The Great Games of Business http://www.greatgame.com Wayne Automatic Fire Spinklers, Inc. 'Best Places to Work' http://tinyurl.com/ov335 by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Increasing Area of Operation
Brian, The increases are COMPOUNDED in that you take 1500 sq.ft. x 1.30 (increase 30%) to 1950 sq.ft. then multiply the result by another 30% (1950 x 1.30) to get to 2535 sq.ft. Since both the slope and the dry system can cause delays in the discharge of water from the sprinklers over the fire area, you must compound the multipliers. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.comhttp://www.waynefire.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Increasing Area of Operation --- Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into 'The Players Hall of Fame' at The Great Games of Business http://www.greatgame.com Wayne Automatic Fire Spinklers, Inc. 'Best Places to Work' http://tinyurl.com/ov335 by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: FDC Connection
After careful deliberation and reflection on all the previous posts to this thread, it seems to me we may be over-thinking the whole process. Since the FDC is supplemental to the water supply and is not intended nor required to provide a specifice flow, then the whole concept of where and how to tie it in becomes a much more simple process. (1) The FDC connection is a Parallel connection, and as such the water and pressure provided is really nothing more than a MANUAL secondary supply. (2) As a Parallel supply it will augment or assist the primary supply until which time as the PRESSURE from the secondary supply exceeds the primary. (3) Since it is a MANUAL supply, once the secondary exceeds the primary it in effect BECOMES the primary, unless manually throttled back to balance the primary supply pressure. No real difference than (2) fire pumps in parallel. (4) The FDC connection piping size only needs to be as large as the riser up to the point it connects to the system piping. If you calculate a system and need a 4 riser, but reduce the feed main to 3 from the top of the riser out to the system cross-main, then what does it matter if the 4 FDC connection piping connects to a 3 cross-main? The FDC connection piping, again, in effect, becomes a 4 riser (without the control valve) until it ties in to the sytem. (NO DIFFERENCE) (5) The new position of the NFPA technical committee to connect to cross-main or feed-mains only (no branch-lines)was made, in my opinion, to alleviate the inherent difficulties in overcoming extreme pressure losses due to both friction and velocity in smaller sized piping, (2 and smaller) when pumping higher flows at higher pressures, such as an FDC would provide from a pumper truck. (6) By limiting the connection to cross-main or feed-mains, the whole function of the FDC secondary supply overcoming and then BECOMING the primary supply is addressed, as you will not get the extreme pressure losses at higher flows, as you would in 2 or smaller branch-lines. (7) At any time the FDC supply pressure drops back below the original primary supply pressure, the whole process reverts back to the origianl primary supply. In my humble opinion, the NFPA standards relating to FDC connections, as written, already address MOST all the scenarios and issues discussed this fine Friday afternoon. With a little more thought process and understanding of the function of the FDC connection and its purpose, the whole point of Where to tie it in, What size it needs to be, Why tie-in only on feed or cross-mains, etc, becomes a much clearer picture. One final thought... Is is quitting time yet ;-) Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fires Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC Connection Flow and pressure cannot be supplemented (boosted) given the valve arrangement required by NFPA. The main riser check valve is either open or closed. The handbook calls it an auxiliary water supply to the system. Supplementing the automatic supply and increasing overall reliability. I have run into a lot of AHJ's that think the FDC will add to the flow and pressure from the city supply like a booster pump but it will not. The FDC becomes the sole source of water and pressure when used. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Sprinkler Phoenix, AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC Connection YES! SUPPLEMENTAL! As stated in NFPA 13, 2007 handbook A.6.8.1 You can do whatever you want thru those 2-2-1/2 connections, but somehow I don't think they were ever intended to Supply the entire demand for an ESFR 40' warehouse, or a .3/3000 design area, or a large deluge at a refinery, or--or---or--. If you do that dangerous thing (use Logic) we should only rely on 2-2-1/2 connections for up to 500 GPM. (See NFPA 14) Obviously you can, with the right pumper, and the right hydrant, flow more than 500 at an elevated pressure. But if it was the intent to Supply the entire system demand through the FDC, why are we not required to prove it? With a hyd. Calc. using the nearest hydrant and the smallest pumper or responding engine, and appropriate hose and friction loss? You really want to go down that path? Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC Connection Supplemental? If 150 psi is pumped into the FDC the riser check will close making
RE: FDC Connection
We all now that there can not be two different pressures at the same point in a piping system at the same time. We also know that at some point one pressure will completely overcome the other pressure, and typically this is the FDC pressures overcoming the original primary supply pressure. But... The FDC WILL, for some period of time, augment or assist. Depending upon the size of the piping system, until the total friction loss, either from the FDC connection back to the riser, or from the riser put to the FDC connection is overcome (including elevation pressure differences), and the pressure at either end exceeds the pressure provided by the water supply at that end, you will have times when BOTH supplies are acting upon the sprinkler system. In any event, the FDC is intended to be a secondary or augmenting supply for a fire sprinkler system and, if pressured up enough, becomes the primary supply, whether or not it is intended to be. As a side note, if the FDC is provided specifically for a standpipe or combination standpipe sytem in a manual-wet scenario, then it IS designed to provide the full flows and pressures of the standpipe system, keeping in mind the requirement to calculate the demand back to the FDC connection so the piping is sized to overcome the appropriate friction losses and elevations. Always be sure you coordinate the local fire department's ability to provide the required standpipe demands and/or keep the required pressures on the downside of 150 psi at the FDC. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fires Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC Connection Item #2 is wrong it will not augment or assist. The check valve in the FDC line will not open until there is a greater pressure on the inlet side than on the system side. Ron Fletcher -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC Connection After careful deliberation and reflection on all the previous posts to this thread, it seems to me we may be over-thinking the whole process. Since the FDC is supplemental to the water supply and is not intended nor required to provide a specifice flow, then the whole concept of where and how to tie it in becomes a much more simple process. (1) The FDC connection is a Parallel connection, and as such the water and pressure provided is really nothing more than a MANUAL secondary supply. (2) As a Parallel supply it will augment or assist the primary supply until which time as the PRESSURE from the secondary supply exceeds the primary. (3) Since it is a MANUAL supply, once the secondary exceeds the primary it in effect BECOMES the primary, unless manually throttled back to balance the primary supply pressure. No real difference than (2) fire pumps in parallel. (4) The FDC connection piping size only needs to be as large as the riser up to the point it connects to the system piping. If you calculate a system and need a 4 riser, but reduce the feed main to 3 from the top of the riser out to the system cross-main, then what does it matter if the 4 FDC connection piping connects to a 3 cross-main? The FDC connection piping, again, in effect, becomes a 4 riser (without the control valve) until it ties in to the sytem. (NO DIFFERENCE) (5) The new position of the NFPA technical committee to connect to cross-main or feed-mains only (no branch-lines)was made, in my opinion, to alleviate the inherent difficulties in overcoming extreme pressure losses due to both friction and velocity in smaller sized piping, (2 and smaller) when pumping higher flows at higher pressures, such as an FDC would provide from a pumper truck. (6) By limiting the connection to cross-main or feed-mains, the whole function of the FDC secondary supply overcoming and then BECOMING the primary supply is addressed, as you will not get the extreme pressure losses at higher flows, as you would in 2 or smaller branch-lines. (7) At any time the FDC supply pressure drops back below the original primary supply pressure, the whole process reverts back to the origianl primary supply. In my humble opinion, the NFPA standards relating to FDC connections, as written, already address MOST all the scenarios and issues discussed this fine Friday afternoon. With a little more thought process and understanding of the function of the FDC connection and its purpose, the whole point of Where to tie it in, What size it needs to be, Why tie-in only on feed or cross-mains, etc, becomes a much clearer picture. One final thought... Is is quitting time yet ;-) Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fires Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com
RE: Backflow device and steel pipe
