[Sprinklerforum] Re: 2021 IBC

[Tom Duross]

Thanks guys, 13-14, etc., are all in IBC.  Got some studying to do.

 

From: Anthony Carrizosa  
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 11:16 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers 

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: 2021 IBC

 

It is in the IFC not IBC, you can view it online for free.. states NFPA 25-2020 
Edition.

 

 

Anthony Carrizosa 

Project Manager | Fire Protection 

7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032

Cell: 206-679-5283 | Office Dir: 253-341-4593 



 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2farcherconstruction.com%2f=E,1,Wdb65AWzMgSBzW3HDw91SfcRQCtxDUQKoJf-UowQ-WnB_WMosgG-8W7eLePJ42PwWQvLiQx16Pls052VqwHO7tKm-_u5AnWly0ewkNiMkxn-AjQb1JI,=1>
 https://archerconstruction.com

 

 

 

From: Tom Duross mailto:tduro...@comcast.net> > 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 8:07 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] 2021 IBC

 

Hi Campers,

 

Is there anyone out there in forum land working under the 2021 IBC that can 
tell me what edition of NFPA #25 is referenced?  Can’t seem to find it online.

 

Thanks,

TD


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] 2021 IBC

[Tom Duross]

Hi Campers,

 

Is there anyone out there in forum land working under the 2021 IBC that can 
tell me what edition of NFPA #25 is referenced?  Can’t seem to find it online.

 

Thanks,

TD


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Surveying question

[Tom Duross]

Hey folks, long time..

 

Are any members using any of the new digital measurement devices out there?

I've looked at Moasure & Meazor GPS based.  

Looking for walls and structure surveying in addition to pipes.

Happy New Year Campers.

TD


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

[Tom Duross]

Great pump.  Concrete and grout both weigh 100#/cuft

 

From: Anthony Carrizosa  
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:42 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

 

Here is the motor and pump with the weights shown.

 

 

From: Tom Duross  
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 7:23 AM
To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers'

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

 

If your sizing the mass/weight of the concrete base and grout (1 ½”
minimum), for a low speed it should be equal or greater the pump/base and
motor weight.  I think 2600# is everything.

 

From: Anthony Carrizosa mailto:anth...@archerconstruction.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

 



 

-Original Message-
From: Sean Lockyer mailto:slock...@aitlifesafety.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 9:25 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> >
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

 

1500 gpm, 100 hp

 

-Original Message-

From: Art Tiroly < <mailto:atir...@atcofirepro.com> atir...@atcofirepro.com>


Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 12:22 AM

To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' <
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

 

What GPM and what HP?

 

-Original Message-

From: Sean Lockyer < <mailto:slock...@aitlifesafety.com>
slock...@aitlifesafety.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 12:00 AM

To:  <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Fire pump package weight ?

 

About how much would you surmise the weight of an electric horizontal
split-case fire pump package (include enclosure) would weigh ? 

 

Sean Lockyer

Project Designer   

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

SprinklerForum mailing list:

 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org
%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,DfzSzTeqWUwarN-Dg292_
JHPnkxXliCwra_zUsxEPeNK7PR3iZdBgjK9KpCvs0jmeZ5EEd8DFYfFnlSMKZzfmFcRVZSmcjCMd
ZaeET79sZln1zk,=1>
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%
2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,DfzSzTeqWUwarN-Dg292_J
HPnkxXliCwra_zUsxEPeNK7PR3iZdBgjK9KpCvs0jmeZ5EEd8DFYfFnlSMKZzfmFcRVZSmcjCMdZ
aeET79sZln1zk,=1

To unsubscribe send an email to
<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

 

_

SprinklerForum mailing list:

 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org
%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,ZfpulvtYBrq7UUlNxAntG
6zWFBbxg8fK3o-xYI0_BrOznQ1p8IUp0pXvt2Ab3RsaMBqGDcO9v2VMFtzsflM871HRujsyETSkC
HERHQsMiWLuf0wDkDAi5F0YAYg,=1>
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%
2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,ZfpulvtYBrq7UUlNxAntG6
zWFBbxg8fK3o-xYI0_BrOznQ1p8IUp0pXvt2Ab3RsaMBqGDcO9v2VMFtzsflM871HRujsyETSkCH
ERHQsMiWLuf0wDkDAi5F0YAYg,=1

To unsubscribe send an email to
<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

 

_

SprinklerForum mailing list:

 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org
%2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,WGITz_JTvVaQUlgoj9Tsl
dhaGiPP2O3Kx3o4SgafVikVHSfW-JCPv9FaN6yMYono2cAGTVb3LtQ0YNWDXoNIsXIu5cHladNUd
rAJCMsxD35KUBWvWx0B=1>
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%
2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,WGITz_JTvVaQUlgoj9Tsld
haGiPP2O3Kx3o4SgafVikVHSfW-JCPv9FaN6yMYono2cAGTVb3LtQ0YNWDXoNIsXIu5cHladNUdr
AJCMsxD35KUBWvWx0B=1

To unsubscribe send an email to
<mailto:sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

 

Anthony Carrizosa | Fire Protection Estimator / Project Manager

7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032

Cell: 206-679-5283 | Direct: 253-341-4593 | Office: 253-872-7222

 



https://archerconstruction.com
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2farcherconstruction.com%
2f=E,1,TbX_24i9fiZbrv7cVekoPOZkiwsLtwzrjR83-4jEOlXlphnc0GP59tTb1MxZMbLyZzV
x7BFB1Y-nN5Dlu8K1jNjM8m6BpylpBdpUr-O7

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

[Tom Duross]

If your sizing the mass/weight of the concrete base and grout (1 ½”
minimum), for a low speed it should be equal or greater the pump/base and
motor weight.  I think 2600# is everything.

 

From: Anthony Carrizosa  
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

 



 

-Original Message-
From: Sean Lockyer  
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 9:25 PM
To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

 

1500 gpm, 100 hp

 

-Original Message-

From: Art Tiroly <  atir...@atcofirepro.com>


Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 12:22 AM

To: 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' <

sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire pump package weight ?

 

What GPM and what HP?

 

-Original Message-

From: Sean Lockyer < 
slock...@aitlifesafety.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 12:00 AM

To:  
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Fire pump package weight ?

 

About how much would you surmise the weight of an electric horizontal
split-case fire pump package (include enclosure) would weigh ? 

 

Sean Lockyer

Project Designer   

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

SprinklerForum mailing list:

 

https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%
2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,DfzSzTeqWUwarN-Dg292_J
HPnkxXliCwra_zUsxEPeNK7PR3iZdBgjK9KpCvs0jmeZ5EEd8DFYfFnlSMKZzfmFcRVZSmcjCMdZ
aeET79sZln1zk,=1

To unsubscribe send an email to

sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

 

_

SprinklerForum mailing list:

 

https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%
2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,ZfpulvtYBrq7UUlNxAntG6
zWFBbxg8fK3o-xYI0_BrOznQ1p8IUp0pXvt2Ab3RsaMBqGDcO9v2VMFtzsflM871HRujsyETSkCH
ERHQsMiWLuf0wDkDAi5F0YAYg,=1

To unsubscribe send an email to

sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

 

_

SprinklerForum mailing list:

 

https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%
2flist%2fsprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org=E,1,WGITz_JTvVaQUlgoj9Tsld
haGiPP2O3Kx3o4SgafVikVHSfW-JCPv9FaN6yMYono2cAGTVb3LtQ0YNWDXoNIsXIu5cHladNUdr
AJCMsxD35KUBWvWx0B=1

To unsubscribe send an email to

sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

 

Anthony Carrizosa | Fire Protection Estimator / Project Manager

7855 S 206th St Kent, WA 98032

Cell: 206-679-5283 | Direct: 253-341-4593 | Office: 253-872-7222

 



https://archerconstruction.com  

 

 

 

 


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Pump testing in the Middle of Nowhere

[Tom Duross]

Remember the old  testing trailers?  Playpipes affixed to a rack and 
discharging into a series of expanded metal sheets that took the velocity out 
and it just gushed out the open bottom.  I had one back in the early 80’s and 
we’d park it over a catch basin and catch almost everything.  Assuming a 
flowmeter so only 3rd year?  I’d use pitotless vs. playpipes.

 

From: Fpdcdesign  
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 7:41 PM
To: Steve Leyton 
Cc: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Pump testing in the Middle of Nowhere

 

What about attaching a bunch of Hose Monsters to a floating dock?

 






On Apr 26, 2022 at 6:19 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
wrote:

All:

We are designing a fire pump to supply a very large private fire main system 
(40 hydrants) in the desert East of San Diego.   The pump will take suction 
from an embankment supported reservoir and we are trying to figure out the best 
way to blow test water back into this reservoir, which isn’t very tall or wide. 
 We’re thinking of ways to diffuse the discharge as it hits the air, with a 
discharge header attached to the bulkhead through which the suction main 
passes.  We’re also thinking that playpipes will launch the stream too far and 
we need any diffused stream to be a controlled shape as we don’t want to risk 
damage to the earthworks.   If anyone has any experience or suggestions, I’d 
love to hear from you either off line or by reply here in the  forum.And 
thanks.

 



Steve Leyton, President 
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |    
www.protectiondesign.com 
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training

 

_ SprinklerForum 
mailing list: 
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To 
unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 


_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Doing some commissioning work on a new one for New Balance here in Boston.  
Building shaped like a peanut, curved walls and roof.  Almost every space is 
OH2, large sprinkler loads, half the place is K=8 heads.  10 stairways, some 
only between 2 floors.  Large movable wooden track, protection over and below.  
55' ceiling above track.  Point is.. The other buildings on this site which 
have Celtic and Bruins practice spaces we did a few years ago have a ton of 
open areas all used as storage of some really interesting stuff.  How about 30' 
of pads in a portable rack.  Retractable wooden bleachers never planned for.  
They have these 2 small electric forklifts to pile mats up 20' to the limit.  
New one both levels of garage are filled with boxes of stuff going in.  You 
name it.  I think this particular type of building is one I would take a longer 
look at.  Seems every room labeled a multi-purpose will become storage (full or 
part time) as well as the adjacent open areas.  Serious loading and beyond what 
a vanilla modelling might predict.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 9:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; Bob Caputo 
; tston...@comcast.net
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE

Take it a step farther.  You need to look at all the various areas within the 
building.  For multi-use buildings, you can have various levels of hazards 
under one roof.  This is one reason why you can't use the annex as an end-all 
of occupancies.



Tall, open areas need to be looked at differently than standard height 8-10 ft 
areas.



Look at your sprinkler listings. A sprinkler Listed for LH may have a ceiling 
height limitation.



Don't ya just love the wild and wooly world of fire protection?  



Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com

1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:58 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Caputo ; tston...@comcast.net
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE



Not in my opinion.  We should always look at the definitions for each occupancy 
classification as opposed to the list in the annex.  These facilities have a 
lot of plastics and combustibles that exceed the definition of light hazard and 
they are of heights exceeding 8 ft so OH1 is probably not adequate.



When I look at the foam in landing pits of gymnasiums or even the bleachers, 
I'd have a hard time seeing a simple gymnasium as light hazard.



This is a personal opinion.



Bob Caputo, CFPS

President

American Fire Sprinkler Association





-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 7:44 AM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Cc: tston...@comcast.net

Subject: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE



NFPA does not define Field houses.



Indoor Track, Basketball Courts, Tennis Courts and Climbing Wall. The new 
building will be 37'-0 high to the peak of a flat roof.







Would it be safe to use Light Hazard Occupancy?











Regards,



G. Tim Stone







G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC



NICET Level III Engineering Technician



Fire Protection Sprinkler Design



and Consulting Services







   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452



 CELL: (802) 373-0638



   
tston...@comcast.net







___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!ST2dG3hqxRkvBw-dzx61kx0gBeM41Dd__thMJ_eFqHAjzCxZygMolAa1ML5_7cG_uA$

rg

___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!ST2dG3hqxRkvBw-dzx61kx0gBeM41Dd__thMJ_eFqHAjzCxZygMolAa1ML4wgnIYqQ$

RE: theft of FDC inlets

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Usually 30-34 balls in a 2 1/2" swivel.  NO grease.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; e...@bamfordfire.com
Cc: Bob Caputo ; BRUCE VERHEI 
Subject: RE: theft of FDC inlets

There are ways to replace the FDC swivels -  here are a few links.  AFSA does 
not endorse specific manufacturers or suppliers - this is simply offering 
potential solutions for FDC repair.

https://www.qrfs.com/blog/110-replacing-a-fire-department-connection-swivel/#:~:text=How%20to%20install,fire%20department%20connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOUMQFSTJ6E


Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 3:12 PM
To: e...@bamfordfire.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BRUCE VERHEI 
Subject: Re: theft of FDC inlets

Ed,

They’re not using a wrench. They’re breaking out the caps, sticking in a piece 
of 1-1/2” pipe, and rotating unit off.

We went to the Knox product which stopped the problem. Some owners added 
Locktite Red, which adds its own problem if replacement is necessary.

Knox passes out the key to the FD’s. As they don’t access the building I don’t 
think we kept them in the semi-secure, remote release box in the engines etc.

If address was stamped on would scrap buyers stop pretending they don’t know 
source?

Best.

Bruce Verhei

> On 10/14/2021 8:16 AM Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
>
>
> We received a letter from a local fire official saying they've seen a 
> significant increase in theft of FDC's.  It's no longer just the brass 
> plugs, but now it's the female swivel - making the FDC non-functional.
>
>
>
> Some potential solutions that have been offered include:
>
> * Using a bit of JB Weld on the set screw that holds the swivel in
> place
> * Drilling out the top of the same set screw
> * Replacing standard FDC's w/Storz
> * Installing locking covers (such as Knox #3041)
> * Electrifying the FDC and instructing fire fighters to wear
> insulating gloves (not really)
>
>
>
> Anybody got any other ideas?
>
>
>
> Ed K
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: FP Suction Control Valve

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

The FD Capt. and I  are on the same page with this, and I forgot to add I was 
color coding the hydrants for Class B.  The file for the buildings/development 
will be amended for water volume.  We're more concerned with the next crew who 
may not know, landscapers, etc.  How this system configuration ever got 
approved is everyone involved's questioning.  

