Look at this again. It's required to be a Class III. IN 2006 The
exception for fully sprinklered buildings is just a 1-1/2 outlet and
it states it's now a Class II or III.
As such, manual (being limited to a Class I in other than high-rise)
is a no-go.
Roland
On Mar 26, 2007, at 9:33 A
for a fully
sprinklered building and furnish just the valve and not the hose,
then there should be no performance issues with a manual/wet.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:56 AM
To: sprinkl
at Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Huggins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Stage Hose Stations
Look at 905.3.4 (03 ed). It says: Class III standpipe with
outlets
Pipe schedule does to apply to gridded systems.
Assuming you have a solid floor for the mezzanine, it's treated
separately. To ensure you have a large enough remote area, you pick
up part of the existing system at the roof level.
Roland
On Mar 26, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Jimmy Waite wrote:
thats does NOT apply to gridded systems
Roland
On Mar 26, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Roland Huggins wrote:
Pipe schedule does to apply to gridded systems.
Assuming you have a solid floor for the mezzanine, it's treated
separately. To ensure you have a large enough remote area, you
pick up
AFSA members can also download it off our web site
Roland
On Mar 27, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Brian Harris wrote:
Does anybody know where I can get an electronic version of the
N1.85 graph?
Free of course..
Regards,
Brian Harris
First Defense Fire Protection
Des
As preached by Joe for some time, in defining the commodity
classification the overall percentages (per definitions) are
important but not the only parameters of interest. WHERE the plastic
is located is a critical aspect. If you have a metal item surrounded
with an expanded group A plast
if the BFP can act as the system check valve, why not use one of its
valves as the required system valve?
Roland
On Mar 28, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Ron Greenman wrote:
Charles,
Slippery slope. The only reason there is a valve on each side of the
BFP is to isolate it for testing. As such those val
I am assuming that the channels open to the adjacent concealed space
that is protected - right? So we are dealing with unprotected
channels over the 800 sf area. Since the objective of the 3,000 sf RA
is to account for fire breaking out of a unprotected concealed space
in more than one loc
they are NOT electrical devices, so 72 shouldn't be part of the
equation. The ones I've played with are just domes with small
diameter tubes. Never thought of them as a pneumatic SIGNAL. That
may be leading to some of the confusion. Better to think of it as a
pneumatic HAD that activate
let me try again. Not saying it ISN'T required.
That double negative thing.
Roland
On Mar 29, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Roland Huggins wrote:
I'm not saying it was required. It just wasn't driven by 25.
Roland
___
Sprinklerfor
You may want to contact Martin Workman with Viking
Roland
On Mar 29, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Dewayne Martinez wrote:
I have just been told that I am going to be designing a AFFF foam
system
(first one for me). I thought I read somewhere that this must be
calculated using Darcy-Weisbach instead o
would agree that since they're not electrical
they're not fire alarm.
The original question might get some additional answers from folks
more
knowledgeable than I over at the firealarm yahoo-group.
Eric Shelton
Hankins and Anderson, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
yea thats it. Also had a lot of mercoid switches. They seem to work
a lng time. A little issue with the EPA though.
Roland
On Mar 29, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Ron Greenman wrote:
The type Roland is describing that I'm familiar with is that domw
shaped HAD attached to small diameter copper tu
e treat them the same as
normal solid wood joist? Has the committee discussed these?
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message - From: "Roland Huggins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
id wood structure. As you say if
the concern is the thin I joist web, these solid elements will
probably hold up better than steel, similar to real wood in a fire.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Origi
I can't believe you could say such a thing, especially considering
that when we have a 4 head residential design we have NO such
increase. This isn't a WAG. It's a criteria intended to provide a
warm and fuzzy feeling.
Roland
On Mar 30, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Chris Cahill wrote:
BUT the wh
There is some logic to it but it isn't well founded. I've need
reluctant to make an issue on the lack of consistency but afraid the
only result will be a spreading of the insanity. It's a lot like
automatic heat vents in a sprinklered building. They aren't
supported by reality or science
beats me. Thats why the interp request is suppose to identify such
trivia - lol
RH
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Tom Wellen wrote:
What editions of NFPA 13 and 14 are in effect for Massachusetts?