Mike, Your post raises a few questions to ponder before providing any reasonable direction: (All information based on the 2002 edition of NFPA-13, as that is the standard we are on in Florida.) (1) What jurisdiction does the water purveyor have in this case if you are adding a small (8-head) system to an existing system that already has cross-connection control? Is it that the water purveyor requires a reduced-pressure assembly now that you are adding anti-freeze into the system? (2) Why is there a requirement for a backflow preventer between the interface of the wet and anti-freeze portions? (3) You already have a backflow preventer at the connection between the water purveyor and the fire protection system... Why a 2nd one? (Unless the water purveyor wants an RPZ) (4) Are the sprinklers for the antifreeze system below the level of the interface to the wet-pipe system? (5) What is the size (in volume) of the existing wet-pipe system? (6) What is the size (in volume) of the anti-freeze solution? (I presume 10 to 15 gallons total since it it only EIGHT sprinklers.) (7) Why not just install the anti-freeze system without any backflow prevention and expansion tank at the interface for this particular system. I am not suggesting you install it one way or the other. I am just offering points for consideration to make a logical determination of the best way to install the anti-freeze system for this particular project. As to the water purveyors requirement of non-ferrous piping feeding a backflow preventer, is this written in their local code? I am sure it isn't part of an NFPA requirement anywhere. Correct me if I am wrong, fellow forumites! Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wisneski Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Backflow device and steel pipe Well forumites, I've gat a new one (to me). Customer wants a small anti-freeze system on a loading dock. The existing system is a steel pipe system with a double check backflow at the service entry. Normally I would just tap into the closest main (5 feet away), drop down to a reduced pressure backflow and install an expansion tank and the eight head anti-freeze system. The water purveyor now tells me that is unacceptable. They want the anti-freeze system tied into the ductile iron pipe at the service entrance, before the existing double check, and fed with non ferrous pipe. They say they do not want any type of backflow device fed with black steel pipe. This, I believe, is not a code issue. Has anyone run into this situation before? Thanks in advance, Mike Wisneski ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) --- Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into 'The Players Hall of Fame' at The Great Games of Business http://www.greatgame.com Wayne Automatic Fire Spinklers, Inc. 'Best Places to Work' http://tinyurl.com/ov335 by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Backflow device and steel pipe
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wisneski Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Backflow device and steel pipe Ray, To answer your questions: (1) This water purveyor, along with most of the WP's we deal with, require an RPZ when there is anti-freeze in the system. (2) The installation of an 1 1/2 RPZ is much more cost efficient than removing the six inch double check and installing a new 6 RPZ. (3) See #2 (4) The sprinklers with anti-freeze are higher than the interface (5) The existing system is about 600 gallons (6) The anti-freeze system is about 12 gallons (7) See #2 I think you are going towards using the system itself as an expansion chamber. I personally think that is a great idea, but when you put in an RPZ as is required here, you need to have the expansion tank. Even if you were to change out the double check for an RPZ, 13, to the best of my knowledge, does not make an exception to the expansion chamber requirement based on the volume of the system you are feeding from. Thanks, Mike Wisneski ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) --- Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into 'The Players Hall of Fame' at The Great Games of Business http://www.greatgame.com Wayne Automatic Fire Spinklers, Inc. 'Best Places to Work' http://tinyurl.com/ov335 by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Area of Reduction 11.2.3
Bobby, If the area in the floor/ceiling space is a horizontal combustible conceled space 36 of less in height (and I presume they are), you must use a LISTED sprinkler for this space and abide by all requirements of the sprinkler's listings, including appropriate compartmentalization. If the area is more than 36 in height then you can utilize the area reduction allowances as long as you meet all of the conditions per NFPA-13, as previously indicated by Matthew. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew J. Willis Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Area of Reduction 11.2.3 Yes as far as I see. As long as all conditions are met, there are no other restrictions mentioned. R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Living Water Fire Protection, LLC. 1160 McKenzie Rd. PO Box 877 Cantonment, FL. 32533 850-937-1850 Voice 850-937-1852 Facsimile [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -Original Message- - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On - Behalf Of Bobby Gillett - Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:02 AM - To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org - Subject: Area of Reduction 11.2.3 - - We have a 4 story building with mercantile on the 1st - floor and residential living on the top 3 floors (Light - Hazard). This is wood construction and we have to put - sprinklers in between the ceiling and floor space. Can - the area of reduction be taken in the remote area for - the sprinklers between floors? - - - - Bobby Gillett - - Project Manager - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - (731)-424-0130 - - - - - - - - - - ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Trapeze lengths beyond 10'-0
As for a definitive answer to this question, I can not provide. What I can provide is this... there is no direction in the NFPA standard (that I can find) on how to determine a section modulus for spans over 10ft. However... (1) Adding the 4ft span modulus to the 10ft span modulus does seem to be an acceptable way to determine the 14ft span. I offer this as my logic... Go to the 3ft span for ANY of the pipe sizes and look at the section modulus. Then go to the 6ft span. It is almost exactly 2 times the 3ft span. Then go the 9ft span. It is almost exactly 3 times the 3 ft span. Or go to ANY span and get the section modulus and then go to the span that is double the length. The section modulus is correspondently almost exactly DOUBLE, same as the length! OR add the 10ft span section modulus for 4 pipe shc-10 to the 4ft section modulus for sch-10 and you still get 1.19 The problem will be getting an AHJ to accept this logic and apply it WITHOUT any imperical data to back it up. Ultimately you may have to actually have a section modulus determined or an NFPA technical opinion rendered as to the application of this logic. Thanks, Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew J. Willis Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Trapeze lengths beyond 10'-0 Can you apply the formula and get an equivalent modulus based on not center loading the members? R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Living Water Fire Protection, LLC. 1160 McKenzie Rd. PO Box 877 Cantonment, FL. 32533 850-937-1850 Voice 850-937-1852 Facsimile [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -Original Message- - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On - Behalf Of Randy Knutson - Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:05 AM - To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org - Subject: Trapeze lengths beyond 10'-0 - - Forumites, - - - - I searched the archives and didn't find a discussion on - this topic. - - Here's my question? - - - - Can I extrapolate out beyond the 10'-0 length on the - section modulus required for trapeze in table - 9.1.1.6.1(a) '07ed.? - - - - A fitter called this morning wanting 14' trapeze hangers - for 4 pipe. He was placing the main in the wrong - location but it brought up an interesting question. I - noticed that the section modulus has a linear increase - with trapeze length. - - For 4 Sch 10 y=.085x, where y=section modulus - x=Trapeze length. So, for a 14' trapeze for 4 sch 10, - would a 1.19 section modulus work? - - Do I have to have the initials PE after my name to think - these thoughts? - - - - Thanks, - - - - Randy Knutson - - Shilo Automatic Sprinkler, Inc. - - ___ - Sprinklerforum mailing list - Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org - http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - - To Unsubscribe, send an email - to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Stage's
There is far more to it than is it a stage or a platform. You also have to determine if it is a legitimate stage as well. With this determination comes more considerations, such as possible standpipe connections on each side of the stage, proscenium opening protection requirements, etc. There is direction in the Life Safety Code (NFPA-101) as well as NFPA-13 for direction and guidance on the proper proteection of stages and their ancilliary spaces. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com 407-656-3030 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew J. Willis Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stage's Is it a stage or a Platform? R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Living Water Fire Protection, LLC. 1160 McKenzie Rd. PO Box 877 Cantonment, FL. 32533 850-937-1850 Voice 850-937-1852 Facsimile [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -Original Message- - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On - Behalf Of Brian Harris - Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:56 AM - To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org - Subject: Stage's - - I'm working on a school that has a pretty big stage, I - could have sworn I read something about special - considerations when it comes to stages. NFPA-13 - 8.15.16 (07) is all I can find, am I missing something? - - - Regards, - - - http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ - - - - - - - - - E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) - Database version: 5.09690 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ - ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Small Room Rule
As long as the area of the small room in question divided by the number of sprinklers in the room averages less than 225 square ft per sprinkler, the 9ft rule supercedes the S x L area calculation. It is my understanding this allowance applies whether there is one sprinkler or more in the small room since a small room, by definition, can be up to 800 sq.ft. in area, thereby requiring more than one sprinkler to protect it. However, the 9ft allowance from a wall for a sprinkler or row of sprinklers can only be applied off of ONE wall in the small room. The reasoning is to allow for greater spacing in this one particular instance to account for lights, hvac, or other ceiling obstructions in an area than would otherwise be properly protected by the S x L spacing requirements and is only allowed in areas of light-hazard claassification. This is an allowance from the NFPA committee to keep the costs of installation automatic sprinklers at a reasonable level (without jeopardizing life safety) in these lower-hazard areas. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.warp-drive.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Small Room Rule Forum, I trip myself every time I come across the Small Room Rule, A.8.6.3.2.4(c) 07' edition. Isn't the head that is 9'-0 off the wall covering 270 sq.ft.? Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (5.5.0.178) Database version: 5.09530 http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers
OK... Here I go jumping in with BOTH feet into the murky depths of this ever-deepening flood of sprinkie / stuff-flows-down-hill debate... My brother is a State-Certified Master Plumber here in Florida and has more than 27 years in the plumbing industry. For the last two years his residential contractors have been asking him if he can do the sprinklers, as well as the plumbing. Fortunately he sought counsel first regarding the fire protection side and spent a little time with me and my 25 years of sprinkie experience to determine what he needed to do to do it right. Florida is a little more stringent in their licensing requirements than most states and he can't just add this sprinkie work to his line of stuff-flows-down-hill services. He is, however, going to obtain his additional licensing to install residential sprinkler systems in Florida and will most likely have it sometime this year. I also have a good friend who is a freelance sprinkler designer/layout tech and he has more than a dozen single-family and small-format residential projects he is involved in, in four different states. To make a huge point, some of them will be installed by the plumbing contractors, as they do the rest of the building, once the actual design documents are completed and permits are issued. No matter what we (the sprinkler industry) do it is inevitable the plumbing community is going to go after a large portion of the residential market once the requirements become mandatory and, in my opinion, they will succeed at a level far greater than most of us think. It is also my opinion, and I agree with those of you who have pointed this out, that the available workforce of designers and installers will be severely lacking to do all the work that is coming. Truth be told, we have a severe shortage of qualified personnel right now in the fire sprinkler community to do the work that is available. We continually provide training opportunities for our team members and pretty much spare no expense to get a comfort level that our personnel are as well trained as any in the industry. You MUST continue to train your people and you must do what ever you can to retain those you have trained, especially the good ones. As far as my limited knowledge goes, Steve is on the money regarding the statement relating to home-builders that they can't consistently get good pricing or even timely responses to requests for proposals. He is also correct that this doesn't occur everywhere, but it is the norm instead of the exception. One of the statements my brother made to me was that his builders can't get anyone to call them back. I am currently working with him to to move more of his clients' requests our way until he has his licenses in place. We (Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.) have done and continue to do a tremendous amount of residential work here in Florida with Pulte, Centex, Toll, DR Horton, etc and we service them religiously, both in pricing and in our design and installation services to them. The best way to lose a client is to not service your client. That being said, we need to prepare for the onslaught that is coming in the residential market, as well as be prepared to bid against and justify our pricing structures next to the plumbing industry. We can't stop them, we can only hope to contain them ;-) Ray Vance Chief Enginerering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers I am aware of at least two Western states -I'm sure there are MANY others nationwide - where homebuilders who are dealing with partial or blanket sprinkler ordinances are complaining to local and state AHJ's that they can't get sprinkler contractors to respond to requests for proposals on 13D and small-format 13R projects. I have seen and read proposals for 2500-3000 sq. ft. single-family sprinkler systems that were $5/sq. ft. (and higher) for the building system only. Like most everything else in the built environment, this isn't ultimately about training or human resources or operational programming, it's about cost. And the truth of the matter is, as George says, we have boogered up more than our share of projects as an industry because of bad practices, inadequate training, continuing ed', etc., etc. But there's also an absolute truth about homebuilders that our industry is going to have to address at the levels of marketing and diplomacy. I have had business or correspondence with numerous regional offices of the Big 10 homebuilders - Centex, Pulte, Toll, DR Horton, etc. Universally, there is a preference for expanding existing contracts with their plumbers in lieu of adding another sub to the team. Why? Two-fold; first is that they have a comfort zone with the big plumbers. Second
RE: Max Ceiling Heights
There is technically no limit on the height at which most sprinklers can be utilized. The more usual situation is when a specific sprinkler has a specific listing limiting its usage to a certain height. The number your memory is serving to you comes from the Life Safety Code and references a height of 55ft. However, it doesn't LIMIT you by the standard. It only directs you to give consideration to the fact that the height may cause a delay in the sprinkler activation. The considerations may be to increase your design area, design density, or both to more reliably control a fire in areas where the ceiling is at more extreme heights. Thanks, Ray Vance Wyane Automatic Fire Sprinklers,'Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Max Ceiling Heights Forum, I just got back some comments from the local AHJ on a project we are doing and he's asking me to verify that the heads we are using are rated for ceilings over 30'. I've spoke with the manufacturer and he said he doesn't have anything on min./max. ceiling heights. If memory serves me isn't 50' somewhere in NFPA? Any help would be appreciated. Regards, http://www.firstdefensefire.com/ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: residential heads / 4 head calc
Actually, all residential are Fast Response (QR) but not all Fast Response (QR) are residential. The consideration is as much a function of spray patterns, coverages, sprinkler placement, discharge characteristics, etc. when determining which sprinklers, and by default, which design paramters to utilize. You can not just interchange them nor their design parameters based on one or two considerations. If you choose to utilize residential, you must also utilize the residential design parameters. If you choose to utilize quick-response (non-residential), you must then utilize the area/density method, room design method, corridor calculation method, etc (whatever and where ever it applies or is required) to design/calculate your system. They are not interchangeable, in my opinion, unless the NFPA standards specifically directs you to special allowances for their use. Thanks, Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: residential heads / 4 head calc I believe they are FAST response, but not listed as QR. However, I could be wrong on that. Just because it has a 3mm bulb does not make it a QR sprinkler. So, if they are Fast response, then Greg's question is very valid. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 9:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: residential heads / 4 head calc is there a residential sprinkler that is NOT QR. I know there are other criteria in the design of residential sprinklers (like higher throw), but I thought all were QR, at least for the point of making this dumb question here and now. scot deal excelsior fire ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __ NOD32 2822 (20080125) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: FW: NICET changes, big (Part 2)
George, I feel your pain! I went thru the same process 13 years ago of letting my Level-3 certification lapse (Let's just say I let my pride get in the way) and have had to start all over from scratch. Fortunately, I am and have been an instructor for the Florida Automatic Sprinkler Training Association for more than a decade and currently also teach the State-approved college credit certificate course in Fire Sprinkler System Technology at our local community college. Re-testing should be a breeze ;-) Yeah... RIGHT! Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FW: NICET changes, big (Part 2) Jimmy- We understand the incremental method will run parallel to the new one for awhile, and I don't know that the timeframe has been developed. This was an update on where we see ourselves, and NICET, as of our last meeting. It is NOT an official proclamation from NICET, as the recent restriction on what materials can be taken in with you. And it is subject to change, as this industry should be well aware. If you're a fan of the paper and pencil method, and function well without unbound materials, by all means, pursue the heck out of your testing. I'd be surprised if waiting time would make you re-take an exam. I will caution, from personal experience, that NICET is - understandably- rule-driven. If you let your certification run out and remain inactive for 3 years, you will start over. Happened to me and I re-took all of my elements from scratch, I'm one of the few Level VI's you'll meet. But we're still in the process, this was meant to be an explanatory update. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jimmy Waite Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FW: NICET changes, big (Part 2) George, Will those of us in the process of testing be grandfathered in the incremental process that we started? Will we be affected if we have completed necessary work elements, but are waiting on time to achieve our next level? Jimmy Waite -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FW: NICET changes, big (Part 2) It's been a fascinating process. Great group- can't wait for either Ken Isman or Cecil Bilbo to join us, now that Kevin went to Schirmer. Russ's letter in support of Incremental wouldn't have been dismissed with respect as quickly. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:38 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: FW: NICET changes, big (Part 2) George, Well put and well said. Phil Philip L. Gaughan, S.E.T. VP Northeast Region of ASCET NICET Board of Governors 215-850-1672 ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: BooBoo