Funny, I looked at another in RI yesterday, group 4 non-encapsulated stored to 
30', aisles under 8', dry system (used to be a refrigerated building), overhead 
only, no racks, 2500 gpm pump at 125, water supply is 30 psi and drops to 0 at 
1800.  Placard says .57/2600 w/233 heads flowing.  Tenant is FEMA.  I think 
there's more there than a suction control valve.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 3:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: FP Suction Control Valve

I think I’ve preached this before but to my way of think standpipes and 
hydrants are the drivers of design when present with sprinklers acting as a 
first line of containment, buying time for manual suppression. That they work 
so well at suppression so often is an added bonus.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 12:03 PM cw bamford via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I looked at this Question a few times and finally saw -
> "3 hydrants it serves."
>
> my initial thought was 750 gpm pump  x 1.5  = 1125 gpm Max. design 
> that's a big for an apartment and 13R
>
> 1125 gpm  60 minute supply  67,500 gallons or double that for 120 
> minutes
>
> Was pump designed for hydrants?  Does it need a Tank?
> Standpipe Design?
>
> could a "New Controller" that Limits PSI be installed ?
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 4:28 AM Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > Good morning Campers.  Looking for advice and comments.
> >
> > I have an existing diesel driven fire pump in a prefabricated pump 
> > house installed in 2012 serving 2 apartment buildings.
> >
> > I first tested this pump in 2017, had 13 hours on it, ran fine but 
> > we ran out of water at just about 100% capacity.
> >
> > Spent the day with the water department a few days later checking 
> > underground valves, flowing a few street main’s hydrants, basically 
> > came
> to
> > the conclusion that this is all we got.  Wrote up a report, 
> > suggested
> they
> > hire an FPE to see if the pump’s tested capacity meets requirements, 
> > how did this happen, what about the hydrants off this system, stuff 
> > like that.  I think I stirred the sleepy caldron a little.
> >
> > Didn’t hear back from the client until this spring.  Apparently they 
> > changed ITM contractors and the new one didn’t pan out.  They had a 
> > balcony fire May 2021, gas grille, 13R system with no attic 
> > protection, non-completed
> attic
> > separations and fire walls, etc.  Fortunately they had a response so 
> > quickly it never made it to penetrate the eaves and soffits and was 
> > extinguished between the 5th and 6th (top) floors.  Local FD must 
> > have had a field day with a Q20 of about 800 and closest city 
> > hydrant ¼ mile away.  Waiting
> for
> > incident report to review.
> >
> >
> >
> > So back to my query.  It’s a xy pump house.  All welded sch40 and 
> > painted.  Not the greatest build as there’s a 6” BFP vertically 
> > installed right off the incoming service with elbows turning it 
> > around and down to the floor to feed the pump.  Just a few spacers 
> > in the piping so no room for slipping in this device unless 
> > something gets removed or moved.  4-15 of
> > #20
> > (2013) says between the pump discharge and check and I get that but 
> > also defers to the mfgr. for direction.  Looking at the various 
> > offerings most are a little vague on placement and even one says 
> > after the pump
> discharge
> > valve.  Without major surgery, I have 2 spots to slip in this 20” 
> > long device.  I can remove the relief valve between the discharge 
> > increaser
> and
> > pump check and put it there ‘or’ I can remove the tee feeding a 6” 
> > storz and check located between the discharge valve and the city 
> > bypass.  The
> former
> > will allow me to test through the device but the latter will not.  I
> don’t
> > believe either of these appurtenances are necessary and I will 
> > explain (he’s still rambling?  Jeepers….).  The engine is a small JD 
> > inline 4 running
> > 3000
> > rpm, single ECM, max. sp

RE: FP Suction Control Valve

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

I should have rambled a little more..
 750 gpm pump runs down to 20 PSI at 877 gpm (117%).  Worried should water
demand exceed that and cavitate the main and loose cooling water to the
engine.  Then we loose the pump house and the buildings.  Residential areas
are compartmentized so not as much worried about 2-4 heads going off but
concerned about parking garages, standpipes and hydrants.  Told local FD
Capt. We would augment and ring hydrants per 291 and also placard stairways
but wanted a fail safe to protect pump for down the road.  FD is onboard
including their outside PE.
TD


Why are you wanting to install the suction control valve? Was it requested
by the FD or water supplier? 

I would be concerned about removing the PRV without knowing all about what
is downstream. It would be just your luck that some contractor got a
variance to build the mains out of pool-noodles that burst at 110psi...

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tom Duross 
Subject: FP Suction Control Valve

Good morning Campers.  Looking for advice and comments.

I have an existing diesel driven fire pump in a prefabricated pump house
installed in 2012 serving 2 apartment buildings.

I first tested this pump in 2017, had 13 hours on it, ran fine but we ran
out of water at just about 100% capacity.

Spent the day with the water department a few days later checking
underground valves, flowing a few street main's hydrants, basically came to
the conclusion that this is all we got.  Wrote up a report, suggested they
hire an FPE to see if the pump's tested capacity meets requirements, how did
this happen, what about the hydrants off this system, stuff like that.  I
think I stirred the sleepy caldron a little.

Didn't hear back from the client until this spring.  Apparently they changed
ITM contractors and the new one didn't pan out.  They had a balcony fire May
2021, gas grille, 13R system with no attic protection, non-completed attic
separations and fire walls, etc.  Fortunately they had a response so quickly
it never made it to penetrate the eaves and soffits and was extinguished
between the 5th and 6th (top) floors.  Local FD must have had a field day
with a Q20 of about 800 and closest city hydrant ¼ mile away.  Waiting for
incident report to review.

 

So back to my query.  It's a xy pump house.  All welded sch40 and
painted.  Not the greatest build as there's a 6" BFP vertically installed
right off the incoming service with elbows turning it around and down to the
floor to feed the pump.  Just a few spacers in the piping so no room for
slipping in this device unless something gets removed or moved.  4-15 of #20
(2013) says between the pump discharge and check and I get that but also
defers to the mfgr. for direction.  Looking at the various offerings most
are a little vague on placement and even one says after the pump discharge
valve.  Without major surgery, I have 2 spots to slip in this 20" long
device.  I can remove the relief valve between the discharge increaser and
pump check and put it there 'or' I can remove the tee feeding a 6" storz and
check located between the discharge valve and the city bypass.  The former
will allow me to test through the device but the latter will not.  I don't
believe either of these appurtenances are necessary and I will explain (he's
still rambling?  Jeepers..).  The engine is a small JD inline 4 running 3000
rpm, single ECM, max. speed is 3300.  Churn is 155 at 3025.  I haven't
physically done it but if I extrapolate to 3300 I get 170 psi.  I'm below
175 so I think the PRV can go.  If I opt to remove the storz I can but
testing this pump will have to be via the 3 hydrants it serves, in addition
to the 2 buildings.  I honestly don't know why the engineer (small E) had a
storz included as this house it atop a hill in the woods ½ mile away from a
city hydrant and these buildings.

 

OK, done rambling.  Loose the PRV or keep scratching my head?

 

Let's go Red Sox!

 

Tom Duross

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2
flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,mmPokZ5kJYxxqn-qLWYOa
8oByvhphYn0IWPvP-rwhJfnI61REB-9wquqpynEEdKJl0X271lXhFcIkVejTI97f_-715aBoh48o
m2v3jREiFtX-eV7C0mR3iGd=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

FP Suction Control Valve

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Good morning Campers.  Looking for advice and comments.

I have an existing diesel driven fire pump in a prefabricated pump house
installed in 2012 serving 2 apartment buildings.

I first tested this pump in 2017, had 13 hours on it, ran fine but we ran
out of water at just about 100% capacity.

Spent the day with the water department a few days later checking
underground valves, flowing a few street main’s hydrants, basically came to
the conclusion that this is all we got.  Wrote up a report, suggested they
hire an FPE to see if the pump’s tested capacity meets requirements, how did
this happen, what about the hydrants off this system, stuff like that.  I
think I stirred the sleepy caldron a little.

Didn’t hear back from the client until this spring.  Apparently they changed
ITM contractors and the new one didn’t pan out.  They had a balcony fire May
2021, gas grille, 13R system with no attic protection, non-completed attic
separations and fire walls, etc.  Fortunately they had a response so quickly
it never made it to penetrate the eaves and soffits and was extinguished
between the 5th and 6th (top) floors.  Local FD must have had a field day
with a Q20 of about 800 and closest city hydrant ¼ mile away.  Waiting for
incident report to review.

 

So back to my query.  It’s a xy pump house.  All welded sch40 and
painted.  Not the greatest build as there’s a 6” BFP vertically installed
right off the incoming service with elbows turning it around and down to the
floor to feed the pump.  Just a few spacers in the piping so no room for
slipping in this device unless something gets removed or moved.  4-15 of #20
(2013) says between the pump discharge and check and I get that but also
defers to the mfgr. for direction.  Looking at the various offerings most
are a little vague on placement and even one says after the pump discharge
valve.  Without major surgery, I have 2 spots to slip in this 20” long
device.  I can remove the relief valve between the discharge increaser and
pump check and put it there ‘or’ I can remove the tee feeding a 6” storz and
check located between the discharge valve and the city bypass.  The former
will allow me to test through the device but the latter will not.  I don’t
believe either of these appurtenances are necessary and I will explain (he’s
still rambling?  Jeepers….).  The engine is a small JD inline 4 running 3000
rpm, single ECM, max. speed is 3300.  Churn is 155 at 3025.  I haven’t
physically done it but if I extrapolate to 3300 I get 170 psi.  I’m below
175 so I think the PRV can go.  If I opt to remove the storz I can but
testing this pump will have to be via the 3 hydrants it serves, in addition
to the 2 buildings.  I honestly don’t know why the engineer (small E) had a
storz included as this house it atop a hill in the woods ½ mile away from a
city hydrant and these buildings.

 

OK, done rambling.  Loose the PRV or keep scratching my head?

 

Let’s go Red Sox!

 

Tom Duross

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Hollow Core Concrete Seismic Braces

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

There must be epoxy systems approved by DOT as I just did 5) #502 standpipes
just north of Boston and they not only widened the bridges and ramps about
5' but also used the same system for supporting the barriers and fencing,
but also the guides, restraints, expansion joints, anchors and hangers for
the standpipes.  All fasteners were SS, even the bolts on the #77 couplings.
The extensions were precast and most of the standpipe attachments were set
into the precast extensions.  I know the Spkr/Plumbing Contractor used a
DeWalt product, no embedment's, this was the spec product for the job.

Go Red Sox!

TD

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 8:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams ; Skyler Bilbo

Subject: Re: Hollow Core Concrete Seismic Braces

Many times there is a topping slab that can cover a through bolt and backing
plate, or the precaster “could” install embedments. Takes lots of
coordination! I like to spec embedments in parking ramp decks for the mains
as it is such a corrosive environment and I can’t count on SS drill in
anchors to be used. ( I drive through a DOT highway tunnel retrofit all SS
standpipe I designed and I can see the rusty bolts here and there… mainly on
the protective bollards)

Alternate Outlook ...on life!

From: Sprinklerforum  on
behalf of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 8:15:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Hollow Core Concrete Seismic Braces

The details I have seen involve the regular long concrete wedge anchors
installed between the hollow cores, in the solid part. I would start by
asking the structural engineer and/or hollow core manufacturer how they
recommend installing seismic bracing attachments for the sprinkler piping.
Welding attachments to the D-Beams may be an option as well (designed by a
structural engineer). The regular short drop ins are not an option.


-Skyler


On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 6:43 PM James Crawford via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> We are looking at a project that will be constructed with pre-cast 
> hollow core concrete panels.
>
> My concern and question is how do we seismically brace the sprinkler 
> mains if we can only drill in ¾" into the concrete for the anchor. I 
> know Hilti has inserts for hanging but not sure if they are OK for seismic
bracing.
>
> Is there anything out there that can be used for seismic bracing of 3", 4"
> and 6" mains, if someone can point me in the right direction.
>
> Thank You
>
> James Crawford
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
> Phone 604-888-0318
> Cel: 604-790-0938
> Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
> Web: www.phaserfire.ca
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire pump test through flow meter

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

I bet if there was a partially closed gate, or a check, or a blockage; that 
might cause it.

  
  

  Are they’re any good resources about testing a fire pump with a flow meter 
where it feeds back into the suction piping? I have been given a couple of 
tests with very screwy results. Thanks
  
  
  
 Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
  
860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Standpipe Testing

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Thanks Skylar, all too experienced in venting from previous bad experiences 
back in the day.
The underground we did yesterday we fortunately had 2 hydrants and the 8" 
flanged stub in the pump room to vent.  The stub was where we flushed from (to 
get the entire main) and also pressure tested/forward flow tested from.  I 
welded up a set of manifolds years ago with 2.5" grooved weldolets that take 
grooved hose valves.  We vented the hydrants and also through the manifold and 
even with a slight dip in elevation between hyd. 1 and 2 before entering the 
building I think we got 'most' of the air.  I can usually tell in the first 10 
minutes, depending on volume, if we got trapped air.  I use a good calibrated 
gauge (pump gauge) and saw an initial drop from 210 to 207 in the first 10 
minutes but rock solid after to 2 hours.  

These roadway babies are all over the place but, we have AAV's at every 
elevated station.  6 coupling expansion joints.  The  AAV's have ball valves on 
them so I figure 2 passes end to end should vent, check the hose valves for 
tight an caps tight, close the ball valves on the AAV's; all under street 
pressure.  The trick, well one of them, is going to be checking for leaks, like 
I’m going to hang my fat head over the side 75' in the air, and then find a 
pump suitable for the initial charge, and maybe recharge.  Looking.  

I also have a clause in discharging dirty water that I didn't before, plus one 
for noise.  We are close to the harbor and old Ironsides so we may have to run 
hoses to a sanitary manhole, we still have catch basins that drain to the 
ocean.  I'm excited to do this, despite the conditions, I'll be taking pictures 
and video unless the Commonwealth says no.  They did during the big dig.
Any advice or help is appreciated guys.  