Tom Wellen - AFSA
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
look at Table 8.3.2.5(c) - Hot air diffusers
Roland
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Bill Minkel wrote:
We have an AHJ saying our center-of-tile recessed 155F sprinkler is
too
close to the HVAC supply diffuser in an A.T.C. (less than 2') I am
curious
as to what section or paragraph in NFPA-13
as pointed out here my message should have said (a) not (c)
Roland
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Paul Pinigis wrote:
I would suggest that you ask the AHJ for the section that you are
violating. Are you violating Table 8.3.2.5(a)?
Paul J. Pinigis, P.E.
Chief Life Safety Engineer
-Original
Are they considering IGNORING the pump demand portion of the initial
sprinkler calc since once the fire dept hooks up, the flow is going
to exceed 350 gpm?
Roland
On Apr 1, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Thom McMahon wrote:
We have a municipal water system which operates at 48 psi most of
the time, h
An Exception under IBC 910.1 Smoke and Heat Vents

Roland
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Thom McMahon wrote:
Just wondering why ESFR heads throughout? Why not use something
like the EC-25 in the MFG areas, and the ESFR in the storage areas?
If its MFG, what are your plans under the conveyors or
My cut and paste apparently faded away between sending and arriving
on the Forum. Exception (2) to the requirement for venst basicaly
says portions of the building using ESFR do not have to have vents.
Roland
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Roland Huggins wrote:
An Exception under IBC 910.1
d the pressure settings for all the pumps on
this system, and their elevations, and the various tank elevations.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
- Original Message - From: "Roland Huggins"
The soffit against the wall is for a SOLID obstruction protruding out
from the wall which forces the heat out to one side.
Why not just label this portion of the ceiling as Obstructed
Construction? You can then meet the standard beam rule form the side
of the obstruction and reach the wall
as I stated last week, you can have increases for 13R but you have to
check which ones. Well I'd mainly just check that they didn't
increase the floor area. That is restricted to just 13. MANY other
increases are allowed for 13R
Roland
On Apr 3, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Jamie Seidl wrote:
Oo
the pipe size on the branch line is when a sway brace is REQUIRED for
the branch line. That criteria does NOT eliminate the requirement to
sway brace the main by use of an offset brace thus size is immaterial
(except for the brace being listed for the size of interest). If the
brace wasn'
t; or
larger.
Matt
|-+>
| | Roland Huggins |
| |<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|
| |Sent by:|
| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| |prinkler.org|
| |
Will you be submitting a proposal to 25?
Verify the weight of the weight, distance of drop, and no binding in
drop mechanism or release mechanism. I guess one should also confirm
gravity is constant at the location. Put in a cautionary note about
ensuring thumb is not in the impact zone.
What am I missing since I don't see a major threat associated with
air bubbles (it isn't the inlet to the pump)
As long as the individual pipe size from each tank to the common
supply is adequate, I would think the pressure differential at the
node between the replenished tank vs the oth
I'm not talking about the static situation but flowing. Think back
on that fluid dynamics course a zillion years ago. Just because the
common supply is pulling water that doesn't change the impact of a
pressure differential upstream. There will be a difference between
the two tanks but it
To shorten this to two sentences. The gaseous system protects the
equipment. The sprinklers are still required to protect the building
and occupants.
Roland
On Apr 6, 2007, at 12:33 AM, John Drucker wrote:
We're on the same page.
2000 IBC 904.2 Para 2. reads;
"Automatic fire extinguishi
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Server Closet
To shorten this to two sentences. The gaseous system protects the
equipment. The sprinklers are still required to
It's not saying total additional flows but THE total not to exceed
Roland
On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Travis Mack wrote:
1000 gpm total for ALL standpipes.
That is my understanding of it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECT
shall's office. They insist the piping has to be 2
1/2" or
larger.