Yeah... Especially the part about the divert some of the stash of gold part. Care to elaborate :-)? (Off forum to my personal e-mail address of course!) Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Minkel Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: BooBoo It was an interesting story tho. Bill Minkel, Designer Western States F.P., Dallas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Vining Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: BooBoo Sorry about that. Pushed the wrong button [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ed Vining 4819 John Muir Rd Martinez CA 94553 925-228-8792 - Forwarded Message From: Ed Vining [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:30:38 AM Subject: Re: in or outside dwelling unit? Your poor children have been misinformed. The B17a were flown by the air force. They were the enemy. Our planes were Navy PB4Y2s, a bigger, single tailed version of the B24. The reason we didn't like the air force was that they took over our field at Yontan Okinawa. We could no longer do as we pleased on the strip. One day two of our planes wiped out a factory across the river from a town, dropped the bridge, and closed a railroad tunnel. The air force had a fifty plane raid scheduled for the town the nest day. We were then prohibited from hitting any land targets. I had lunch in a Japanese restaurant in SF one day, and talked with the waitress. Turned out she was from that town, and remembered the incident. Our guys probably saved her life. I can't seem to stimulate any NPS business, and may have to divert some of the stash of gold to other uses this year. - Original Message From: George Church [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:42:24 AM Subject: RE: in or outside dwelling unit? Not if its all one dwelling unit... I'd guess they'd leave their stuff in their bedrooms if they were staying all year. Voluntary systems to meet the college's internal requirements, not code driven (retrofit of existing). Would be the same situation if seniors went to FL for winter, and crammed everything in the den so the other carpets could be shampooed in their absence. We wouldn't bat an eye about that, would we? It'd be residential. glc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: in or outside dwelling unit? George, The only potential problem I could see is the part of the basement that is used for storage. Are the apartments occupied 12 months or just during the school year? If they are shut down for the summer and the students cram all their stuff in the basement storage area, would this be an issue? Todd At 05:59 AM 10/23/2007, you wrote: Ok, I started my day by perusing the Archives, couldn't find the answer to this. See what I mean about not needing a life if you're in this business? Student housing in row homes. Each building is a single apt with 3 or 4 bedrooms, common kitchen, living and dining room, basement has laundry and an area to be used for storage. If you're a renter in this apartment, you have unrestricted access to the entire building, unless there's a tie on the doorknob. Due to unrelated students co-habitating, this falls under 13R (PA UCC is based on '03 IBC); if it were a single family living there, it'd be 13D. Stored water, #20 pump will be sole supply, central station. Any reason the basement would not be considered part of the Dwelling Unit? 13R definition includes common kitchen and sanitary facilities; wouldn't laundry count as part of sanitary facilities? Standard residential laundry W/D. The intent of 13R dwelling unit definition is obviously NOT to draw the line at a bedroom door; so if it isn't at the bedroom door, it'll include the halls, shared bathrooms, kitchen, LR/DR, and no wording remotely suggests the door in the kitchen that leads to the basement should be rated assembly or is a delineation between dwelling unit and area outside dwelling unit. The basements contain 4 to 6 heads and flowing them all at .15 for tenant storage OH1 has a dramatic impact on pump and tank sizing, since rest of MRA is only 2 heads due to how cut-up the buildings are. It is NOT the same parameters as walking out of your apt in Sr Housing, taking the elevator to the basement, and entering the separate Tenant Storage with chicken wire cubicles. That's OH1 (since ceilings rarely exceed 8') Tenant Storage since the apt door is the line between inside and outside the dwelling unit. Anyone differ that the entire house is inside
RE: purlins
To All: The proper definition, in my humble opinion is still beam and girder construction, therefore obstructed contruction. Girder, by definition, is a strong horizontal beam used as a main support inside a building ie, the support beam system (girder) on which the purlins sit. There are no length nor volume limitations imposed by NFPA on this type of construction, nor does it classify any type of panel configuration be maintained. The determining factor is that the SPACING between the purlins framed into or on the girder must be between 3 ft to 7 1/2 ft on center. If the beam/purlin spacing exceeds 7 1/2 ft on center, then you can still classify it as PANEL construction, provided the 300 sq.ft. panel limitation is met. With typical purlin depths of 8 to 10, the following scenarios tend to play out: (1) If you classify it as unobstructed, your deflector distance will be 1 to 12 below the deck or insulation (with standard spray sprinklers). (2) If the purlins are 12 in depth, you can still install the sprinklers with the deflectors even with the bottom of the purlin and meet the deflector and obstruction rules. (3) If you classify it as obstructed, your deflector will be 1 to 6 below the purlins not to exceed 22 below the deck or insulation. (4) Or you can install the sprinklers with the deflector even with the bottom of the purlins and meet the deflector and obstruction rules. (5) If ESFR sprinklers are considered, then your main concern is if the purlins are more than 12 deep, you must install ESFR's in every bay formed by the purlins. As to the open space formed by the purlins sitting on the girder, the volume of opening created at each end of the span will not typically create a large enough concern to warrant a change in the construction definiton, in my opinion. I would think that NFPA would have given direction on this if it was of a major concern. Thanks, Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: purlins Based on what? It clearly does not fall into panel construction due to the space above the beam. They are not girders. I am not fighting for or against, I just would like a conclusive answer. Is there not a manufacturer or committee member there that could enlighten us? I would think that the tests run on these storage heads and such would have forced a definition for the manufacturers. Greg Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: purlins Up here, it usually goes beams, purlins above (on) the beams, steel deck on the purlins. The insulation goes in between the purlins. Is the insulation going on the metal deck roof?If the insulation comes to the bottom of the purlin, it will create a fairly flat ceiling and I would consider it unobstructed. If there is no insulation, I would think it would be considered obstructed. At 02:51 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote: No, above them. A typical warehouse. Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: purlins Is there insulation between the purlins? At 02:45 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote: Poll: Are typical 8 and 10 purlins spaced 4-5' apart with open space above the beams where the purlins rest considered OBstructed or Unobstructed construction? Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe
RE: purlins
As a follow up, here is an informal interpretation from NFSA on this type of issue from the March 13th E-Tech Alert. Question 3 - Beam and Girder Pocket Limitations for Obstructed Construction In NFPA 13 (annex section A.3.7.1(1) in the 2002 edition), the definition of beam and girder construction as a type of Obstructed Construction calls for beams spaced 3 ft to 7-½ ft on center. However the definition does not provide a maximum square footage for the beam and girder pocket. We have a building that has steel I-beams spaced 7'-6 apart but these beams sit on larger trusses, thus creating an air gap above the two ends above the truss. This being said, can we consider this Obstructed Construction? Answer: Yes. As described, the trusses are perpendicular to the beams and provide their support. If the tops of the beams are at the ceiling and the trusses are below then the beams should be considered the primary ceiling structure. The sprinklers' ability to collect heat and distribute a spray pattern is going to be affected most by the structural members directly below the ceiling. As you have noted, beam type construction spaced 3 to 7.5 feet on center is obstructed construction. There is no requirement that the beams frame into the trusses or that a maximum size of pocket be provided. The location of the trusses with regard to sprinkler spacing must be considered so that they do not create obstructions to sprinkler discharge patterns. In older editions of NFPA 13, beams that framed into other beams to form pockets less than 300 sq. ft. were given special consideration as panel construction. Sprinklers were permitted to be placed further below the ceiling due to the greater capacity of panel construction to bank heat. While this type of construction is still defined in annex section A.3.7.1(4), there is no allowance for greater sprinkler deflector distances below the ceiling. This annex section can be used, however, to justify obstructed construct ion deflector distances even where members are spaced more than 7.5 ft on center provided the ceiling pocket criteria is met. This can be useful in situations where there are multiple adjacent ceiling pockets. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: purlins To All: The proper definition, in my humble opinion is still beam and girder construction, therefore obstructed contruction. Girder, by definition, is a strong horizontal beam used as a main support inside a building ie, the support beam system (girder) on which the purlins sit. There are no length nor volume limitations imposed by NFPA on this type of construction, nor does it classify any type of panel configuration be maintained. The determining factor is that the SPACING between the purlins framed into or on the girder must be between 3 ft to 7 1/2 ft on center. If the beam/purlin spacing exceeds 7 1/2 ft on center, then you can still classify it as PANEL construction, provided the 300 sq.ft. panel limitation is met. With typical purlin depths of 8 to 10, the following scenarios tend to play out: (1) If you classify it as unobstructed, your deflector distance will be 1 to 12 below the deck or insulation (with standard spray sprinklers). (2) If the purlins are 12 in depth, you can still install the sprinklers with the deflectors even with the bottom of the purlin and meet the deflector and obstruction rules. (3) If you classify it as obstructed, your deflector will be 1 to 6 below the purlins not to exceed 22 below the deck or insulation. (4) Or you can install the sprinklers with the deflector even with the bottom of the purlins and meet the deflector and obstruction rules. (5) If ESFR sprinklers are considered, then your main concern is if the purlins are more than 12 deep, you must install ESFR's in every bay formed by the purlins. As to the open space formed by the purlins sitting on the girder, the volume of opening created at each end of the span will not typically create a large enough concern to warrant a change in the construction definiton, in my opinion. I would think that NFPA would have given direction on this if it was of a major concern. Thanks, Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: purlins Based on what? It clearly does not fall into panel construction due to the space above the beam. They are not girders. I am not fighting for or against, I just would like a conclusive answer. Is there not a manufacturer or committee member there that could enlighten us? I would think that the tests run on these storage heads and such would have