Scot - I don't think your base equation is quite right.  You may be trying to 
use the ideal gas law here, on a liquid, which doesn't work.  Also, I think 
technically you would be changing "n" in the equation, not V (the volume of the 
system is constant at P1 and P2), but I don't think this really matters.  I 
think your equation is essentially correct, but only if we were talking about a 
system being filled and tested with a gas, not water.

Tom - I have considered this problem in the past, when I had to test a run of 
underground piping in the middle of nowhere, and I wanted to know how big of a 
tank I would need to bring to get to 200 psi after the piping was full of 
water.  Because water does not compress very much (see link below for a graph; 
less than .5% at 1000 PSI), the answer was extremely small (less than 10 
gallons).  I don't want to run through the math again (it doesn't really matter 
because we are talking about only needing to add a very small volume of water 
to increase the pressure substantially).  The huge key is having no air in the 
system.  Air is very much compressible, as shown in Scot's equation.  I say all 
of this because my advice is that you should vent out as much air as possible.  
If you can do this, it shouldn't take much time to pressure up the system up to 
200 psi, even with a small pump.  Getting all the air out is usually easier 
said than done (theory can be much different than real life), but with what I 
just told you, it is worth making an attempt.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-force-would-be-needed-to-compress-water-within-an-indestructible-vessel-And-what-would-happen


Thanks,
Skyler Bilbo

1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Cell

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com
www.wenteplumbing.com


On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:27 AM å...  via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> To answer your question:
>
> *P1 *V1*=  P2 * V2when tested at close to the same temperature.
> V2  =(P1*V1)/P2  where  P1 = 200 psi/14.7 psi = 13.6 atm,  V1 =
> volumen of your pipe system,  P2 is  1 atm.
> V2 =  13.6 * V1
> If we have a 4 gpm pump, replace V2 with  (4 gpm * x min), rearrange 
> to solve for minutes.  If we have 2 pumps operating in parallel, we 
> use the flow rate of the pump with the lower developed-pressure.  V1 is in 
> gallons.
>
> X minutes to fill  =  (13.6 * V1 ) / 4 gpm * FF
>
> FF is a fudge factor.  It accounts for leaks, the fact that your pump 
> may not be exactly 4 gpm, the fact your pump flow rate will decrease 
> as the pressure it pushes against increases, and FF  accounts for plain and 
> simple
> entropy.   My hunch is FF is about 1.3.   But don't take my word for it,
> record the results yourself and show how bad this hunch is.
>
> "The inspector came back after the requisite 2 hours and signed it off.
> It's
> all about relationships."
>

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: How long to pump up a standpipe?

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

12.34 hours is a long time for the Capt. to stand and wait, then wait 2 more 
hours.
Working backwards, if I wanted to pump it up in an hour, I'd need a 400 gpm 
pump that made 200#.
I do have a friend and competitor 2 miles from here with 2 trailer mounted 
Patterson diesels he does bridge and tunnel standpipes with...
All I can do is ask.

Thanks Vince and Brad.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 3:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Vince Sabolik 
Subject: How long to pump up a standpipe?

My friend Brad Casterline wanted to offer an answer  to Tom Duross' 
question about how
long it would take to pump up a standpipe.

Please note, I'm not this smart!

P1=75 psi/.433=173 ft.
P2=200 psi/.433=462 ft.
deltaP=289 ft.
V1=5000 gal/7.48=669 ft^3.
P1V1=115,737 ft/ft^3, /289 ft=400 ft^3.
4 gpm/7.48/60=.009 ft^3/s.
400 ft^3/.009 ft^3/s=~12 hours.
-- 


*Vince Sabolik*

*West Tech Fire Protection, Inc.***

11351 Pearl Road   /   Strongsville, Ohio   44136

Phone 440 238-4800Fax 440 238-4876   Cell 440 724-7601

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Standpipe Testing

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Thanks Matt.
I also got a tip to buy/rent a large pressure washer today.  I'm thinking
this little 3/4 hp Reed is not going to do it at all.
I did 800' of 8" ductile today, flush, pressure test, forward flow test.  It
was 32° and snowing just north of Boston at this University.  Took me 1 hr.
10 mins. to pump from 66 to 210.  It held fine but I got to thinking (during
the 2 hr. rest) that just one of these roadway #502 standpipes are 2300'
long, all 6" except the risers to the gated wye's and air releases every
275' and a drop at each end to a 5" Storz and Vic717R.  I doubt I will have
much free use of the local FD's pumper, I'm told they're not too happy about
having to do it.  Kind of like the power company putting panels on your roof
with no rental but have to provide access.  I'll know more next week.  I'm
writing up test procedures over the weekend to coincide with  #25 and #502,
and then some.  Haven't done a roadway system in a few years but it looks
like 5 AM Saturdays for 5 weeks and the bridges are in use, never closed.  I
gotta see what's out there for rentals.  Going to use Scott's math to see
what the street fill will take and then the pressure pump-up.  Thanks Scott,
we'll do pizza again next time your in town.  Hey Scott, I got 10 minutes to
show a full stream after pulling the trigger on 150#, starting empty,  think
I'll make it?


It might not be a real fast approach, but is there some reason that you
could not have the standpipes pressurized to 200 psi before the inspector
arrives? We frequently hook up the test pump and then go about
moving-off/cleaning up until the little pump reaches the pressure. If you
don't have enough time to get it pumped before the inspector comes (ask for
an afternoon appointment?) - we have pumped the systems up partially the day
before so that they are close to the test pressure but not excessively high.
Then you don't need as long to top them off. Just be sure you have a
helper/day laborer keep an eye on the gauge!

I suppose it would just depend on how much big pump rental or nitrogen tanks
would cost VS a couple hours of small pump babysitting.

Matt 


Fill completely with water; then connect a high-pressure nitrogen cylinder
and quickly jack the system to 200 psi. Have seen this method used before to
test large warehouse systems where it is very time consuming to pressurize
the system(s).




___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Standpipe Testing

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

I’m wondering if anyone here on the list can help me with some estimates.

 

I have 3 elevated roadway standpipes to pressure test and flow test.  All
set with the flow testing part.

My question is pressure testing.  Never did this part before.  I can use the
public hydrants to fill to street pressure.  No problem.  Static on grade is
about 75# as I have a couple of pumps in the area I test annually.
Standpipes are about 50’ above.  I need to figure out if I need to rent a
pump capable of reaching 200+ psi or how long will these 2 little ½ and ¾ hp
hydro pumps I have will take.  This is all witnessed and the plan is hydro
for 2 hours, walk and check everything, drain completely, hook up the pumper
and pull the trigger.  Can’t make the fire guy stand there for 2 hours while
the little pump hits 200 plus 50 feet.

 

If I took each of the standpipes, calculated their volume (close to a mile
in total), figured in all the expansion joints, pipe to the double wye’s,
air vents, low point drains, dual FDC’s, etc., and came up volume.  Use fire
hose to reach static.I take my little pumps at 4 or 6 gpm, decreases as
pressure grows obviously, I need to figure how long these will take to reach
200-225#.  Thinking hours.  So maybe I need to look into rentals but I need
to know what size I need.

 

Ideas?

 

TD

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

FPC

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Good morning Campers,

 

Looking for a little advice here.

 

Replacing a fire pump and controller this week in a small town library here
in MA.  Building has an addressable fire alarm system and will take the
usual 3 signals from the new FPC like the old one.  FA is not monitored
though but is connected to a Master Box.  Staff would like instructions on
performing monthly churn testing as they planned to do prior to the old fire
pump and controller getting lightning fried (no proper grounding or
bonding).

 

I'm on the fence somewhat as how do I want the pump running signal to come
in.  If it was monitored, it would be supervisory no brainer.  No one's
going to hear this one though if it starts in the middle of the night.  The
old went to alarm, all 3 did, wondering if I want to do the same.  I have
little doubt of the pump not being able to run all night (no run timer right
now), but it's unnecessary.  Downside is they have to call the chief and
have him send a FF to take out the box and reset the panel once a month.

 

Tom Duross

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Cut grooved ductile I presume?  I've seen that many times.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2021 5:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Matt Grise
; Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

We use grooved all the time as well (like hundreds of times) and I'm not
aware of any issue as a result of it. I'm pretty confident that there isn't
a rule against it. I've never seen it suck one of the gaskets through the
pump, if that's what you're concerned about.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise ; Steve Leyton 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

I am not aware of any prohibitions. We use grooved when we can. For whatever
reason (tradition?) gate valves seem to always be flanged, so we frequently
go flanged just due to availability.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2021 4:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Grooved joints in pump suction main

We've got this pump house...  Took over the design from a civil engineer and
have been in repair mode for a couple weeks.   The original concept used a
pre-engineered and all-inclusive pump house but the assembly won't be
accepted by the state agency with jurisdiction because it hasn't passed the
CA seismic testing gauntlet and is thus, not considered a
pre-engineered/pre-approved structure.   In the course of revising this to
slab-on-grade building, the pumps go from sitting on frames that are part of
the floor assembly to skid-mounted and we have to furnish housekeeping pads
that are currently really tall.   Since pump suction is 10" and we need a
flex coupling near the floor and we have a 10" flanged ell on top of two
flange x groove pieces, the CL of pump suction has risen to about 3'-8"
above the floor requires a 19" concrete pad.   If I can attached the suction
main directly to the flex coupling at about 12-14" above the FF, we can cut
nearly a foot out of this housekeeping pad
  so the question is:

Is there any statutory prohibition or observation of good practices that
precludes using grooved fittings and control valves on a pump suction main?
For whatever it's worth, this is low pressure, 2,500 gpm at 54 psi pumps
with high static of about 70 psi.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com
_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fs
prinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CNnQzlWnaYQG-5F1baqspRog4lZip
juu1qC-2DvaxML0zbRemLsolrdJFec-2DBaDtdud3LEqPl4vB4cPX1BnecsWRo2SV6VuCOY0YZdo
os-5FgO38Aa3vxYvQiV-5FrUsl-2Dt5x-26typo-3D1=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DI
A=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=TAQfZmxpLkl8CBa3e20VY8cLmS
gn5hFqHpYI_MvWSgA=cYRxJJv80S71XfnU8UEmldZnkm132CKnTGHqQAbneW0= 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_
listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ
0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=TAQfZmxpLkl8CBa3e20VY8
cLmSgn5hFqHpYI_MvWSgA=GS65IGQx-_dNIu1nxThV1C0g_zMjjs8OLZqNIThPhhQ= 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Kind of along the lines of the pre-assembled dry valves with tapped butterfly 
valve and no means of FDC supply between butterfly and dry valve.  We got some 
push back in Boston about this because they check (no pun) the routing of the 
FDC line and interconnection point in standpipe systems when commissioning.  
They originally didn't allow supplying through the tapped butterfly but since 
it's a listed assembly have passed it.
TD


Yeah, I get the listed assembly.

Just begs the question,
If it's good for the goose..

I know jurisdictions that reject if you do not have the 3psi loss on your calcs.

Sure they have a listing, but there are folks out there that think only a 
listed can be installed.
When in reality, listed devices need only need installed.

Matt


Steve is correct. The flowswitches on the listed preassembled manifolds and 
risers are part of a listed assembly and are tested as part of that assembly.
The recommendations on the Potter literature are recommendations, not code 
requirements. The purpose of the recommendation is to try to prevent people 
from installing the flowswitch too close to a valve or change in direction that 
could cause enough turbulence to prevent the flowswitch from operating when a 
calibrated flow test is conducted. The installer would then have to relocate 
the flowswitch.

Kind Regards,

mike

Mike Henke CET
Sprinkler Product Manager


If an assembly is tested and listed as a unit, and passes the required tests as 
configured, then the listing supersedes such restrictions.   I remember asking 
this question when Resi-Risers first came out.

Steve L.


I would as well.

What happened to the "not within 24" of a drain or valve?"

A check valve is a valve.. Right?

R/
Matt


I would like to know why this is the "best way" for the installation.  I am not 
stating it is not, just not sure why one way is better especially since we have 
done it a certain way for years.

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*


On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:05 PM Henry Fontana via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> This is not a code change. Both manufacturers (one of them I work for) 
> state that this is the best way for installation and will not cause a 
> nuisance alarm. Ever since Globe came out with theirs I have 
> questioned why it’s designed this way.
>
> Henry Fontana
> Operations Manager (NYC)
> Johnson Controls Fire Protection
> 100 Lighting Way| St#402|Secaucus|NJ
> 07094
> Cell: 201-210-9873
> henry.font...@jci.com
>
> I've just received a second product sheet from a different suppliers 
> for a pre-built riser where the check valve is located above/after the 
> flow switch. Is this arrangement a new change coming is the code?
>
> Jerry Van Kolken

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [External] Re: Does a remote free standing FDC require a valve pit?

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

150 should be the base for non high-rise FDC's unless placarded for higher 
required pressures.   Then maybe 50 over?
I give many FDC's a pass, just me, when they leak, and a lot do.  If they're 
fitted with plastic or aluminum covers, and changed to plugs, some hold but 
many don't.  I get a hold of 30 minutes before leaking back BUT how many of 
these leak during 5 year tests?  A lot.  If I can attribute the leakage to the 
swivel, and only the swivel, OK, you pass.  Keep in mind many buy cheap chinese 
tin hats for supplying their systems and they don't hold anything.  Even some 
of the flush style are cheap junk.  Once the covers are removed, the swivels 
being put against pressure (some for the first time) from an aluminum or brass 
plug, all you have is the gasket.  Even replaced, some don't hold.  Getting 
back, yes to the pit.  Who's going to bring a shovel and dig up a checkvalve? 
Bueller?
What happened to the balanced supplies?  FDC's must equal tank or city in 
capacity.  One inlet for every 250 demand.  Stuff went south, maybe southwest.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:11 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: [External] Re: Does a remote free standing FDC require a valve pit?

Once NFPA 25 2022 edition is finalized, I would expect new/revised language for 
hydrostatic testing criteria of fire department connections for ITM.