Matt
|-+-------->
| |Roland Huggins |
| |<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|
| |Sent by:
the use of underground steel pipe is restricted, see 10.1.2. One can
argue about whether it applies just to supply mains (since it came
out of NFPA 24) since 8.16.4.2.4 addresses it. Transitioning WITHIN
a sprinkler system (ie after the system riser), has never been well
defined. Skate o
It's identified in 13 for the FDC along with the wrapping etc
referenced earlier by Ron. See10.1.3 (says externally coated AND
wrapped)
Roland
On Apr 18, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Todd Williams - work wrote:
If I recall, on one project with a sidewalk siamese where we
couldn't use regular DI for
One must assume that only 13 is identified in ASME A17.1 because it's
the only one that REQUIRES sprinklers in these areas.
Roland
On Apr 23, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Kurt Olson wrote:
I have just the opposite problem. Condo building designed per 13R
so no
heads required in elevator but the eleva
Industry standard is a closed type so take your pick. If hey had said
center OF the tile (instead of IN), I guess even upright would have
qualified. Nothing finer than a tight spec.
Roland
On Apr 24, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Kelly McDaniel wrote:
What is industry standard in relation to sprinkl
better to say something like 500 ft wide with exit doors at 100 ft
spacing (400 ft with 200 ft spacing etc). IT narrows as the doors
get further apart since we typically take the two legs at a right
angle of the triangle and not the hypotenuse.
Roland
On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:23 AM, Richard
George is practicing skating on some mighty thin ice. The problem
would be that it isn't an existing system until AFTER it is accepted.
This requirement has been in the standard a long time so whatever the
basis, it is lost as ancient history. A reasonable assumption (since
it is allowed f
There are two big reasons they builders are opposed. One (stated
reason) is the cost but more likely why have one more sub to create
headaches. The second (non-stated reason) is that there is a ton of
money made from repairing damaged houses.
Roland
On Apr 25, 2007, at 11:18 PM, Jack KGma
I suspect the prevalence of cut grooves lead to an erroneous assumption
Roland
On Apr 26, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Rod DiBona wrote:
Craig,
I don't think there is any problem with roll grooving schedule 40
pipe.
Am I wrong? We do it all the time.
Rod DiBona
Rapid Fire
_
A door is NOT required. I can state this with certainty because I
submitted a comment arguing that a door was needed on bathrooms. I
argued that it should have a high level of separation than that for
typical compartment since we are EXCLUDING protection. The committee
REJECTED it and s
Now THAT is a thoughtful and well reasoned evaluation. I used the
same one and the TC said otherwise. I still think its appropriate
that is unless we want to talk about protecting the bathroom itself.
Omitting it makes no real sense and the TC will NOT expand the
omissions to other rooms
Are the BFP's also listed with the weaker springs?
This is a known problem especially with low static pressures. The
device mfg were suppose to address it but I believe all they have
done is to point at the trapped air and say, "Not our problem".
Roland
On Apr 30, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Ed Kra
Following a stint of leaking CPVC systems (mostly in PA it seemed)
which were using antifeeze, Noveon (BF Goodrich still sounds right)
studied it. Besides having BFP's with no expansion chambers, they
specified the needed taping amount (all tapes are not the same
thickness) and more impor
iBona wrote:
Do you know what the reasoning was for no tape and dope
combination? We
have found this effective...especially if it is antifreeze.
Thanks...Rod
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 8:31
The use of heat tape went through a major change for the 07 edition,
Now there is criteria in the body that says heat tape shall be
supervised and if used for branch lines, it shall be specially listed
for branch lines. I haven't looked lately but the last time I looked
there were no such
This is the at least the second time that I know of that Schirmer
Engineering as been hired to oppose sprinklers. The other time was
against residential sprinklers at the building code proposal stage.
As we all know, PE can also stand for Prostitute Extraordinaire.
Roland
On May 11, 2007,
Me thinks (as some Brits say) that Brant would be contacted for FPC
whereas you'll want to discuss this with Janet Knowles (AFSA).