RE: Barrier / Partition Definition
Bob, The language is such that the standard clarifies the PURPOSE of the barrier, ie barrier or partition capable of trapping heat in its requirement to provide such a barrier or partition. If you go further into this type of requirement in the NFPA standards, you could also correlate it to the separation required between ESFR systems and standard response systems, the only requirement for the barrier or partition being a draft curtain, if there are no walls or other separations in place. Both requirements are to keep a lower hazard area from operating prematurely adjacent to a higher hazard area, thereby robbing the higher hazard area of its intended minimum water supply. Sometimes the use of a word such as barrier or partition is taken too literally, when all that is intended ( if you read ALL the language of the standard and not just picking out a few words) is to create a mininal separation (not a fire or other rated assembly) so the sprinkler system operates in the most efficient manner. In this case it doesn't appear to be a proper application of the language of 11.1.2, in that the wall WILL provide the barrier or partition required by the intent of the standard, ie IS CAPABLE OF TRAPPING HEAT! Top of the day to you all! Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (407) 656-3030 www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Barrier / Partition Definition Does anyone have a good definition for what 11.1.2 means by Barrier or Partition (NFPA 13 2002 ed). I have a friend who has an AHJ telling him that an 8 concrete full height wall with two door openings in it does not qualify. My understanding of this is that this is a perfectly acceptable barrier since the purpose of the barrier is to prevent fusing of the sprinklers from one area to another. The reason the question arises is that this AHJ wants to extend a new .55 / 2500 sf area through the concrete wall and into an existing .2 / 1500 sf system. Without being too obvious, the original system has no possibility of providing this density, let alone the proper spacing of sprinklers. Anyway, any help will be appreciated. Thank you, Bob Knight, CET (208) 495-2057 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.firebyknight.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.0/957 - Release Date: 8/16/2007 1:46 PM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Design Area Rotation
Tony, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! I apologize for my oversight on this particular point! Your scenario does indeed end up with a 1500 sq.ft. area and is exactly what my post attempted to demonstrate. Thank you for this correction, Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Design Area Rotation If you read my post again, I said 3 heads each on last 2 lines, and 2 heads each (the 2 closer to the main) on the next 3 lines. So area is still 1500 s.f. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: August 10, 2007 12:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Design Area Rotation OK! Here goes and then it's back to the drawing board (oops... CAD station) for the rest of the day. Assuming, for sake of discussion, you are equally spaced from the walls (6'-3 and 6'-3) with the end heads on the branchlines, the room width would be 37'-6 wide. Taking into account the scenario you've indicated, if you rotate the 1.2 x design area length to be parallel to the cross-main (5 lines - 3 heads on 4 lines and 2 heads on one) you are now calculating 1750 sq.ft. of design area and flowing 14 sprinklers vs 12. In calculating the NUMBER of sprinklers on the branch-line, you are still required to flow 3 heads along the branchlines since the heads are 12'6 apart and the length along the branchline would still need to be 32'-3 1/2 (32.292 divided by 12'-6 = 2.58 or 3 sprinklers) So all that is being done is you are ADDING two flowing sprinklers to the design area by increasing the design area size to 1750 sq.ft. (I agree this would be more demanding. However, it is too much in my opinion.) Taking into consideration that you are only required to calculate 1500 sq.ft. per the NFPA standard, then you can eliminate (1) sprinkler on line 3 and one sprinkler on line 4, in essence giving you (2) lines with 3 heads and (3) lines with 2 heads, still a 12 sprinkler count (and 1500 sq.ft.) and less demanding hydraulically than (4) lines with 3 sprinklers (see previous post) Since the intent (the way I understand it) from the committee is to account for the additional friction loss ALONG the branchlines, hence the 1.2 multiplier, in the event the fire doesn't develop exactly symmetrical around its point-of-origin, the design area determination steps typically do give you the most conservative design approach to fire control. As feed for further discussion, NFPA-13 (2002) Fig. A.14.4.4.1(a), Diagram D indicates that you just continue to take sprinklers on each succesive branchline until you reach the maximum 1500 sq.ft. area. The standard does not indicate nor contemplate rotating the design area in any other configuration than along the branchlines, unless one of the other allowable desgin area methods is utilized. (ie. Small room, corridor, etc.) Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 1:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Design Area Rotation NFPA is very clear on that issue. You use the same cross main. The question was would you rotate the design area so that 1.2 x SR is parallel to the cross main. My opinion is YES. I gave an example in a previous posting, where the rotated 1.2 x SR can be more conservative. We assume a rectangular design area with a certain shape. It might not be the shape of the fire, but this is our design guideline. There is no reason to deviate from it just 'cos we don't have enough heads in the branch lines. I think we always have to be mindful of the orientation of the rectangle. When the branch lines are long enough, there is no contest, we don't even have to check the other direction. But if the branch lines are short, then we need to check the other direction. My take on the intent of NFPA is that a rectangle was chosen to simulate the spread of a fire, which has no bearing on the way the sprinkler heads are piped in the ceiling. We need to design for the more conservative orientation. So it's not correct to drop the rectangle just because of piping geometry. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: August 10, 2007 8:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Design Area Rotation I may have misread the initial posting but I was addressing what to do when you need for example 5 heads on the branch line and there are only 4. Then do you pick up heads on the same plane but on an adjacent cross main (which maintains the 1.2 X SR of the RA) or do you take your entire RA off one cross main
RE: Design Area Rotation
OK! Here goes and then it's back to the drawing board (oops... CAD station) for the rest of the day. Assuming, for sake of discussion, you are equally spaced from the walls (6'-3 and 6'-3) with the end heads on the branchlines, the room width would be 37'-6 wide. Taking into account the scenario you've indicated, if you rotate the 1.2 x design area length to be parallel to the cross-main (5 lines - 3 heads on 4 lines and 2 heads on one) you are now calculating 1750 sq.ft. of design area and flowing 14 sprinklers vs 12. In calculating the NUMBER of sprinklers on the branch-line, you are still required to flow 3 heads along the branchlines since the heads are 12'6 apart and the length along the branchline would still need to be 32'-3 1/2 (32.292 divided by 12'-6 = 2.58 or 3 sprinklers) So all that is being done is you are ADDING two flowing sprinklers to the design area by increasing the design area size to 1750 sq.ft. (I agree this would be more demanding. However, it is too much in my opinion.) Taking into consideration that you are only required to calculate 1500 sq.ft. per the NFPA standard, then you can eliminate (1) sprinkler on line 3 and one sprinkler on line 4, in essence giving you (2) lines with 3 heads and (3) lines with 2 heads, still a 12 sprinkler count (and 1500 sq.ft.) and less demanding hydraulically than (4) lines with 3 sprinklers (see previous post) Since the intent (the way I understand it) from the committee is to account for the additional friction loss ALONG the branchlines, hence the 1.2 multiplier, in the event the fire doesn't develop exactly symmetrical around its point-of-origin, the design area determination steps typically do give you the most conservative design approach to fire control. As feed for further discussion, NFPA-13 (2002) Fig. A.14.4.4.1(a), Diagram D indicates that you just continue to take sprinklers on each succesive branchline until you reach the maximum 1500 sq.ft. area. The standard does not indicate nor contemplate rotating the design area in any other configuration than along the branchlines, unless one of the other allowable desgin area methods is utilized. (ie. Small room, corridor, etc.) Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 1:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Design Area Rotation NFPA is very clear on that issue. You use the same cross main. The question was would you rotate the design area so that 1.2 x SR is parallel to the cross main. My opinion is YES. I gave an example in a previous posting, where the rotated 1.2 x SR can be more conservative. We assume a rectangular design area with a certain shape. It might not be the shape of the fire, but this is our design guideline. There is no reason to deviate from it just 'cos we don't have enough heads in the branch lines. I think we always have to be mindful of the orientation of the rectangle. When the branch lines are long enough, there is no contest, we don't even have to check the other direction. But if the branch lines are short, then we need to check the other direction. My take on the intent of NFPA is that a rectangle was chosen to simulate the spread of a fire, which has no bearing on the way the sprinkler heads are piped in the ceiling. We need to design for the more conservative orientation. So it's not correct to drop the rectangle just because of piping geometry. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: August 10, 2007 8:38 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Design Area Rotation I may have misread the initial posting but I was addressing what to do when you need for example 5 heads on the branch line and there are only 4. Then do you pick up heads on the same plane but on an adjacent cross main (which maintains the 1.2 X SR of the RA) or do you take your entire RA off one cross main? Roland On Aug 9, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Ray Vance wrote: Bob, It is my opinion that rotating the design area will NOT give you the most hydraulically remote design area, nor in my opinion, is it the intent of the NFPA committee to do so. It seems to me that to calculate LESS sprinklers on a branchline will in effect negate a portion of the water build-up or overage encountered in the hydraulic calculations for EACH of the lines in your design area. By default, the pressure required at the START of each branch-line (at the cross-main) will be less if you rotate your design area, than if you calculated ALL the sprinklers on the branch-line then moved to the next line. In addition, the friction losses thru the piping from the main to the first flowing sprinkler on the line would need to be subtracted from the pressure at the cross-main, so the DISCHARGE pressures
RE: Design Area Rotation
Bob, It is my opinion that rotating the design area will NOT give you the most hydraulically remote design area, nor in my opinion, is it the intent of the NFPA committee to do so. It seems to me that to calculate LESS sprinklers on a branchline will in effect negate a portion of the water build-up or overage encountered in the hydraulic calculations for EACH of the lines in your design area. By default, the pressure required at the START of each branch-line (at the cross-main) will be less if you rotate your design area, than if you calculated ALL the sprinklers on the branch-line then moved to the next line. In addition, the friction losses thru the piping from the main to the first flowing sprinkler on the line would need to be subtracted from the pressure at the cross-main, so the DISCHARGE pressures at the flowing sprinklers would be less, as well. This has the net effect of LOWERING your total water discharge for the flowing sprinklers (other than the end sprinkler) since you are lowering your discharge pressures at the sprinklers but not changing your orifice sizes and this has the net effect of LOWERING your total water demand flowing thru the cross and bulk mains. Less water flow indicates less pressure loss which indicates less total system demand. I would be extremely surprised to find that the AHJ's requirement is more hydraulically demanding than the letter of the NFPA standard. If you find out the opposite, PLEASE let us all know. However, as previously indicated you can just calculate it both ways to be absolutely sure. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Design Area Rotation The design area can happen in both directions. Generally, the longer side (1.2 x A^0.5) parallel to the branch lines creates the more demanding condition, so we don't have to bother calculating in the other direction. Doesn't necessarily mean that the other direction need not be satisfied. There could be certain instances where the long side parallel to the feed main could be the most demanding. In such cases, you would need to go 1.2 x A^0.5, along the main. Example: three heads in a line, 12'6 between heads on a line and 10 feet between lines. If design area is 1500 sf, you would calc. 12 heads. In the traditional manner, this would be 3 heads on a line, up to 4 lines. But you haven't satisfied the 1.2 requirement. If the design area was rotated, it would be 5 lines, to get 47 feet. 3 heads each on the most remote two lines and 2 heads each (the first 2 heads) on the next three lines. The second method could be the most demanding. So the AHJ is correct. Call me crazy, but I do always check both ways, when the 1.2 requirement along the branch line is not satisfied. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: August 9, 2007 11:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Design Area Rotation The objective of the remote area is to represent the most hydraulically demanding area ( which is rectangular and not how the fire actually activates heads which is typically circular). That's why we pick up additional heads on the same branch line feed by the same cross main (since heads from the same line across the building but feed by a different CM is typically less demanding). You could run two calc's: one adhering rigorously to the 46 ft parallel to the branch line regardless of the cross main and the second a 1500 sf area feed by only one cross main. Applying which ever creates the higher hydraulic demand, being the most conservative, should be readily accepted by the AHJ. OR you could expend a lot of WORDS discussing the nuances of hydraulic calculations and why a single cross creates a more demanding remote area. Bottom line is that the process is intended to present consistency but since all situations do not allow ALL parameters to be satisfied, you have to define (and agree) on the root objective and select what best meets that. Roland On Aug 9, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Bob Knight wrote: I have an AHJ who is telling me that I need to rotate my design area length 90 degrees to account for there not being enough sprinklers per line on the branches. This would give me a design area that is perpendicular rather then parallel per 14.4.4.1.11. Section 14.4.4.1.1.3 states, In systems having branch lines with an insufficient number of sprinklers to fulfill the 1.2 requirement, the design area shall be extended to include sprinklers on adjacent branch lines supplied by the same cross main. I was taught, and therefore I have always understood this to mean that in a situation where there are not enough sprinklers per line you include additional sprinklers
RE: Air Compressor for dry system
Doug, To properly size the air compressor, you would multiply the dry system volume by .012 This converts the capacity (in gallons) to cubic feet per minute of free air capacity. This calculation should give you the proper amount of air capacity needed to re-charge your dry system to 40 psi in 30 minutes. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (407) 656-3030 www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of douglas hicks Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 9:14 PM To: sprinkler board Subject: Air Compressor for dry system How do I size an air compressor for a dry system. When the air compressor fails, customers often go to the cheapest compressor. We then have problems with the compressor running several times a day, and problems with the noise of the compressor. Any suggestions? Douglas Hicks General Fire Equipment Co of Eastern Oregon, Inc ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: elbows and pump suction
Todd, The argument regarding the term horizontal split case in your situation is a matter of mis-applying the black and white wording of the standard instead of the function of the requirement. Technically speaking, the wording to pull out of the standard should be Elbows with a centerline plane parallel to a... pump shaft and not just the horizontal split case Whether the pump is horizontal or vertical is, in my opinion, irrelevant to the situation. The pump has an impeller and as such forcing the water to make a horizontal turn into the impeller in this vertical situation causes the same uneven distribution of water and therefore damage to the impeller over time as the horizontal situation. (The NFPA standard intent is to minimize damage to the impeller.) Think of it this way... Pipe a horizontal pump this way (not allowed) and then turn the whole assembly up on its end. It is still the same situation and you are still forcing the water to make the same twists and turns therfore causing the same damage to the impeller. We all know the standards do not specifically cover EVERY situation we come across. It is just as important and appropriate to understand the reasons behind the standards' intent instead of just blindly applying the black and white wording of the standard. In my opinion, you are correct and the minimum (10) pipe diamters would and should still apply. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (407) 656-3030 www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 8:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: elbows and pump suction NFPA 20 section 5.14.6.3 talks about elbows turning into pump suction. The section talks about horizontal split case pumps. I am reviewing a set of plans that is using a vertical in-line pump and has the suction line coming down from the ceiling and turning into the pump. I was always under the assumption that a vertical in-line pump is a horizontal split-case pump turned on end so it the minimum distance would apply. His argument is that it is not horizontal therefore it wouldn't. Who's right? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: elbows and pump suction
WHY?! Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (407) 656-3030 www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: elbows and pump suction The suction from above is the best way to supply any pump!!! Mike Hairfield From: Todd Williams - work [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: elbows and pump suction Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:34:22 -0400 NFPA 20 section 5.14.6.3 talks about elbows turning into pump suction. The section talks about horizontal split case pumps. I am reviewing a set of plans that is using a vertical in-line pump and has the suction line coming down from the ceiling and turning into the pump. I was always under the assumption that a vertical in-line pump is a horizontal split-case pump turned on end so it the minimum distance would apply. His argument is that it is not horizontal therefore it wouldn't. Who's right? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: elbows and pump suction