NFPA 13  - requires the fire department connection pass a hydrostatic test.  
200 PSI minimum with no drop in pressure or no visible leakage.

NFPA 13 -2019 edition states:

28.2.1.7 Piping between exterior fire department connection and the check valve 
in the fire department inlet pipe shall be hydrostatically tested in the same 
manner as the balance of

the system. After repair or replacement work affecting the fire department 
connection, the piping between the exterior and

the check valve in the fire department inlet pipe shall be isolated and 
hydrostatically tested at 150 psi (10 bar).

*The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal interpretation 
in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. This is 
provided with the understanding that the AFSA assumes no liability for this 
opinion or actions taken on it and they are not to be considered the official 
position of the **AFSA, and/or NFPA or its technical committees.**AFSA cannot 
provide design or consulting engineering services, and this opinion should 
therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as such.*

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Our members are at the heart of everything we do*


*Expand your business with ITM*
Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector 
Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended 
learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry 
leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for 
Spring 2021 .




On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:57 AM Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I can't speak for contractors, but one approach we've taken is to keep 
> the pressure above the required minimum while visually verifying 
> absence of physical leakage.  In one situation the boundary of the 
> test section included an existing closed gate valve.  Yes, water leaked past 
> the gate.
> We told them to run the test pump as needed to keep the pressure above 
> the minimum and inspect the work (all visible) to make sure there are no 
> leaks.
>
> Applying that approach to what you described - if the ball drip is the 
> only thing leaking and the test pressure was never allowed to go below 
> the minimum, I'd say it passed.
>
> My thoughts,  Scott
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 10:36 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Denhardt 
> Subject: [External] Re: Does a remote free standing FDC require a 
> valve pit?
>
> I would like to know how contractors are passing the required initial 
> and the periodic NFPA 25 hydrostatic test of the free standing FDC 
> when an automatic ball drip is installed in the underground piping?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> John August Denhardt, PE
> *Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> m: p: 301-343-1457
> 214-349-5965 ext 121
> w: 

RE: Air Venting (2021)

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

I think it all depends on placement and location, to remove as much as
possible.

I've been meaning to write a similar post about anti-freeze systems and air
vents.  These are almost always dead-end systems and I'm finding dilution at
the source even after a single year.  Granted 13 requires a physical end of
line which  could be used to vent but I hardly ever see one with existing
systems.  My only guess for dilution would be air mitigation over time
allowing water to pass the BFP or CHV into the AF portion of the system.  I
would think an AAV would solve this but I wonder with all these secret new
listed formulas of AF out there, would they effect the inner parts of these
devices?  Apologies for the digression from topic but saw this as an
opportunity to query the group.  Too bad GLC isn't here, he'd have $0.02 to
add.
TD

Cc: Jerry Van Kolken 
Subject: Air Venting (2021)

I was reading the Air Venting discussion from early 2020 and this really
didn't come up.

The code only requires a single vent, but I can think of several situations
where I there would every branchline would be trapped. Say a tree system
with BL on riser nipples, any system in an peaked roof where the branchline
travel up the pitch then back down. I don't under stand how the single air
vent relives the air from more than that single branchline it would be
installed on.

I'm I think of this too much like trapped water for drainage?

Jerry Van Kolken
Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
Oceanside, CA 92058
(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Activity

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

April 12th from his FB page.
To know him was to love him.
TD


Thanks Ron.

He is missed.

I think we should bring back "Pick on George Month".
April I think his birthday was.
Hopefully some remember..,

"George has a warehouse, that is storing nothing, how should he protect it?"

R/
Matt


Seems like there's been a resurgence in activity in the list recently.
Makes me happy and I know it would have made George Church happy. So in the
spirit of George, or perhaps channeling George's spirit, if you are an
active participant or a lurker that finds value in this exchange and you're
a member, good on you for recognizing the wealth of good AFSA does for you
and for supporting the organization. If you're not a member then good on you
too for recognizing the value offered here and wanting to enhance your
knowledge and professionalism. And if not a member please consider joining
AFSA and also your local chapter. Thank you George. You're missed. 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Standpipe signage

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

I do a fair amount of this for both commissioning and 5-year.  I only post 
pressures on the placard if over 175.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: Standpipe signage

On a standpipe system, I always indicate the FDC sign requirements on the shop 
drawing. I usually just state “CHARGE FDC AT 150 PSIG” unless the system needs 
more. 

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services American Fire Sprinkler 
Association
301-343-1457

> On Nov 25, 2020, at 11:48 AM, James Crawford via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Just throwing this out there, how many designers add a note to the drawings 
> indicating the signage required at the fire department connection indicating 
> the pressure required to deliver the standpipe system demand as per NFPA #14 
> section 6.4.5.2.2 (2016ed).
> 
> On a second note we have a building that is sprinklered and has a standpipe 
> and as such the standpipe demand when calculated is 63psi @ 500gpm at the top 
> most outlets, so the pressure required to deliver this is 112psi at the inlet 
> of the Siamese connection, this was what we put on the sign. I have been 
> advised that this is wrong and the pressure would be 149psi at the inlet as 
> this would then deliver 100psi at the hose valve.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Thank You
> 
> James Crawford
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
> Phone 604-888-0318
> Cel: 604-790-0938
> Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
> Web: www.phaserfire.ca
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Clearance around all pump equipment

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Welcome to my world.
I found this to be more of a Building Code requirement than a standard 
requirement but often Engineers/Designers have no real world idea of just how 
big the stuff is and even how much room one needs to safely service and 
maintain this equipment.  Even the contractor's shop drawing designers and 
installers have no thought for the service guy who's going to be in there until 
kingdom comes after they've spent a week there.  I've got 2 70's Patterson's 
with GM diesels coming up around Thanksgiving I have to move the battery rack 
and test header because they put them right in the f&^%ing middle of the room 
and right in the way, then the bypass because it's 6" above the air release.  
In 50 years nobody said or did anything..
Stepping off.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 10:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: Clearance around all pump equipment

Others have stated the requirements.  I have seen many installations where 
there was room and the installer did not take advantage of it.  Adequate and 
reasonable space must be maintained to properly inspect, service, repair, and 
replace all equipment.  I always ask, how would I work on this equipment,

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Our members are at the heart of everything we do.*

*Don’t miss another issue!*

Sign up to get your exclusive copy of the industry’s leading membership 
magazine *Sprinkler* *Age* delivered straight to your mailbox, inbox, or both! 
Subscribe  now to get the latest 
information you need to know and never miss another issue.


On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 2:29 PM Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Pretty much, Ben.
>
>
> Ron Greenman
>
> rongreen...@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. 
> -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera 
> director (1942-)
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Ben Young via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > If you have a backflow in the pump room the local water authority 
> > may require a set clearance for testing. 3 feet around everything 
> > seems a little extreme but it's not like clearance is a bad thing. 
> > Does that mean you can't have system risers closer than say 4 feet on 
> > center too?
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:48 PM Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum < 
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > > In one local jurisdiction here there is a requirement for three 
> > > feet
> all
> > > around major equipment, font, sides, and back. It would good if 
> > > they
> > would
> > > inform the architects that continue to provide smaller and smaller 
> > > pump
> > and
> > > riser rooms.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron Greenman
> > >
> > > rongreen...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > 253.576.9700
> > >
> > > The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. 
> > > -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and 
> > > opera director (1942-)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:12 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via 
> > > Sprinklerforum  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Travis,
> > > >
> > > > NFPA 20 only requires that the room be sized "to fit" with 
> > > > clearance
> > for
> > > > access.  While that clearance is required, there is no set 
> > > > amount of clearance defined.
> > > >
> > > > From the 2019 edition:
> > > > "4.14.1.1.7 The pump room or pump house shall be sized to fit 
> > > > all of
> > the
> > > > components necessary for the operation of the fire pump and to 
> > > > accommodate the following:
> > > > (1) Clearance between components for installation and 
> > > > maintenance
> > > > (2) Clearance between a component and the wall for installation 
> > > > and maintenance
> > > > (3) Clearance between energized electrical equipment and other 
> > > > equipment in accordance with NFPA 70 (this one has requirements
> > > that
> > > > you've already met.)
> > > > (4) Orientation of the pump to the suction piping to allow 
> > > > compliance with 4.16.6.3 (this would be the '10 pipe diameter rule'
> for
> > > > certain suction piping.)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't have any other substantiation for ya.
> > > >
> > > > It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member 
> > > > of
> the
> > > > NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in
> > accordance
> > > > with the NFPA 

RE: Covered Parking in 13R

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Kudo’s Skylar.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 6:57 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Covered Parking in 13R

 

I don't think this has been said yet on this thread, but I think it is worth 
mentioning.  It is not a fire sprinkler contractor's job to decide where 
sprinklers are required, and/or which standard is applicable (NFPA 13/13R).  I 
know we all probably do this, but we really shouldn't.  I would bet over half 
of contractors don't know half as much as they should about this subject (me 
included; and I think I know a lot about it).  

 

Long story: There are so many caveats to the Building Code, which trigger 
different requirements for this, which are different in each year of the 
codes/standards, and often different between jurisdictions.  We don't know (and 
I find that it often isn't listed anywhere in the prints) if the Architect used 
a building code tradeoff (larger building area, lower fire ratings, longer 
egress distance, etc) that would automatically trigger the requirement of a 
NFPA 13 system throughout (not 13R, even though it may be less than 4 story 
residential).  It could be that the building is close enough to another 
adjacent building that it requires a NFPA 13 system, or a rated exterior wall 
(which we wouldn't know the option they selected).  There could be separated 
occupancies (with firewalls), mixed occupancies, or accessory occupancies, all 
of which may require a different approach/NFPA standard to be applied.  The 
building mentioned may or may not be a "podium building" (IBC 510.2).  Chapter 
9 of the IBC may, or may not, have minimum requirements for sprinklers based 
solely on occupancy.  This is just a few of the things that I can think of off 
the top of my head.  I'm sure I'm missing some, and there are too many specific 
situations to list here: it would be a novel (like a building code).

 

Long story short: don't take on the liability by quoting sprinklers in some 
areas, not in others, or with NFPA 13 in some areas and/or NFPA 13R in 
others/throughout, when you really don't know what you are doing.

 

What I would do: call the Architect. Get it from them (in writing) where 
sprinklers are required and if it is required to be designed per NFPA 13 or 
NFPA 13R.  It is best to do this early on in the bidding process, and try to 
get it sent in an addenda so that your competition bids it the same way you do. 
 Of course, I have done this, and my competition beats me by still bidding it 
incorrectly and against the addenda, and no one realizes that the sprinkler 
system is installed incorrectly, except me, when I walk through the building a 
year later.  That's life in this business.

 

 

My $0.02, that no one asked for,


Skyler Bilbo

  

 

1700 S. Raney Street

Effingham, IL 62401

217-819-6404 Direct

217-347-7315 Fax

 

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com  

www.wenteplumbing.com  

 

**new** www.beplumb.com  

Like us on facebook   for updates

 

 

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:50 PM Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > wrote:

Residential use above a parking garage changes the occupancy requirement to a 
mixed use and NFPA 13 design criteria is required. Therefore protect the 
garage. Am I on the right track here?

 

 

Art Tiroly

ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly

24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143

216-621-8899

216-570-7030 cell

 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 ] On Behalf Of John 
Irwin via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 5:55 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Cc: John Irwin
Subject: Covered Parking in 13R

 

I have a 3-story, 13R building. Type IIB construction. On the “engineered” bid 
set, no sprinklers are shown in the covered parking area. This area is inside 
the footprint of the first floor, with 2nd floor units being located above the 
parking area. There are no garage doors and the parking spaces are not 
separated. To sprinkle or not to sprinkle?

 

 

 

John Irwin

West Coast Branch Manager

Quick Response Fire Protection

www.quickresponsefl.com   

Office: 844-9QUICKFL

Cell: 727-282-9243

Main Office: 20545 Independence Blvd. Unit G Groveland, Florida 34736

West Coast: 15201 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 113, Clearwater, Florida 33760

East Coast:   3133 Skyway Circle, Suite 104, Melbourne, Florida 32934

24 Hour Emergency Service Available 1-844-9QUICKFL

 

 

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is 

RE: NFPA 13D

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Look here they drilled the joists.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 4:55 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack ; cl...@fire-design.com
Subject: Re: NFPA 13D

 

I’d be more concerned that the straps are not compatible with the cpvc. 

 

I agree it was lazy on the part of the hvac installer. 

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

480-505-9271 x700

MFP Design, LLC

www.mfpdesign,com

Send large files to MFP Design via:

https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

 

Sent from my iPhone





On Mar 27, 2020, at 1:50 PM, cliff--- via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:



Tom,

 

How much weight do you think a piece of flex duct for residential is going to 
apply to the pipe?  It looks like the bracket for the diffuser is only about a 
foot away and has 4 screws holding it.  I don’t think that is the same as a 
piece of sheet metal duct being supported by sprinkler pipe.

 

This is just my opinion.  Not based on anything from NFPA 13D

 

Cliff Whitfield, SET

President

 

Fire Design, Inc.

600 W. Bypass Hwy. 19E

Suite 202

Burnsville, NC 28714

Ph: 828-284-4772

 



 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tom Wellen via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 4:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tom Wellen 
Subject: NFPA 13D

 

HVAC duct was found being supported by a CPVC pipe. The pipe is supported by 
holes through the wood joists. I thought NFPA 13D would prohibit sprinkler pipe 
from supporting other trades, but I don't seem to find it. 

 

It's spelled out in NFPA 13, 9.1.1.8 and 13R, 6.13. Did I miss it in NFPA 13D?

 

 

Tom Wellen 

 


 

 

Virus-free.  

 www.avast.com 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

D system

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

So I got something thrown my way recently that's got my curiosity.  A new
one on me.

Existing 2 family 2 story home (slab on grade) with a variance for an ADU
(additional dwelling unit).

2015 IBC, 2013 NFPA.  AHJ decision states:

"1F+ADU's do not need to sprinkle the ADU.

2+ADU may use tank system (NFPA 13D).

3+ADU must have a water line to the street (NFPA 13).