Roland
On May 14, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Stewart Kidd wrote:
Just read Ronny Coleman's piece on nursing homes and sprinklers in
Sprinkler Age - really first class pi
Try contacting Peter Larrimer (FPE for the VA verses just one of
their hospitals). He pops up on occasion on the Forum.
Roland
On May 14, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Jay Stough wrote:
We have a customer, a VA Hospital, that is trying to justify
changing from
Standard response to quick response sprin
It assigns the area of coverage for ALL heads in the remote area by
dividing the size by the number of heads. I quit looking at it as a
serious program at that point. Actually I heard they dropped their
hydraulic program. They are mechanical engineers and that is the
focus of their prima
It's nice that you are giving their company the benefit of the doubt
but save your breath.
I know of 4 cases were different offices have aggressively fought
sprinklers (3 in very recent years). This is not a case of a
policeman beating someone then one asking if that is the policy of
the
I think you'll want to peruse the building code. There use to be an
allowance for telecommunication rooms to be unprotected (even in the
middle of a high rise). I haven't looked fro it for a while. didn't
se it with a quick look in chap 4 or 9 but it was real quick.
Roland
On May 21, 200
THere is nothing about excluding the tub because you now have to
INCLUDE that area
Roland
On May 23, 2007, at 5:44 AM, Todd Williams - work wrote:
There was some scuttlebutt a while back about not including the
area of the tub/shower when calculating the area of a bathroom
(within dwelli
I would question whether the alcohol content was high enough to be an
issue. If this were storage (in order to sidestep the mercantile
issue), what commodity would plastic bottles with wine be? Liquor
(less than 100 proof) in a plastic or glass bottle is a class IV
whereas noncombustible
maintaining a minimum number of sprinklers in the remote area trumps
a percentage reduction allowance. The actual size obviously depends
on the assigned As as well as the type of sprinkler. This
requirement is NOT limited to extended coverage but we would hate for
anyone to ASSUME it's r
2007, at 9:22 AM, R Richardson wrote:
OK, so are you saying that I can have a sprinkler design area less
than
900 sq.ft. (when using QR reduction) in a small building. Or is the
only way to have an operating area less than 900 sq.ft. room or
corridor
design?
Thanks,
Rich
Roland Huggins <
we are crossing our wires here. As I like to say - LOCATION has
meaning. The EC 5 head minimum STILL applies as its own criteria but
that is in section 11.2.3.2.2.4 whereas the QR reduction 5 head
minimum is in 11.2.3.2.3.2. It says nothing about extended coverage.
Roland
On Jun 1, 2007
Let's start with No it does NOT apply and allow the double negative
to translate to Yes
Good example. That's the problem with general statements since few
small buildings get sprinklers but many buildings can have a portion
that has a small area.
Roland
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Eric
Well allow me to disagree and suggest you step out of the quicksand.
There is plenty of justification when the total building size is only
1,000 sf. 11.2.3.1.8 (1) explicitly addresses areas less than 1500
sf. Also look at the wording in section 14.4.4.4.2 (02 edition)
regarding closets w
be careful before raising the scepter of laminar flow. IMHO, I don't
think it has to with transitioning between the types of flows. I
know in a 1 inch pipe laminar flow ends at about 1 gpm. Most of the
flows we deal with are definitely in the turbulent phase.
Lets just readily accept tha
Look at the building code. For instance, an R-4 is for residential
care/assisted living for up to 16 people. Just because it's an R
occupancy and one dwelling unit, that doesn't make it a one or two
family dwelling for which 13D is limited by both its scope and IBC
903.3.1.3.
IS the AHJ
The hanger must carry 5 times the weight of the water filled pipe
plus 250 lb. The point of attachment is just the weight if the pipe
plus 250 (could say 1 times the weight of the pipe).