I agree with you Tom! My only question is WHY from above. Piping from below (read underground) creates the same scenario, a vertical elbow vs a horizontal elbow. Mike's statement is definitive and superlative... It IS the BEST way! What I would like to know and LEARN is WHY? What is the technical or mechanical or hydraulically superior reason for this arrangement so that I apply and also teach my other designers the most accurate, correct, and efficient way to pipe a fire pump. After 25 years of doing this, I still find it extremely fulfilling to LEARN, LEARN, LEARN! Thanks, Ray -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: elbows and pump suction Think about the flow of water for a minute, it's entering the impeller which is vertical in rotation. If you can't pipe a pump suction (HSC) straight for 10 diameters, use a vertical elbow. A horizontal elbow will make the flow enter the volute 90 degrees to rotation. Elbows do tend to twist the laminar flow and create pockets which is why we try and have the 10 diameter rule to straighten it out but a vertical el bolted right to pump suction (osy on other end) will give you a smooth flow to the impeller. Tom Duross Go Red Sox WHY?! Ray Vance The suction from above is the best way to supply any pump!!! Mike Hairfield NFPA 20 section 5.14.6.3 talks about elbows turning into pump suction. The section talks about horizontal split case pumps. I am reviewing a set of plans that is using a vertical in-line pump and has the suction line coming down from the ceiling and turning into the pump. I was always under the assumption that a vertical in-line pump is a horizontal split-case pump turned on end so it the minimum distance would apply. His argument is that it is not horizontal therefore it wouldn't. Who's right? Todd G. Williams, PE ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: elbows and pump suction
NOW THIS IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT! Accurate, definitive, technical direction. Sure answers a lot of questions! OK! I am done for the day ;-) I have been fully and technically satisied this fine Monday morning! BACK TO WORK!! Ray -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Mote Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: elbows and pump suction Per a seminar on fire pumps I attended several years ago given by a rep. for one of the major pump manufacturers, I still have the handouts around here somewhere, if needs be I can dig them out. . Horizontal split case pumps take suction into the eye from both sides of the impeller, therefore you need to keep the flow equal on both sides, that is the reason for the straight length of pipe before the pump, to straighten and equalize the flow. Then uneven flow can cause torsional loading of the impeller and shaft, which causes premature where of the bearings, in severe cases it can cause shaft failure. Vertical in-line pumps take suction through the bottom of the eye only and the bearings are arranged to take the off center loading therefore the straight pipe before the pump is not required. Richard L. Mote Designer Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc - Original Message - From: Todd Williams - work [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 8:34 AM Subject: elbows and pump suction NFPA 20 section 5.14.6.3 talks about elbows turning into pump suction. The section talks about horizontal split case pumps. I am reviewing a set of plans that is using a vertical in-line pump and has the suction line coming down from the ceiling and turning into the pump. I was always under the assumption that a vertical in-line pump is a horizontal split-case pump turned on end so it the minimum distance would apply. His argument is that it is not horizontal therefore it wouldn't. Who's right? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Another Sprinkler Success Story!
There was a fire at one of the properties that Wayne Automatic FIre Sprinklers installed and currently services. Camden Sedgebrook located in the Huntersville area of NC had a fire break out around 2:30 am this morning and the sprinkler system was able to put the fire out. AND NOBODY DROWNED ;-) No lives were lost and little damage was done. If you are wondering if what we do everyday really matters, a story like this should answer that question. Everybody should take pride in what you do. This FORUM of ours ROCKS. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: fire pump test header size
Greg, I have calc'd numerous test headers at distances from 16ft to more than 100' from the fire pump discharge. I have never had an instance where the calc's did not work with. I am sure there must be a situation that has concerned the NFPA committees enough to include the requirement, but I do not know what it is. Thanks, Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: fire pump test header size Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 This is from the 2007 edition of NFPA #20. 5.19.3.4 Pipe Size. The pipe size shall be in accordance with one of the following two methods: (1) Where the pipe between the hose valve header and connection to the pump discharge pipe is over 15 ft (4.5 m) in length, the next larger pipe size than required by 5.19.3.1.3 shall be used. (2)* This pipe is permitted to be sized by hydraulic calculations based on a total flow of 150 percent of rated pump capacity, including the following: (a) This calculation shall include friction loss for the total length of pipe plus equivalent lengths of fittings, control valve, and hose valves, plus elevation loss, from the pump discharge flange to the hose valve outlets. (b) The installation shall be proven by a test flowing the maximum water available. I just calculated a test header located approx. 65' from a 750 gpm pump and it seems to work easily with 6 pipe flowing 1,125 gpm in lieu of increasing the pipe to 8. Has anyone got experience using this method? Space is the issue and 6 works much better then 8 in this situation. Thanks, Greg McGahan ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: FDC Piping
May I start by asking a question? WHAT SIZE IS YOUR SYSTEM RISER? (this will dictate the size of your FDC piping.) I have found that the answer you get from any agency or organization is only as good as the WAY you frame your questions to them :-) If you install a 2 1/2 riser in some agreeable scenario (good water, light hazard, low ceilings and design area reductions, etc) and have a standard FDC (4 x 1 1/2 x 2 1/2) come off the riser piping, the logic as applied by the local AHJ would then dictate you would have to UPSIZE the riser to 4 riser. In other words the riser would have to be at least as large as the FDC connection piping. There is nowhere in NFPA that I am aware of that makes this requirement. (think 4 FDC on a 6 sprinkler riser!) That being said... There are (4) requirements for the size of the piping for the FDC. (8.16.2.3 NFPA-13 2002 Ed.) (1) At least 4 for fire engine connections. (2) At least 6 for fire boat connections. (3) Hydraulically calculated systems - allowed to be less than 4 but no LESS than the size of the system riser, when serving one system. (4) Single-outlet FDC where piping is 3 or less in size. In the Annex, NFPA is clear in its intent that the FDC can come off ANY main piping in the system provided the piping you are connecting to meets ONE of the (4) requirements above. It is not the intent of NFPA for the FDC to supply the full system demand. It is only there as an auxiliary boost to the automatic water supply provided. In addition, NFPA-13 2007 Ed added the language the PROHIBIT connecting to the branchlines and specifically allowing to connect to the main piping. There is NO requirement for the main you tie into to be 4, or 3, or 2 1/2 or The only requirement is that the FDC piping be at least as large as the riser, up to a maximum of 4. The reference to 3 piping in the 1999 Edition, ONLY gives you the allowance to go to a SINLGE-INLET FDC if the riser is 3 or less in size. This has nothing to do with a size requirement for the main you are connecting the FDC piping into. Please correct me if I am misinterpretting these requirements. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (407) 656-3030 www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew J. Willis Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FDC Piping I have always made the main feeding a FDC 4 when I take it off the end of a cross main. I thought that was the intent of the supply. Also, the rule of thumb for a 2½ connection is 250 gpm per. How did you get 1000gpm with only 2 outlets?( presuming that is the number on your FDC?) Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Holsopple Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FDC Piping Ladies and Gents, We have a single wet system that is a combination grid and tree system. At the tail end of the 2 1/2 Secondary Main we increase to 4 and drop (4) to our FDC. The AHJ insists that the Secondary Main has to be a minimum of 3 citing Section 5-15.2.2 from NFPA 13 '99 edition. After searching through the AFSA's Informal Interps I found one that addresses this matter only with reference indirectly to the same exact text but in the 2002 edition. The informal interp gave the opinion that the cross main could be whatever size the hydraulic calculations required and that the piping connected to the FDC is the only pipe that could that needs to meet the min. size requirement of 5-15.2.2. The AHJ put a phone call in to NFPA and they cinfirmed HIS position. So who is right? Any thoughts? As a side note we have calculated the systems using the FDC as the supply and proven every remote area with no less than a 60psi safety factor in the worst case using a 100psi @ 1000gpm for FD supply. We did this after looking at the Formal Interprtation 91-2 that appears in the '99 Handbook (pg 379). I thought the FDC was there for boosting the system pressure, not providing the entire supply. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Best Regards, Ken Holsopple Dot Spotting Manager Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: ESFR AND VERTICAL OBSTRUCTIONS (NFPA 13 07ed)