It is preferred that you install a sprinkler system in common areas when

Installing a sprinkler system in the ADU."

Plans show converting what's called a "Bonus Room" on the first floor into a
Kitchen, Bedroom and Closet by means of a few new walls.

Would you treat this a vanilla 2 head design D system with pump and tank (10
minutes vs. 20)?

Thanks,

Tom Duross

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Peerless

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Any chance a member might have an old (80's) Peerless Pump catalogue?

I need a cut sheet on a 6AF14 with a 365TS driver for dimensions.

Thanks in advance,

 

Thomas Duross

The Fire Pump Testing Company

11 Varney Street

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

T 617-971-0700

F 617-524-7171

C 617-592-4236

 
t...@thefirepumptestingcompany.com

  https://vimeo.com/user17960212

 



 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: SprinkCAD Standpipe Calculation Results on Installation Plans

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

Agreed Rod.

Yes, the 5000’s seem to have made the relatively easy Elkhart even easier.  
Glad they got away from the 1 1/16” deep socket.  I do  fair amount of 5-year 
PRV’s and find about 50% needing adjustment so I can relate to FD frustration.  
Also a fair % that fail due to lack of annual flowing in addition to 5 year.  
They cannot be fixed either and be careful when opening them up, those springs 
are as big as a 1 ton truck.  I’ve cut a few down the middle just to see the 
corrosion.

 

I’ve been offering placards for FDC’s with required  flow and pressure to meet 
design demand but many FD’s want pumper pressure and really only pumper 
pressure.  It gets a little sticky for NH FDC’s when assuming lengths and 
quantities of discharge but I think it at least gives them a starting point.  
Some are pre-1999.

 

TD

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2020 1:19 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Rod DiBona ; Travis Mack ; Tom 
Wellen ; John Denhardt ; 
Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: SprinkCAD Standpipe Calculation Results on Installation Plans

 

Great information Steve. Glad it got shared to the forum even if by accident! 

 

 

Rod DiBona

Chief Operating Officer

Rapid Fire Protection, Inc

1530 Samco Road

Rapid City, SD 57702

Office-605-348-2342

Cell- 605-391-3553

www.rapidfireinc.com   

 



 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Steve 
Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:12 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Cc: Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> >; Travis Mack mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> >; John Denhardt mailto:jdenha...@stricklandfire.com> >; Tom Wellen mailto:tgwel...@gmail.com> >
Subject: RE: SprinkCAD Standpipe Calculation Results on Installation Plans

 

PS:

I didn’t notice that this was going out to the forum – thought I was chatting 
with Tom, Travis and John.   The substance of the preceding email  is my 
opinion only.

 

Steve

  

From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2020 10:10 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'
Cc: John Denhardt; Travis Mack; Tom Wellen
Subject: RE: SprinkCAD Standpipe Calculation Results on Installation Plans

 

I recently attended HROC (High Rise Operations Conference) in Pensacola on the 
invitation of two NFPA 14 committee members who are active fire service.   It’s 
a fire service-only event and I was the only civilian in attendance – to say 
that I learned a lot is a great understatement as it was possibly the most 
informative professional event I’ve ever attended.  Also, I got an earful from 
firefighters, captains and chiefs who regularly use standpipes in mid- and 
high-rise buildings.

 

The information in that card is VERY important to the engineer on the first due 
pumper.  In fact, based on hearing about this from at least 8 or 9 different 
attendees at HROC, I’m going to introduce a committee input that would require 
that the inlet and outlet flow and pressure metrics be permanently labeled at 
each hose connection equipped with a pressure reducer.(On a side note, 
there is so much energy AGAINST factory-set PRV hose valves, you can’t imagine. 
  Down to the last man and woman, firefighters want infinitely adjustable PRVs 
such as the Elkhart URFA and the new Zurn 5000 series.) Placing the basis 
of design on the documents is the first step and it enables enforcing the 
placement of the required signage at the inlet(s) and this information can 
literally shorten time-to-water by as much as 6-7 minutes by allowing the 
engineer to start pumping much closer to the target at the tip, regardless of 
whether the system has PRVs or not.

 

I also agree with JD that format isn’t critical.

 

SML

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2020 8:34 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Cc: John Denhardt; Travis Mack; Tom Wellen
Subject: RE: SprinkCAD Standpipe Calculation Results on Installation Plans

 

Agree.  We show the information NFPA 14 requires.  Format is not critical but 
the information must be shown. 

 

Thanks,

John

 

John August Denhardt, P.E.

Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated

4011 Penn Belt Place

Forestville, Maryland 20747-4737

301.474.1136 - Office

301.343.1457 - Mobile

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Travis 
Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 11:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Cc: Travis Mack mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> >; Tom Wellen 
mailto:tgwel...@gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: SprinkCAD Standpipe 

RE: 13D CAD and Calc Program

[Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum]

I’ve done d systems using Bluebeam and elite’s fire program.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Colin Taylor via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 11:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Colin Taylor ; Parsley Consulting 

Subject: RE: 13D CAD and Calc Program

 

Owen

 

If you want a simple spreadsheet and are using CPVC I can let you have a one.

 

Regards

 

Colin Taylor

 

  

    Unit 
16/17, Hamm Beach Road, Portland Marina, Portland. Dorset. DT5 1DX

Tel/24hr: +44 (0) 1305 765763

  co...@domesticsprinklers.co.uk

 

DSL (Domestic Sprinklers Ltd) does not accept legal responsibility for the 
contents of this message. The recipient is responsible for verifying

its authenticity before acting on the contents. Any views or opinions are 
solely those of the author and may not represent those of DSL.

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Parsley 
Consulting via Sprinklerforum
Sent: 08 November 2019 16:15
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Cc: Parsley Consulting mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net> >
Subject: Re: 13D CAD and Calc Program

 

I have to agree with the others Owen.  Those programs which are integrated 
provide so much more flexibility and functionality than due two separate 
stand-alone programs.

There are two caveats here however.  

The first is noting your criteria that the solution be "simple and inexpensive 
if possible."  If you're considering a substantial amount of production it's 
wise to remember "you get what you pay for."  Purchasing software to do what 
you want can be quite difficult it the cost is the most important factor.  I 
would much rather spend a little more money up front and end up with software 
that does exactly what I want it to do or as close to that as possible.  To 
purchase a limited system that has to be tailored to your needs could create 
more difficulty that it solves.

The second concern is the oldest rule in data processing - garbage in = garbage 
out.  If the data input is cumbersome, or challenging, or confusing then you 
should take into consideration how confident you're going to be that the 
results are going to be as accurate as you need.

If all you're doing is layout of 13D systems and supporting them with hydraulic 
calculations I would suggest continuing to do the layout as you have, and 
develop your own spreadsheets to do the hydraulics.

sincerely,

Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit the website   

On 11/08/2019 6:50 AM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum wrote:

Yeah. I would say autosprink as well. But as he said low cost, plain cad and a 
spreadsheet is about as cheap as you can get. Unless draw by hand and a 
calculator for Calcs. 

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

480-505-9271

MFP Design, LLC

www.mfpdesign,com  

Send large files to MFP Design via:

https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

 

Sent from my iPhone

 

On Nov 8, 2019, at 7:34 AM, Tim Stone via Sprinklerforum  
 
 wrote:

 

Owen,

I have used most of the Sprinkler cad programs available and my only suggestion 
is AutoSPRINK. I have been using this package since 2006 and while not 
inexpensive I feel it is the best. Active live Hydraulics are the best!

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum   
 On Behalf Of firstin--- via 
Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 8:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Cc: firs...@aol.com  
Subject: 13D CAD and Calc Program

 

Hello all,

 

I've been drawing 13D systems by hand on reflective ceiling plans for years. 
I'm now looking for recommendations for a CAD program for 13D systems, 
something simple and inexpensive if possible.

 

I've been using Hydronics to run the calculations. There is a problem with this 
program when trying to plug in a pump. I would like to know who is using what 
as far a as calculation program. Any recommendations on computer drawing and 
calculation programs.

 

Thanks all!

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPhone

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 

RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

[Tom Duross]

Sorry, 1976 edition. 5.1 and 5.3 500@65 for class 1 (plus the 250 for
additional up to 2500) for 30 minutes.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of tston...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Tom,

I have no idea which edition of the building code was enforce at that time.

I was curious as to design requirements for Standpipes.

Tim 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Tom
Duross
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

’71, ’73, ’74. ’76, ’78 & ’80.  You’re looking for the adopted edition for a
certain building code, right?

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of
tston...@comcast.net <mailto:tston...@comcast.net> 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

  <mailto:tston...@comcast.net> tston...@comcast.net

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

[Tom Duross]

500@65 for class 1

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of tston...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Tom,

I have no idea which edition of the building code was enforce at that time.

I was curious as to design requirements for Standpipes.

Tim 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Tom
Duross
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

’71, ’73, ’74. ’76, ’78 & ’80.  You’re looking for the adopted edition for a
certain building code, right?

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of
tston...@comcast.net <mailto:tston...@comcast.net> 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

  <mailto:tston...@comcast.net> tston...@comcast.net

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Hydrostatic Test Gauge

[Tom Duross]

Depending on the grade of the gauge he could be assuming only middle 1/3
span accuracy and wanting the pointer there.  They have to be minimum 1% I
think but again depending on the grade the gauge could be 1/3 or full span,
then you could use a 400#.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Mike Stossel
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 11:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Hydrostatic Test Gauge

 

I have an New York City inspector stating that it is required by code that a
600psi gauge is used when performing a 300psi standpipe test.  I have looked
at every code book that I can think of and cannot find any such requirement.
Does anyone know of any code requirement for this?di

 

Mike Stossel SET



36 Barren Road

East Stroudsburg, PA 18302

Office: 973-670-2627

m...@knssprinkler.com  

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Old copy of NFPA 14

[Tom Duross]

’71, ’73, ’74. ’76, ’78 & ’80.  You’re looking for the adopted edition for a
certain building code, right?

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of tston...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Old copy of NFPA 14

 

Does anyone have a copy of NFPA 14 edition 1979? I am looking for pressure
and or residual flow requirements in use at that time.

Was 500 GPM @ 100 PSI, 2 ½” hose valve, reduced to 65 PSI for 1 ½” valves
the norm?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968

   tston...@comcast.net

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: FDC Placard

[Tom Duross]

All very good points being brought up here and thank you for the insight.  This 
placard requirement is AHJ driven and being requested on older systems to match 
that being provided on all newer systems.  The last thing I would want to do is 
‘take over a design’ or prescribe operation of a system, even after a 
performance test.  That’s something I’m afraid I’d be doing if I was to infer 
anything less than measured flow to this placard.  No evidence on record 
anywhere of Standpipe Hydraulics, and not a surprise.  No record of 5 year 
performance testing in this particular building either, and also not a huge 
surprise.  There is some modeling required as pump discharge characteristics 
need to be worked back to the individual FDC’s (building has an original and an 
added one installed in the 90’s).  I will say I was on the fence with hiring a 
pumper crew which would have made this a simple as a current non high-rise, 
even using pre-’93 design, done this before, just not on an actual high-rise.

 

There are two signs referenced in NFPA 14 (2016) and methinks they’re being 
confused here.   There’s a sign at the FDC stating the required pressure 
prescribed by 6.4.5.2.2 and one for the hydraulic design summary (i.e. the 
“calc card”) per 6.8.  I think the FDC placard should state the required inlet 
pressure in order to make the minimum residual at the most remote outlets per 
the standard used as a basis of design (pre-1993), but I would VERIFY THAT WITH 
SERVING FIRE DEPARTMENT.The hydraulic summary could actually be two cards, 
the original design (assuming it was calculated in 1986 and not pipe scheduled) 
and the current performance based on certification testing.  Again, consult 
with the AHJ; Mark’s comment is correct, that you’re essentially taking 
ownership of the design if you tag it with the performance test data.

 

The preceding is my opinion only and does not represent an interpretation at 
any level of the NFPA 14 standard or reflect the opinions of the members of the 
technical committee.  

 



 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 6:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: FDC Placard

 

Trying this one more time, original never posted..

 

Did a 5 year Standpipe test on an older (1986) system with its own Fire Pump. 

Older ’83 BOCA (MA supplements, 14-1976): 500(1st) + 250 (2nd) plus 250 (for 
sprinklers).  1000 gpm Fire Pump in Basement.

Owner is asking me to provide a new placard for the 2 FDC’s.  OK.

Question:  Even this is an older 65# design system, it delivered almost 100# 
(to my surprise) from the 2 Standpipe’s FDV’s.

250 + 250 @ 83 from Roof Hydrant and 250@86 from top of other Standpipe.

Would you guys create an 83/86# design placard (this would match actual fire 
pump delivery) or a 65# design placard for the FDC’s?

I’ve hardly ever been asked to provide one for an older pre-100# system.  I 
usually end up running hydraulics anyway to work the  pump discharge back 
through the FDC piping to the inlet.  I’m inclined to lean towards stating 
something like “To match Building Fire Pump delivery of blah-blah-blah, a 
pumper delivery pressure of blah-blah is required at the FDC”.  (it won’t have 
the ‘blah’s in it)

I don’t want to incur any liability in scaling back residual pressures in a 
program versus actual.  

 

Tom Duross

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

FDC Placard

[Tom Duross]

Trying this one more time, original never posted..

 

Did a 5 year Standpipe test on an older (1986) system with its own Fire Pump. 

Older ’83 BOCA (MA supplements, 14-1976): 500(1st) + 250 (2nd) plus 250 (for 
sprinklers).  1000 gpm Fire Pump in Basement.

Owner is asking me to provide a new placard for the 2 FDC’s.  OK.

Question:  Even this is an older 65# design system, it delivered almost 100# 
(to my surprise) from the 2 Standpipe’s FDV’s.

250 + 250 @ 83 from Roof Hydrant and 250@86 from top of other Standpipe.

Would you guys create an 83/86# design placard (this would match actual fire 
pump delivery) or a 65# design placard for the FDC’s?