As for the 250 no longer being needed with OSHA requirements, we
tried a proposal deleting it and the T
Waverly, MN 55390
Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW
Waverly, MN 55390
Roland Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Look at the building code. For instance, an R-4 is for residential
care/assisted living for up to 16 people. Just because it's an R
occupancy and one dwelli
Other considerations aside (such as increased fire area as well as
the whole issue of mixed occupancies) let's say we are starting with
a building that a 13R system is acceptable.The answer is that you
are on the right path but 1500 sf is not the only answer. Outside
the dwelling unit
You do NOT apply the 3,000 sf since that is a full 13 system
requirement when you do not protect a required area (concealed
combustible). 13R is an entire building system and the location of
protection (not in concealed spaces) does not change based on in or
out of the dwelling unit. Take
You DO have to protect it, see 13:8.14.22 (02 ed). Although there is
no fuel load, we are protecting the steel from the heat of an
adjacent fire. With that in mind, let's consider a store with the
rear storage open to the area above the ceiling over the mercantile
area. Do you think hea
Your ending question hit the nail on the head. It does NOT matter
what you call the structural member but as the definition says,
whether it impedes heat flow. If the top chord is deep enough to be
readily identified as obstructed when it is a joist then it IS
obstructed construction.
T
x27;s not how it's in the book? The AHJ on this project will
accept
this, but there are others who will want to fight this tooth and nail.
Thanks again,
Bob Knight
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Thursday, Jun
The only time a vertical opening is required to have a water curtain
by NFPA 13 (per 13:8.15.4) is when it's a SMALL opening containing a
stairway or staircase AND sprinklers were elected by the CODE as the
alternative to enclosing it.This was clarified in the 07 edition.
Although there
When you are visually inspecting the sprinkler in a new room that
isn't there, how could you justify not flagging that there is no
sprinkler? The same goes for other missing components. If there are
typical components that are normally inspected, what do you put in
the box next to that co
Not to run this thread too far BUT it is important and APPROPRIATE to
understand the scope and intent of NFPA 25. IT does serve an
important function that greatly improves the reliability of sprinkler
systems. It is not intended to REPLACE the IFC and its function to
ensure the system is a
There is a flaw in your reasoning. IF 14.4.4.5 was a connection from
different pipes to the drain without any interconnection, how could
it impact the hydraulic calculation since the flow would only be out
of the system to the drain?
The tie-in drain is used only 8.15.2.5.2.4 and 8.15.2.5.
There are two problems.
1 - In making this a general requirement, WHO gets all these
reports. In a city this is easy. What about unincorporated areas?
Does anyone think the state fire marshal's office wants a flood of
paper?
2 - Without there being a local amendment, generally you are
It IS black and white. That's what I meant by the drain requirement
trumping the grid restriction.
Roland
On Jun 28, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Todd Williams - work wrote:
Am I missing something here? 8.15.2.5.3.4 states: 'Tie-in drains
SHALL be provided for multiple adjacent trapped branch lines.
I do not consider exposed pipe or duct as an issue (other than
obstructions) when applying the DAR. As long as you have a solid
ceiling, why would you not apply the larger reduction factor based on
the actual (and lower) ceiling for that design basis (since each
design basis is supported b
the only wrinkle is 13:10.10.2.1.1 about the flush must be performed
before stacking the riser. What is used to confirm it is flushed in
accordance with NFPA 24 (verses the plumbing code with it's slightly
lower flow rate)?
Roland
On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:53 AM, George Church wrote:
Just wro
Do you mean the one that the plumbing contractor knows nothing
about?. The question was really directed at asking what everyone does
to CYA when it isn't provided.
Roland
On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Matthew J. Willis wrote:
. What is used to
- >confirm it is flushed in accordance wit
Assuming this is not a code trade-up issue that drives the type of
system then this is a continuation of the past thread on mixed
occupancies in a mostly residential building. Since it is poorly
addressed by the code (which really can't differentiate between
occupancy classification needs
The maintenance can really be a pain too. For instance, if the
concentration is a little low, you have to drain the entire system,
modified the captured solution (or replace it), then pump it back
into the system. That can be interesting on a 500 gallon system.
NFPA 25 has historically b
NFPA 13 is now accepting proposals so all those thing that have been
making anyone nuts, you can submit a proposed change. I'll certainly
be watching for one from Ron - lol. If anyone needs a little
assistance or just wants to ask a question about it, send an email to
my address.