Dewayne, And Joe, please elaborate at your convenience as I know you have far more background knowledge in this arena than I. FM Data Sheet 2-2, Section 2.4.5.3.2 gives (what I believe to be) pretty sufficient guidance in addressing your situation. Specifically Item-4 If the obstructions below sprinklers is not continuous circular or rectangular (such as a light) with a maximum dimension of 24 in., locate the sprinkler deflector at least 12 horizontally from the nearest edge of the obstuction. It seems to me a plumbing stack, rain leader, vertical exhaust duct etc. could be treated the same, based on its size and per its obstruction rules, whether it was vertical or horizontal. It also seems to me a vertical obstruction affecting one sprinkler would be less of a problem than the same obstruction placed horizontal affecting more than one sprinkler if you place the sprinklers according to the obstruction rules for the size of your obstruction and the required distance of the sprinklers away from the obstruction. Yet we have specific guidance for the horizontal obstructions and not the vertical ones. H! If the obstruction rules work for the horizontal obstructions, why would they not also work for the vertical? (I know the full development of the spray pattern and getting the correct amount of water thru the fire plume to the base of the fire is critical even for one sprinkler activating. It just seems to me that the considerations would be much the same with the obstruction in either plane.) In closing, I would make the suggestion that spacing your sprinklers from the vertical obstruction exactly as you would the horizontal would give some level of confidence in maintaining the suppression mode of the ESFR sprinklers. We do not typically consider 6, 8, 10 vertical structural columns (square, round, or otherwise) as obstructions. Of course we are usually more than 2ft away from them :-) Thanks, Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ESFR AND VERTICAL OBSTRUCTIONS (NFPA 13 07ed) So I take it that you have never installed ESFR sprinklers in a building that included roof drains that run from the roof deck to the floor along a column? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: ESFR AND VERTICAL OBSTRUCTIONS (NFPA 13 07ed) Dewayne, If it is impractical, then don't install ESFR's. There are other alternatives (e.g. in-rack sprinklers). ESFRs are an option only if their installation rules are met. ESFR's are asked to do a lot more than any other sprinkler. As a result, there is no margin for error when it comes to obstructions. If there is a single obstruction and the fire starts in the wrong spot, then failure to suppress or control is a very real possibility. In the testing of ESFR sprinklers, the scenario of a fire starting centered between two sprinklers with one of them obstructed resulted in a barely controlled fire in a 30 ft. building (11 sprinklers operated) and uncontrolled fire in a 40 ft. building. Joe Dewayne Martinez wrote: I am looking for some input from the forum on how you treat a isolated vertical obstruction that restricts only one ESFR sprinkler head. It is both above and below the sprinkler. Such as a round exhaust duct from a unit heater below up through the deck or a plumber drain stack? An informal request to NFPA resulted in this response Section 8.12.5.2(5) allows sprinklers with special obstruction allowance shall be installed in accordance with its listing. ESFR sprinklers have very particular obstruction criteria, and interpolation, or modification of obstruction rules is not allowed. I have yet to find a ESFR sprinkler to address this issue, in the past I have followed the rules for isolated obstructions below the sprinkler to provide guidance. It seems impractical to expect a storage building to be constructed without any vertical obstructions. Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Design Build Fire Protection [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games
RE: Hello
The mouth sprinkler is called A BEER!!! Just punch hole in bottom of can, hold finger over hole, shake well, position over mouth, pop tab, and hold on. Or, if you prefer the more upper crust bottles, then proceed as follows... Drink beer from bottle, throw bottle away, get CAN of beer, and follow previous directions. Hic, I just tryd it tree times and it wurks.. Burrrpp! Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hello But no discussion of mouth sprinklers to protect from the effects of good Cajun spices Dave, make sure the list can get past your spam filter. At 02:47 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: Mr. Smith, There was also a brief mention of Cajun seasoning and BBQ. Terri Simmons Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN CONSULTING voice: 858.751.2930 fax: 858.751.2933 cell: 619.871.8450 -Original Message- From: Tambini, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hello Hello Mr. Smith, Yes, there has been much discussion in the past week or so. Long threads on pumps, sprinkler saves and losses, seismic bracing. Ed Aero -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Smith, David L.(MCI) Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Hello Haven't heard anything on this site in the last week or so? Just wondering if anybody is out there? David L. Smith (guest) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: water supply duration
Keep in mind that when you have a greater hazard in an otherwise lesser hazard area, you still need to condier the water supply requirements for the greater area. Your design area should include the 800 sq.ft. of storage area (with the sprinklers discharging at their appropriate density) and then add sprinklers in the light hazard area (with the sprinklers discharging at their appropriate density) until you reach your required design area of discharge. This will then dictate your required system demand AND your hose demand as well. Your hose demand should be appropriate for your larger hazard (ie-250 gpm for ordinary hazard) AND your duration should be that which also corresonds to your greater hazard. I know there are times when the larger hazard is small, such as ONE or TWO sprinklers in a SMALLER storage room, and at that time sound engineering judgements need to be made regarding the statements above, but the direction from the NFPA standards is pretty clear in this area when you have different hazards within the same area or areas. Thanks, Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:30 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: water supply duration What would the appropriate water supply duration be for a building overall light hazard occupancy but with a storage room of approximately 800 sq ft in it. I need to size a water storage tank and 30 vs.. 60 min makes a difference. I saw the hose demand exception in NFPA for rooms less than 400 sq ft. but this did not address the duration. I tried to access the archives but they seem to be down. Any help and possibly a NFPA reference # would be appreciated. Thanks Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Another Dumb Article
Fellow Fire Safety Advocates! My response once again to the Editor. Again, I urge all of you to be proactive in educating everyone you encounter, particularly the news organizations, regarding fire sprinklers. (Copy and paste this article. Alter and use as you need!) Dear Mr. Nagy, Regarding your news team's reporting of the fire incident this morning and its subsequent reporting of the so-called facts of the incident, I find the whole report (including the headline) appalling. Fire did NOT flood the retirement home. The headlines SHOULD have read... SPRINKLERS SAVE RESIDENTS IN RETIRE HOME! In response to your newscast this morning regarding a fire at the Fairwinds Retirement Home and the water damage caused by that fire, I find it extremely disconcerting that NO emphasis was put on the fact that the FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM did its job and not only controlled the fire but in this case, put the fire out. Every time a fire breaks out and the FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM operates, the whole slant of the news article from ANY of the news organizations is how much water damage was caused by the FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM! Your team even went so far as to report the residents were afraid of DROWNING not of the FIRE! HOW RIDICULOUS! It is a gross misjustice to blame the FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM for the damage when the sprinkler system performed exactly as it is designed and intended. Without a FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, any building in which a fire breaks out could very well be a total loss, not to mention the fact that LOSS OF LIFE could be a part of the conflagration, and then you would REALLY have a news story. As to the water damage angle, imagine the fire department showing up and dumping hundreds and hundreds of gallons of water a minute on the fire in an effort to even get the fire under control, IF the building is not already too far gone to save. The sprinkler system discharges FAR, FAR less water on the fire AND does so in the earliest stages of the fire and therefore not only controls or extinguishes the fire but causes far less water damage to boot. In addition, the NEWS SLANT that the general public is exposed to represents a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING on the many benefits of a fire sprinkler system and as such the general public that you serve immediately gets a negative view on the BEST, MOST EFFICIENT, MOST DEPENDABLE life safety system available today. I respectfully request you educate your news organization and field reporters to the unparalleled benefits of and report positively on the activation of the FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM any time it occurs, after all IT DID POTENTIALLY SAVE THE LIVES OF THE RESIDENTS. You have a public responsibility to every one of your viewers to give them the most accurate and complete facts regarding the NEWS that you dispense. For more than 22 years I have devoted my energies to educating as many people as I can to the unparalleled benefits of FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. Please help me in continuing to do so without have to fight this totally ignorant type of news reporting. Ray Vance Chief Engineering Tech. Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - work Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Another Dumb Article The video was a little better than the article. Although it would be interesting to see the report from the fire. According to the witnesses interviewed, the sprinklers in the hallway were going off and the fire started in the kitchen of one unit. At 08:52 AM 1/9/2007, you wrote: story.url This is ridiculous! The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to: http://www.localnews8.com/story.cfm?nav=newsstoryID=229 Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. 2006 Inductee into The Players Hall of Fame at The Great Games of Business Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. Best Places to Work Rated #1 in 2006 Large Business Category by Orlando Business Journal ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