I’ve hardly ever been asked to provide one for an older pre-100# system.  I 
usually end up running hydraulics anyway to work the  pump discharge back 
through the FDC piping to the inlet.  I’m inclined to lean towards stating 
something like “To match Building Fire Pump delivery of blah-blah-blah, a 
pumper delivery pressure of blah-blah is required at the FDC”.  (it won’t have 
the ‘blah’s in it)

I don’t want to incur any liability in scaling back residual pressures in a 
program versus actual.  

 

Tom Duross

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Standpipe Valve Handles

[Tom Duross]

Works quite well.  After cleaning out the race and ball bearings of a hose 
swivel we tap one side of the set screw with a center punch.  You gotta really 
work to get it out again.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ben Young
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 9:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Standpipe Valve Handles

 

Crossthreading is nature's loctite. Prove me wrong...

 

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:16 PM Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > wrote:

Upset The Nut is now officially the name of my new band.

 

 

Steve Leyton  

 

(Sent from my phone; please excuse typos and voice text corruptions.)

 

 

 

 Original message 

From: John Denhardt mailto:jdenha...@stricklandfire.com> > 

Date: 1/3/19 4:13 PM (GMT-08:00) 

To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
  

Subject: Re: Standpipe Valve Handles 

 

Red Locktite works great but I like Ron’s idea. 

John August Denhardt, P.E. 

Strickland Fire Protection 


On Jan 3, 2019, at 3:02 PM, Ron Greenman mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Upset the nut at the threads with a center-punch.


 

 

Ron Greenman 


rongreen...@gmail.com  

253.576.9700

 

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)

 

 

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:03 AM Phillips, Mark mailto:mphill...@jjkllc.com> > wrote:

Loctite Thread locker 242or equal

 

 









Mark​

 

Phillips



Vice President of Fire Protection

, 

Kirlin Carolinas, LLC




t:   919-526-1584

 | 

m:   919-610-0490



  mphill...@jjkllc.com

 | 

  https://kirlingroup.com



8000 Brownleigh Dr

, 

Raleigh

, 

NC

 

27617




  


  


  




  

  


  

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of James 
Crawford
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 1:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Subject: Standpipe Valve Handles

 

Does anyone know of a way to stop the valve handles on the 2 ½” standpipe 
valves from being removed?

 

We have a couple buildings where they continue to be vandalized. ( 18 floors 
where they have been removed) 

 

 

Thank you

 

 

James Crawford

Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.

Phone  604-888-0318

Fax 604-888-4732

Cel 604-790-0938

Email  jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca  

Web www.phaserfire.ca  

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

-- 


Benjamin Young

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Main Relief Valve for Diesel Driven Fire Pump

[Tom Duross]

Like with any sprinkler drain if you can't see the water, you install a
sight glass or in your case a waste cone.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 1:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Main Relief Valve for Diesel Driven Fire Pump

 

Yes.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 10:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Main Relief Valve for Diesel Driven Fire Pump

 

Has anyone ever installed a main relief valve for a diesel driven fire pump
without

a waste cone?

 

Mike

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Exposure protection of large windows.

[Tom Duross]

This is based upon % of openings and setbacks to property lines and not means 
of way?

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

 

Steve, 

 

The owner and architect had an engineer review and design/spec this system. I 
assume they looked at the building code and established criteria. However, what 
they came up with is a 74 nozzle open deluge system that has to be included 
with the sprinkler design. And the locations are not correct so I have no idea 
what the final count will be. Approximately 2/3 of it I haven’t found any 
exposure. 

 

I submitted to the contractor to send an RFI saying it is outside of the scope 
of NFPA 13. We shall see what happens. (There are other RFIs as well. 

 

Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They 
are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their engineers are plumbers 
with a copy of 13. 


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)






On Sep 25, 2018 at 1:06 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
wrote:

This is a perfect example of where the owner and architect need to step up and 
establish what the CODE requires before they ask the sprinkler designer to 
prepare plans according to the referenced standard(s).   One of the reasons I 
started my firm was to address this kind of insidious scope creep.   You are 
NOT the code consultant of record and they’re trying to get you do figure out 
how to meet the fire resistive construction criteria that’s required by code or 
subjectively by the building official for free.   There is obviously not a 
prescriptive solution here (at least not that you or I can see, right?) so I 
would throw back to the architect via an RFI that states, “No prescriptive 
solution exists for this condition in referenced codes and standards.   Please 
specify design criteria for window opening protectives.”

 

Just my grumpy 2¢ …

 

SL

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

 

Some of each. Example: 15 ft wide window with center 5 ft operable (tilt). I 
believe original window. Building circa 1920 (I believe). 


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)







On Sep 24, 2018 at 12:39 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> 
> wrote:

Fixed glazing or operable windows?   

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Exposure protection of large windows.

 

I am looking at a project which is the conversion of an old mill. The spec 
calls for exposure protection on the windows in some areas. One issue I am 
running into is that the exposure protection table (7.8.8.4 - 2010) only covers 
up to 12’-0” wide windows. I have several that range from 12-6” to 15’-0” wide. 
Any thoughts or experience on protecting wider windows?

 


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)

___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
  
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 

___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
  
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Sprinkler heads popping off randomly

[Tom Duross]

Probably a buildup of pressure from heat rejection off the roof.  Check system 
gauges.  A good pilot operated relief valve would open to relieve and close.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jeff Normand
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 5:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Sprinkler heads popping off randomly

 

Does it only happen in the summertime or hot days?

 

165 F sprinklers at the roof of a warehouse, this would normally require 200 F 
sprinklers.

 

That would be my first guess but if it  is only 1 sprinkler at a time, I just 
don't know.

 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:20 PM Larry Block, Property Manager 
mailto:larry.stew...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Hi to all!

 

I manage a number of most warehousing industrial parks around Los Angeles and 
only 1 of them has a problem with heads popping off for no apparent reason. We 
really need some help here in identifying the cause and its correction. Many 
have said to just replace them but who is to say that this will not happen 
again soon, if not later. The facts:

 

1. Concrete tilt up bldg from 1967 with its roof at 20’ H.

2. Heads are Reliable model C with the fusible link

3. Heads will get the 50 year  UL testing in 4 years (though I assume the 
165degF rating is not relevant here)

4. We have lost 7 heads over 15 years, with 3 in the last 4 months!

5. The link assemblies are never found but the remaining “rings” show no 
issues. The bronze seats

of the head’s  water port are always in perfect condition.

6. We see that the head’s “knuckle” that is opposite the fusible link is 
usually perfectly aligned,

  but a few of them are offset up to a 1/16” and it appears that 
when they move like that, 

they are rotating in an arc from the pivot points .

7. The water utility swears that at the time of these events, there are no 
pressure surges.

8. No more than one head has ever gone off at a time and are not just at one 
location or riser.

9. A nearby similar bldg of ours  from 1968 with the same heads has never had 
one such event.

 

We have entertained the possibility of water pressure, birds, electrolysis, 
dezincification, vibration and are at a loss.

 

Any helpful thoughts?

 

Thanks, 

 

Larry Block, Property Manager

 

 


 

 

Virus-free.  

 www.avast.com 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Recording gauges

[Tom Duross]

I like the Dickson hockey puck, have it NIST calibrated yearly, multiple
programmable samplings, saves to a memory chip and exports right to excel.

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 4:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Recording gauges

 

A fire official has asked me for a recommendation on recording (logging)
gauges.   Anyone have strong feelings about one or another make/model?  I
don't know what they can afford (it's a big city) but I'm assuming the top
of the line digital stuff ($800+) is beyond their budget.  The mechanical
ones (with a re-settable needle) are affordable, but I don't know if they're
durable and accurate?   There are LOTS of digital ones but I've never
shopped these and don't know one from the other.  Your help greatly
appreciated.

 

Steve L.

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Truck Supply @ FDC

[Tom Duross]

175 is not out of reason at all, whether manual or automatic.  You do need to 
make sure you don’t exceed pressure ratings of the components.  Also, for 
traditional 150# systems that we hydro to 200# for, you would need to increase 
your test pressure to 50# over.  I see that all the time.  On thing I’ve been 
discussing with local AHJ’s is the placard.  How is a pump operator going to 
know what pressure is at the FDC?  I think we should be calculating loss 
through how ever much discharge needed for a pumper parked at the hydrant 
(within 150’) and the placard state discharge pressure at the piece, not the 
FDC.  I put a gauge on the FDC when using an outside pumper but operations 
aren’t going to change telling FF to install a good gauge and watch it 150’ 
away.

Just my $0.02.

TD

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Fire Truck Supply @ FDC

 

Now that’s what I’m looking for.

 

So requiring a pressure up to 175 psi should be no big deal (adjustments for 
pressure to below grade levels not withstanding), but 175 psi should be the 
practical limit. Would you agree?

 

Thanks, Pete.

 

-Kyle M

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: PRV

[Tom Duross]

I'm assuming of course just one Standpipe and one can dump on the roof.  If you 
have more you have to flow all on a floor up to the design limit so you'd need 
multiple setups.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 5:42 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: PRV 

You'd have to duplicate static and residual inlet pressures to adjust it to the 
specific location it's installed in, plus deal with the impairment of no FDV.
It only usually takes about 5 minutes flowing to get the desired residual and 
desired flow and check static across the valve.
How about a collapsible break tank in the hallway or stairway with a sump pump 
to the drain riser?
TD


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jeremy Blocker
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 5:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: PRV 

Had a question presented to me today that I’m not sure about.  During a five 
year inspection we need to flow test all the PRV hose valves. Running hoses 
through a lobby of a hospital that never slows down is not making the owners 
happy.  The question is do the PRVs have to be tested in the installed location 
or can they be tested in a different location on site?  Basically can I remove 
the PRV from the hose cabinet and reinstall it on the test header to flow test 
it then reinstall in the original location.   

What are your thoughts on this one? 

Jeremy Blocker
Sent from my iPhone 6 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: PRV

[Tom Duross]

You'd have to duplicate static and residual inlet pressures to adjust it to the 
specific location it's installed in, plus deal with the impairment of no FDV.
It only usually takes about 5 minutes flowing to get the desired residual and 
desired flow and check static across the valve.
How about a collapsible break tank in the hallway or stairway with a sump pump 
to the drain riser?
TD


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jeremy Blocker
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 5:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: PRV 

Had a question presented to me today that I’m not sure about.  During a five 
year inspection we need to flow test all the PRV hose valves. Running hoses 
through a lobby of a hospital that never slows down is not making the owners 
happy.  The question is do the PRVs have to be tested in the installed location 
or can they be tested in a different location on site?  Basically can I remove 
the PRV from the hose cabinet and reinstall it on the test header to flow test 
it then reinstall in the original location.   

What are your thoughts on this one? 

Jeremy Blocker
Sent from my iPhone 6 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Excessive Vibration of Pressure Relief Valve

[Tom Duross]

That's a very common way to show true alignment (and to show off).  I've
been doing alignments 20+ years, both new (for Patterson until last year)
and my own.  Balancing and vibration analysis I started getting into a few
years ago but decided against it only because there were so many really good
firms locally for me to choose from, why bother.
Any pump installed these days with a grid type coupling, or even the cheaper
jaw type (all must be listed couplings) without an alignment report that
also includes soft foot correction is crazy.  Tolerances are so much
tighter, and even closer as speed goes up, anything commissioned these past
10 years anyway, should be aligned and reported.  
Natural frequency would take hours to explain but it's a condition you can't
always correct.  We all vibrate.  Sometimes it can be arrested but I see it
often with tight piping and pipes passing through slabs and grouted.  
Flash backs are normal and healthy, I have them too.  I remember Jerry and
Duane on stage at Boston Common as I was peaking once playing Mountain
Jam
TD

Tom,
This is diesel engine driven but I was thinking about your vibration
analysis comment, 'soft foot', 'natural frequency'..., and I flashed back on
an acceptance test of an electric motor driven I had designed and got to
witness. Owner, Insurance, AHJ, Pump Rep- everyone is there. Churn hits
steady state quickly, fitter looks at me, gets a nickel out of his pocket,
says watch this, and has the audacity to stand the nickel up on top of the
motor, centered both ways!
It was a Friday so afterwards a very long lunch for everyone with lots of
cold drinks was on me- and I just kept picturing that nickle standing there.

Anyway, back in the present Friday I thought to myself, "I bet Tom has done
that"!

:) Brad

Quoting bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com:

> Well, nothing to share.
> For some reason the valve was not acting up yesterday like it did in 
> the report.
> Another reason why I think it has something to do with the discharge 
> pipe going underground and tieing in to storm drain. Who knows what 
> size that is, how many 90s, how far it is to the treatment plant or 
> wherever the outlet is, and the conditions there. Maybe there was some 
> gum in the works that day.
>
> Brad
>
> Quoting Brad Casterline :
>
>> Thanks Matt and Tom.
>>
>> There will be an expert (i.e., not me) checking it out on site 
>> tomorrow and I will see about sharing the diagnosis here soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Sprinklerforum 
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
>> On Behalf Of Tom Duross
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:52 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: Excessive Vibration of Pressure Relief Valve
>>
>>
>>
>> Have a vibration analysis performed.  That will indicate balance, 
>> soft foot, alignment, bearing, even natural frequency as the source.  
>> To bad we're so far away from each other.
>>
>>
>>


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Excessive Vibration of Pressure Relief Valve

[Tom Duross]

Have a vibration analysis performed.  That will indicate balance, soft foot,
alignment, bearing, even natural frequency as the source.  To bad we're so
far away from each other.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Excessive Vibration of Pressure Relief Valve

 

Is the drain piping well supported? It would be worth checking to see if the
motor is vibrating the pipe.

 

Matt 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of Brad
Casterline
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:09 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: Excessive Vibration of Pressure Relief Valve

 

A little more info:

 

I am being told the horizontal and vertical displacement due to vibration is
about 5/8" and that this is unacceptable.

The valve and discharge pipe size is per the chart, not calculated as
allowed.

The arrangement is Valve, flanged 90 looking down, spool piece to
flange-spigot, goes underground and ties to storm drain.

So I'm thinking 'water-hammer' is the culprit (talk about a beautiful but
rather hairy hydraulic formula!).

It would be quick and easy to cut a grooved check valve listed for vertical
down into the spool, but I don't if it would 'check' the returning pressure
shock wave.