Roland
This section has been cleaned up in the 07 edition. The distance
down is measured from the bottom of the top chord member. This works
cleanly when you have a peaked truss but Todd's issue is a little
different (the issue not Todd). Technically the 02 edition text did
not says nothing in
You would be one tough AHJ.
I don't believe he would be required to shut down but would have to
implement an impairment procedure, part of which is a manned fire
watch 24/7. I am sure there are some occupancies that would entail
shutting down the operation, for instance high hazard occupan
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:10 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: sprinklers in attics
This section has been cleaned up in the 07 edition. The distance
down is measured from the bottom
Oy Va. Are you tag teaming with John? lol
Seriously, what about the NFPA 25 process as well as that of the IFC?
Roland
On Jul 11, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Dave Phelan wrote:
Good day all
As Roland guessed - I'm going to weigh in with how this AHJ (me) views
impairments.
In my early days as
Have you talked with Curt Brown at IDOD?
It's pretty slick stuff with the zinc being applied as part of the
milling. It doesn't crack when you roll groove it plus the
consistency of application is questionable on hot dipped.
Roland
On Jul 12, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Thom McMahon wrote:
We have
AWWA has guidance (I think it is M14 but it has been a while).
Granted that is a recommended practice and water purveyors are
powerful fiefdoms that often do what ever THEY want.
Roland
On Jul 12, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Todd Williams - work wrote:
What is everyone installing on systems from pot
I haven't looked at the new UFC from DOD but back in my day, light
hazard was not allowed. IF that is still the case, it would kill
using CPVC
Roland
On Jul 12, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Christopher Born wrote:
I was involved in a similar situation when I was a PM/estimator for
a sprinkler contr
One of the aspects that drive an RPZ is when the fire dept draft from
non-potable sources (anytime).
Roland
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe
That isn't a new requirement, just slightly tweaked text. See
9.3.5.1.2 in 02 it said carry the load vs resist the load.
Roland
On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:26 AM, Brooks, Bill wrote:
The 2007 edition has a new paragraph 9.3.5.1.2 stating:
"The structural components to which bracing is attached sh
You have a very big and ugly pet.
It's the A/E's team responsibility for designing a building capable
of carrying the load of the systems BUT it seems unreasonable to
assume you can hang an 8 inch main on a single structural member.
How many of you:
A. Ask as part of the bid (or soon ther
The AHJ and the IFC cover the aspect of deviating from submitted
plans (with their acceptance testing) as well as changes after the
fact. Granted they can often get away with it (some times for a
while), but the owner is still RESPONSIBLE for the adequacy of the
system. They have often be
The reason you need an adequate drop is to avoid extrapolating to a
system demand of 1,500 gpm way down the curve based on a tiny drop in
test pressure (where a very small difference in readings will create
a huge difference down the curve. I state this in order to differ,
on occasion, fro
there is one aspect you skipped. IF the dwelling unit contains no
more than 4 sprinklers (not compartment but ENTIRE unit), then you
can use quick response spray sprinklers. There is no dry pipe system
limits assigned to these sprinklers which leads one to using a dry
pipe system in a res
very time, but Table
7.2.3.6.1 has all these new water delivery requirements ranging
from 15 - 60 seconds. And TIA 02-4 just adds to the confusion.
What gives?
Rich Richardson
Seattle Fire Department
Roland Huggins wrote
there is one aspect you skipped. IF the dwelling unit contains no
more th
The small room definition repeated the text from the COMPARTMENT
definition regarding openings. A door is NOT required and if there
is only one opening less than 36 inches wide, even a lintel is not
required. If anyone is interested, we have a copy of the technical
report that the change
Rich - do you really NOT require calculations on a manual even when
it is NOT a pipe schedule system?
Roland
On Aug 6, 2007, at 1:37 PM, R Richardson wrote:
2) Unless you were to use lots of 4 in. pipe (in lieu of 6 in.) we
would not require calculations at all for a manual standpipe, we
601 - 700 of 1671 matches
Mail list logo