Does anyone here know?

 

Thanks,

 

Brad 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 11:34 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: Excessive Vibration of Pressure Relief Valve

 

Does anyone have any experience with the relief valve (for diesel driven
fire pump) failing the vibration test?

If so, can you tell me how it was corrected?

Any experience with the discharge pipe being to anything other than
atmosphere?

 

Thanks,

 

Brad

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: PRV after pump discharge control valve

[Tom Duross]

These are the times I miss George.  He never thought he was the smartest guy in 
the room, he just was.  And never condescending, always available off site, 
just an honest pot smokin deadhead who's seen more than most.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:46 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: PRV after pump discharge control valve

Okay, you've got my attention.  What formulas do you think I need to use, 
besides the countless ones I already do?   Do you think your (highly 
theoretical) impeller formula is of some substantive use to me?  How would it 
add value to my firm's services?  What metrics would it help me derive to 
improve our product or life safety in general?   Just because it's a technical 
forum and you throw down a bunch of alpha-numeric equations (that may or may 
not be accurate), it doesn't add up automatically to a good practice or even 
information of value; much of the time, it seems like you need attention and 
you simply post these formulas because you like having people comment on them. 
You've said as much yourself on this forum.  

For my sake, I absolutely don't need to see my opinions or own words in print.  
 When I contribute, I think most people would agree that I'm on point, stay on 
topic and generally add to the conversation.  I don't have a problem with 
people not agreeing with me and I don't need credit for getting stuff right and 
I'm really good about learning from my mistakes, which starts with admitting 
when I'm wrong.  I think I'm discriminating with my posts, which I don't think 
that you are and this isn't the first time that you've postulated regarding 
stuff that makes no sense.  Like your comment that sprinklers likely wouldn't 
have saved most or all of the lives lost in the Ghost Ship fire.  

All I'm saying is to be more thoughtful and stop posting for the sake of 
posting.   What happens is that a thread like this one goes off on a tangent 
and people disengage.  I'll bet I'm not the only one that doesn't want to have 
to guess whether the next email is going to be worth opening or not.The 
original question was very simple and about whether or not there was a 
restriction about putting a PRV downstream of a pump discharge control valve.   
Please tell me how the formula  v=2*pi*r*f  gets me to a solution on this 
issue.  And while you're at it maybe throw out another formula for the spool 
piece you say we'll need ...  supposedly, I need to start using more formulas.

SML
   

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: PRV after pump discharge control valve

One of these days you are going to have to start using some formulas and 
numbers youself Steve, because like you said, this is a technical forum, not a 
who can blow their own horn the loudest forum.

Brad
@
Quoting Steve Leyton :

> Have you ever noticed that a single pump series can be applied across 
> what seem like an incredibly wide spectrum of flows and
> pressures?   That’s because they can be paired with a variety of  
> drivers of different HP ratings and multitude of impellers.  AND THEN 
> LISTED AS ASSEMBLIES.  The idea that we have a plug-and-play impeller 
> variety pack or that we’ll buy one for now and one for when junior 
> grows out of this year’s school clothes (and put it in cabinet in the 
> pump room with a sign that says, “Install Me at Some
> Point”) is not reality based.  As this is a technical forum and since 
> we’re using up bytes and storage space on AFSA’s server, I just think 
> it’s a good idea to keep to reality-based stuff, like widely accepted 
> good and best practices,  listed products,
> prescriptive codes, and whatnot.   It’s one thing to promote a  
> theory or design concept that’s truly outside-the-box, but this is  
> not in that context.   I reiterate the question, who’s going to do  
> the work?  Why are we talking about such an extreme measure when 
> there’s already a simple solution on the table?
>
> Failures in sprinkler systems occur when a link in the chain of events 
> fails.  And it’s usually a simplistic link.  Rebuilding a listed fire 
> pump – or even talking about it those terms - is pretty
> radical surgery when all the patient needs is a splint.   Keep in  
> mind Anthony, pumps fail WAY more frequently than pressure reducing 
> valves, especially if they’re not meticulously maintained.
>
> SL
>
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
> Fire Design
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 3:36 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: PRV after pump discharge control valve
>
> Brad said to check w/ the pump manufacturer so I don't 

RE: PRV after pump discharge control valve

[Tom Duross]

You start bending the listings when playing with different impellers in the 
field.  In the old days these were listed assemblies and if you swap out an 
impeller, there does the listing.  Some still hold that to be true.  You might 
try a model series that meets both designs but with different pump ends.  Keep 
the base and driver.  A new pump end will have a new serial and new listing.  
Most pumps, electric split case anyway are usually pit tested as a pump end 
only before leaving the plant using one of their adjustable drivers.  When you 
have an inline, the impeller and case are bolted to the motor, and diesels 
historically have most times been tested as a complete pump too.  Not sure of 
the demands but this might be a question for you pump rep that maybe they can 
answer.
TD


Thank you Kyle, it means a great deal to me for you to say.
I was curious about the application too, and saw a 1250 gpm, 2600 rpm with a 
range of 69 psi based solely on impeller diameter.
Both impellers would need to be purchased and certified up front, and every one 
having signed off on the idea.
I even imagined a note on the enlarged pump room plan, "mount future impeller 
and name plate in locked cabinet next to spare sprinkler cabinet".

Brad


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: PRV after pump discharge control valve

[Tom Duross]

You’ll have #14 issues, if relevant and depending on adopted version.

I will say that in-series setup with bypasses in 2013 #14 is a real PITA to set 
due to valve creep.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fire Design
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 6:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: PRV after pump discharge control valve

 

No, it's all good after the pump discharge control valve.

A.4.7.7.2 

 

 

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Dewayne Martinez 
mailto:dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> > wrote:

Is there anything that restricts the use of a PRV after the discharge control 
valve on a fire pump?

I have a ESFR storage building where I am designing to a “future” water supply 
which is much higher than the existing water supply.  

The fire pump must satisfy both existing and future conditions and I thought 
about leaving a space for a PRV to be installed downstream of the pump 
discharge valve to account for the future higher pressures.

Thanks,

 

Dewayne Martinez

Fire Protection Design Manager

 

TOTAL Mechanical

Building Integrity


W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
Pewaukee, WI  53072

dmarti...@total-mechanical.com  

Ph:  262-522-7110

Cell: 414-406-5208

http://www.total-mechanical.com/ 

   



 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: the birth of the Hose Monster

[Tom Duross]

The hose monster 2, the little plastic baby.  I have 6 and they are the
best.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: the birth of the Hose Monster

Tom,
Before it gets hot in her, (tomorrow morning) what is 'the little plastic
tester'?
B

Quoting bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com:

> Yes indeed Tom.
> He started making them in a little fab shop in Kansas City, Ks.
> Since none of what he told me sunk in at the time I've had to read the 
> brochure. The basic idea might be that the more you increase the flow, 
> the 'heavier' the Monster gets-- it has a dry gallon capacity so at 
> any instant it weighs something. It might be this idea that 
> neutralizes the trust. Sprinkers don't have that so have to make it up 
> in other ways.
>
> Brad
>
> Quoting Tom Duross :
>
>> From the playpipe diffuser to the little plastic tester, he's made 
>> quite an impact on that portion of our industry.  Good going.
>> TD
>>
>>
>>
>> The following is really all i remember about what Phil B said about 
>> the when where and how of the idea:
>> 1) when--waiting to board a jet on a business trip to Cleveland.
>> 2) where-- Kansas City International Airport, watching arrivals and 
>> departures.
>> 3) how-- he said something about Burnoulli If we could put little 
>> hose monsters on the sprinklers we wouldn't have a problem with 
>> upward thrust. If you put a scaled-up hose monster on a jet engine 
>> exhaust, it would just rock side to side.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>> ler.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: the birth of the Hose Monster

[Tom Duross]

>From the playpipe diffuser to the little plastic tester, he's made quite an
impact on that portion of our industry.  Good going.
TD



The following is really all i remember about what Phil B said about the when
where and how of the idea:
1) when--waiting to board a jet on a business trip to Cleveland.
2) where-- Kansas City International Airport, watching arrivals and
departures.
3) how-- he said something about Burnoulli If we could put little hose
monsters on the sprinklers we wouldn't have a problem with upward thrust. If
you put a scaled-up hose monster on a jet engine exhaust, it would just rock
side to side.

Brad



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Strainer ahead of fire pump

[Tom Duross]

You are correct, the requirement for strainers on in-lines was removed in 2007.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Strainer ahead of fire pump

 

If you’re drawing from any open pond or other raw water source you need to 
provide a strainer.  

 

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com <mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>  |  
<http://www.jacobs.com/> www.jacobs.com

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Strainer ahead of fire pump

 

Actually I think if the pump has no cleanout provisions, a strainer is required 
on vertical inline pumps.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of P & P Sprinklers Ltd
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Re: Strainer ahead of fire pump

 

Would I be right in assuming that the wording "where necessary" implies that it 
should be avoided unless necessary?

 

On 4/24/2018 3:27 PM, MFP Design, LLC wrote:

It’s not required but is permitted.

 



Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

 <mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

 

http://www.mfpdesign.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

 

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

 

From: Sprinklerforum  <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
<sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On Behalf Of P & P Sprinklers 
Ltd
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Strainer ahead of fire pump

 

Is a strainer required before a Vertical in-line pump?  All I can find 
regarding strainers in NFPA 20, 2010 ed. is the following:

4.14.9.2 The following devices shall be permitted in the suction piping where 
the following requirements are met:

(4) Suction strainers shall be permitted to be installed in the
suction piping where required by other sections of this
standard.

6.3.2 Where necessary, the following fittings shall be provided:

(5) Pipeline strainer 





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwMFaQ=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=6qYbbLx8x0UrMujmEGNoh-2hzoFD2d1EB5d2sQF0_OI=tvIzK3RY_-Gey4GF4i5zgndplGh8OzDLxzAzKoRwcvM=ePScgnT1ZZ0sapsqAMqfavteZPOUee_wLKu5LYYpV-U=>
 

 



NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Strainer ahead of fire pump

[Tom Duross]

Actually I think if the pump has no cleanout provisions, a strainer is required 
on vertical inline pumps.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of P & P Sprinklers Ltd
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Strainer ahead of fire pump

 

Would I be right in assuming that the wording "where necessary" implies that it 
should be avoided unless necessary?

 

On 4/24/2018 3:27 PM, MFP Design, LLC wrote:

It’s not required but is permitted.

 



Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

  email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

 

 

 http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

 https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to us via:  

 https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

LinkedIn:  

 https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

 

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

 

From: Sprinklerforum   
 On Behalf Of P & P Sprinklers 
Ltd
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Subject: Strainer ahead of fire pump

 

Is a strainer required before a Vertical in-line pump?  All I can find 
regarding strainers in NFPA 20, 2010 ed. is the following:

4.14.9.2 The following devices shall be permitted in the suction piping where 
the following requirements are met:

(4) Suction strainers shall be permitted to be installed in the
suction piping where required by other sections of this
standard.

6.3.2 Where necessary, the following fittings shall be provided:

(5) Pipeline strainer 






___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Playpipe Pitot Pressures - Fire Pump Annual Tests

[Tom Duross]

Its never been a 'new' method for me for 30+ years.  Sending full discharge
pressure through a normally empty pipe and several thin gate valves is
foolish imho.  I very often get same pitot pressures with hose monsters on
same length hoses or right on the header.  When you have them spread out or
in catch basins it gets different.  I can't speak for old fashioned
playpipes and a handheld pitot, been 20 years for that.  

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Playpipe Pitot Pressures - Fire Pump Annual Tests

 

I've done them that way but the new method is to throttle the control valve
supplying the

test header.

 

Mike

 

  _  

From: Sprinklerforum  > on behalf of Mike
B Morey  >
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: Playpipe Pitot Pressures - Fire Pump Annual Tests 

 

My experience has always been that the valves on the test header are
throttled to match them all up as well.  Eliminates a lot of math and record
keeping concerns and makes it easy to be sure the fitters hit the right GPM
points.



  _  


Mike Morey 
CFPS 3229 . NICET S.E.T. 123677 
Project Manager . Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 
7614 Opportunity Drive . Fort Wayne, IN . 46825 
direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991
email mmo...@shambaugh.com  







From:John Denhardt  > 
To:"sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 "
 > 
Date:03/29/2018 02:33 PM 
Subject:RE: Playpipe Pitot Pressures - Fire Pump Annual Tests 
Sent by:"Sprinklerforum"
 > 

  _  




BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 


We adjust the test header valves to obtain identical pressure (of course
with-in gauge accuracy).  It helps to use calibrated pressure gauges of the
correct range to produce pressure readings near the mid-span. 
  
John 
  
From: Sprinklerforum  > On Behalf Of
Hinson, Ryan
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: Playpipe Pitot Pressures - Fire Pump Annual Tests 
  
I've never seen them all identical. 
  
Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell 
Senior Fire Protection Engineer 
O 952-656-3662 \  M 320-250-5404  \  F 952-229-2923 
  rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \
 burnsmcd.com 
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437 
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT 
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout 
  
From: Sprinklerforum <

sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On Behalf Of Tom Wellen
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:15 PM
To:  
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Playpipe Pitot Pressures - Fire Pump Annual Tests 
  
  
In my insurance days, I seldom had the same pitot pressures from playpipes.
The pressures would be the same on several but others would be 1 to 2 psi
different. 
  
I'm seeing fire pump reports consistently showing all the same pitot
pressures for all four to six playpipes. I'm questioning that based on my
past experience. Is the same pressures on pitots that common? 
  
  
Tom Wellen ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
 

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_
listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-Wlu
yVHtw=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg=gozQSwBE6iCIWS8o6vYQOb

RE: Residential sprinkler question

[Tom Duross]

Also see Chapter 16 of 25.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Residential sprinkler question

Below is the language in 13D/2016 regarding maintenance. It is substantially, 
if not exactly the same as 2013. I left out section 12.3.5 as that addresses 
anti-freeze only.  I suppose if you wanted to add the "test after twenty years" 
to the "what information SHOULD the contractor provide" part, you could.


12.1* General. The installer shall provide to the owner/occupant instructions 
on inspecting, testing, and maintaining the system.

12.2* Inspections and Tests.  The sprinkler system shall be inspected and 
tested periodically to make sure the system is in good working condition.

12.3 Maintenance.

12.3.1 The sprinkler system shall be properly maintained in accordance with 
this standard and the manufacturers’ instructions.

12.3.2 Any sprinkler that is operated, damaged, corroded, covered with foreign 
materials, or showing signs of leakage shall be replaced with a new listed 
sprinkler having the same performance characteristics as the original equipment.

12.3.2.1* Where replacing residential sprinklers manufactured prior to 2003 
that are no longer available from the manufacturer and are installed using a 
design density less than 0.05 gpm/ft2 (204 mm/min), a residential sprinkler 
with an equivalent K-factor (± 5 percent) shall be permitted to be used 
provided the currently listed coverage area for the replacement sprinkler is 
not exceeded.

12.3.3 Painting Sprinklers.

12.3.3.1 Sprinklers shall not be painted unless applied by the manufacturer.

12.3.3.2* Any sprinklers that have been painted outside of the factory shall be 
replaced with a new listed sprinkler.

12.3.4* Wet Pipe Systems.  A wet pipe system shall be maintained above 40°F 
(4°C), including areas properly insulated to maintain 40°F (4°C).

A.12.1 These instructions should include the following:

(1) Information regarding the necessary system inspection, testing, and 
maintenance as described in this standard

(2) The manufacturers’ installation, care, and maintenance instructions for the 
installed sprinkler system components

(3) Name, address, and phone number of the installing contractor of the fire 
sprinkler system

(4) Name, address, and phone number of a fire sprinkler system service company 
if different than the installing contractor


The occupants of a home with a sprinkler system should

understand that maintaining a sprinkler system is mostly about

common sense. Keeping the control valve open, not hanging

items from the sprinklers, and making sure that the sprinklers

do not get painted or obstructed are the most important items.

It is also important to know the function of the main control

valve and where the control valve is located.


A.12.2 The building owner or manager should understand the sprinkler system 
operation and conduct periodic inspections and tests to make sure that the 
system is in good working condition. A recommended inspection and testing 
program includes the following:

(1) Monthly inspection of all valves to ensure that they are open

(2) Monthly inspection of tanks, if present, to confirm they are full

(3) Monthly testing of pumps, if present, to make sure they operate properly 
and do not trip circuit breakers when starting

(4) Testing of all waterflow devices, when provided, every 6 months including 
monitoring service (note that notification of the monitoring service is 
essential to make sure that the fire department is not called due to testing)

(5) Ongoing visual inspection of all sprinklers to make sure they are not 
obstructed, damaged, corroded, covered with foreign materials, field painted, 
or showing signs of leakage, and that decorations are not attached to them

(6) Annually, fully open the test connection downstream of any 
pressure-reducing or pressure-regulating valve, and make sure that the pressure 
gauge reads a reasonable value

(7) Inspect systems by individuals knowledgeable and trained in such systems 
when there is a change in ownership


A.12.3.2.1 It is recognized that the flow and pressure available to the 
replacement sprinkler might be less than its current flow and pressure 
requirement.


A.12.3.3.2 Whenever painting or home improvements are made in the dwelling 
unit, special attention should be paid to ensure that sprinklers are not 
painted or obstructed either at the time of installation or during subsequent 
redecoration. This is as important for the cover plates of concealed sprinklers 
as it is to the sprinklers themselves. Special paint is used for cover plates 
and can only be applied by the manufacturer. Applying paint to cover plates 
outside of the factory can cause the sprinkler to malfunction and possibly not 
operate during a fire. When painting is 

Cad Blocks

[Tom Duross]

Do anyone of you out there in the great interweb have a cad file of a ClaVal
90-21 PRV?
I'm working on stairway FCV details for a project using both 4"and 6"
grooved end globe valve style.
I've sent a request into ClaVal but not heard back.  Thanks in advance.

Thomas Duross
The Fire Pump Testing Company
11 Varney Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
T 617-971-0700
F 617-524-7171
C 617-592-4236
t...@thefirepumptestingcompany.com
https://vimeo.com/user17960212







___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: FDC & Pump

[Tom Duross]

and also allowed, the FDC check….

duh

 

 

What Larry said..

And there can’t be any valves between the FDC and the FDV’s on the standpipe 
unless you have more than one standpipe and have isolation valves at the base 
of each standpipe so you can’t take them off the riser manifold, for example.

TD

 

 

The requirement is from NFPA 13, not from NFPA 20. Here is the text from NFPA 
13-2013:

 

8.17.2.4.8  Fire department connections shall not be connected on the suction 
side of fire pumps.

 

Larry Keeping

 

 

I have always installed FDC's on the discharge side of fire pumps.  Looking 
through 2013 NFPA 20, I don't see anything precluding the instillation on the 
supply side.  Is the FDC allowed to be installed on the supply?

I have a contractor that has installed the FDC on the supply run-in, instead of 
stubing up a secondary line from the remote FDC.

Thanks,

Jamie

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: FDC & Pump

[Tom Duross]

What Larry said..

And there can’t be any valves between the FDC and the FDV’s on the standpipe 
unless you have more than one standpipe and have isolation valves at the base 
of each standpipe so you can’t take them off the riser manifold, for example.

TD

 

 

The requirement is from NFPA 13, not from NFPA 20. Here is the text from NFPA 
13-2013:

 

8.17.2.4.8  Fire department connections shall not be connected on the suction 
side of fire pumps.

 

Larry Keeping

 

 

I have always installed FDC's on the discharge side of fire pumps.  Looking 
through 2013 NFPA 20, I don't see anything precluding the instillation on the 
supply side.  Is the FDC allowed to be installed on the supply?

I have a contractor that has installed the FDC on the supply run-in, instead of 
stubing up a secondary line from the remote FDC.

Thanks,

Jamie

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Opinions requested

[Tom Duross]

I’ve got a 10+2 Sty building that needs a new pump for a myriad of reasons.  
Replacement will be larger to satisfy Standpipe demand.  New system pressures 
will require PRV’s to the 10th flr. and maybe one or both levels of mechanical 
above.  None currently installed, 190 PSI in the pump room.  2 Standpipe design 
with duel fed checked-off  systems on every floor.  I’m trying to convince 
Owner monetarily that removing the old FDV and installing it downstream of the 
PRV in each stairway will save a PRFDV and help with 5-year PRV testing.  Each 
system on each floor will feed that floor’s sprinklers and 2 FDV’s through a 
new PRV on each standpipe.  There are smoke vestibules outside each stairway 
because stairs are scissor style and back up to each other.  Standpipes are 
only 20’ apart.  Plugging the FDV outlets and relocating the FDV’s will allow 
the FDV’s to be located in the smoke vestibules instead of the stairways which 
I believe is required.  This, I believe is a design reason for relocating the 
FDV supply.  Another thing I’m trying to convince Owner is to install zone 
check’s around the new or reused FCV’s to help save water (not billed for yet 
but coming) and lower his ITM costs (we’ve been testing this building for 10 
years).  Also, about 50% of the main piping has been replaced over the years 
due to pinhole leaks and corrosion found during internal inspection or just 
plain leaks.  Nothing in the standpipes or sprinkler piping has been found 
effected so far, just the feed mains and within the pump room.  Circulators 
will help this I believe by hastening the infusion of fresh oxygen via testing 
water consumed.

 

I’ve also got the cost of upgrading the DR’s from 2” to 3” with inlets on every 
level (we do enough of this that every other is a pita, especially scissor 
stairs), un-combining them and finding termination points that will accept the 
anticipated discharge (gotta use 500), running 120 VAC risers for the pumps 
with key switches, and factoring in the additional 5-year PRV testing into 
their yearly ITM budget.

 

My main question is about the valving off the standpipes.  If I show a valve 
off the standpipe to the PRV and out of the PRV a tee branching down and over 
to the reused non-reg FDV, do I really need another valve before the new/reused 
FCV supplying the sprinklers?  If I can save this valve, between the cost of 
the valve and another FA module, and additional ITM costs, I can offset the 
cost of the zone check substantially.  I plan on using a pilot operated PRV so 
no additional tamper.  Each PRV will only supply sprinklers and 2 FDV’s.  I’ve 
been a fan of this style of zoning since I first came across it 10+ years ago 
but those guys always installed a second valve for sprinklers only.

 

>From what I foresee, the downside of omitting this second valve means when the 
>floor is shutdown, so is the FDV times 2.  I can’t see where anything says 
>this can’t happen unless I’m missing something.  I don’t mean to state if the 
>code doesn’t say no does that mean yes.  

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Thomas Duross

The Fire Pump Testing Company

11 Varney Street

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

T 617-971-0700

F 617-524-7171

C 617-592-4236

  t...@thefirepumptestingcompany.com

  https://vimeo.com/user17960212

 



 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Multiple Pumps

[Tom Duross]

The only time I saw this was to keep system pressure down, limit churn to 3
500's instead of a 1500.  

TD

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Multiple Pumps

 

So I found this in NFPA 20 - 4.9.1 A centrifugal fire pump for fire
protection shall be selected so that the greatest single demand for any fire
protection system connected to the pump is less than or equal to 150 percent
of the rated capacity (flow) of the pump.

 

So does that mean if the demand is 1,000 gpm I can't use 3 - 250 gpm pumps?
Don't ask why someone would do that, yes it would be odd.  Think really big
flows and high pressures where variable flow in reality one might choose to
split the pumps.  

 

So basically isn't it demanding a single pump for systems up to 7,500 gpm?
(assuming a 5,000 gpm pump is the maximum) No option for using 2 - 3,000's?

 

Chris Cahill, PE*

Associate Fire Protection Engineer 

Burns & McDonnell

Phone:  952.656.3652

Fax:  952.229.2923

  ccah...@burnsmcd.com

  www.burnsmcd.com

*Registered in: MN

 

If Americans switched from pounds to kilograms there would be mass
confusion. 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Tablets for survey?

[Tom Duross]

Bluebeam is great but the tablet versions need some development IMHO.  I 
dropped my Surface Pro for an Ipad Pro with pen last year.  The Ipad takes very 
nice pictures too.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:04 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: Re: Tablets for survey?

 

I wasn't thinking inspections, I was thinking marking plans. Probably some kind 
of PDF editor and some kind of sketch app. Looking for thoughts and ideas


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080   (ofc)

860-553-3553   (fax)

860-608-4559   (cell)






On Dec 6, 2017 at 5:55 PM, mailto:m...@keyfps.com> > wrote:

What kind of inspection program would you be using? Such as,  Fire lab inc? 
Firelabinc.com 

 

They make inspections a lot easier if you can customize the forms, that seems 
to be the problem though, not being bale to customize the forms.

 

 

Michael Goodis 

Salesman, Project Manager

IL#000635   NICET#135586

Key Fire Protection Enterprises LLC

3200 Mike Padgett HWY

Augusta, GA 30906

Office- (706)790-3473

Cell- (706) 220-8822

Fax: (706) 738-2119

 

Mike Goodis 

Key Fire Protection Enterprises LLC

706-220-8822

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 5:30 PM
To: Sprinklerforum  >
Subject: Tablets for survey?

 

Has anyone been using iPads or other tablets in the field for survey or plan 
notations? I have seen FM Global reps and GCs using them for sketching and was 
wondering if it would be an advantage for me. I need to upgrade mine and was 
wondering if I should set up for that. 


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080   (ofc)

860-553-3553   (fax)

860-608-4559   (cell)

___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
  
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: FDC sizing on wet automatic standpipes

[Tom Duross]

And 2 FDC’s within 150’ of hydrants for a high-rise?

Not to digress but I’m finding piping from FDC’s to feed mains not according to 
code more and more.  You’re not supposed to have any valves between the FDC and 
the Standpipes with only  Standpipe Isolation Valves being allowed.  

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Art Tiroly
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 2:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FDC sizing on wet automatic standpipes

 

Is this a residential or light hazard 8 story building?

Do you have a 1000 gpm fire pump from city water? Electric or diesel?

Reliable power with no outages?

3 - 4 or more standpipe risers?

 

Then you can get answers.

 

 

Art Tiroly

ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly

24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143

216-621-8899

216-570-7030 cell

 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ben Young
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 11:05 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: FDC sizing on wet automatic standpipes

 

I'm not lucky enough to be able to treat the FDC on a wet automatic standpipe 
as supplemental am I?

We have a building with a combined sprinkler and standpipe system that's wet 
automatic. Building is 8 stories, but separated. etc. etc.

Since the standpipe is wet automatic, the FDC isn't the only supply source, so 
do we still have to calculate it hydraulically? Total standpipe demand is 1000 
GPM

We're using NFPA 14, 2013 edition.

Basically, I'm trying to figure out if its OK to run 4" to the FDC and use a 
single Siamese instead of 6" piping to a 4-way or two Siamese connections.



Benjamin Young

 


 

 

Virus-free.  

 www.avast.com 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Roof Manifolds

[Tom Duross]

A second hose valve within the roof landing also works for testing.  I've
encouraged clients to drill in a second FDV 6" above to offset hooking up on
roof level and the floor below and pulling up all that water-filled hose.
It was the norm in these parts in the 70's and 80's on all standpipe
installations but somehow stopped being done.

One fairly new twist to rooftop standpipe testing has been the advent of
'green' roofs.  We show up with flowmeters, hose and diverters only to find
roofs covered with solar panels, plantings and combinations of things way
beyond standard decks.  A lot of these 'green' low an mid-rises don't even
have roof drains, but gutters and downspouts.  Think they handle it?

We ended up running three lines down 6 stories to grade just last week.
Then there are cases with many high-rises where second and third stairs
don't extend to the roof and contractors are installing RTM's with PIV's but
then we run into issues with the roof drainage systems (many being siphonic)
not handling 750-1000 gpm of water which is way beyond a 50-year storm.  Now
you can't use the manifolds.

There's a bit in 14 about flowing the grade level FDV instead of the top but
I've yet to hear of an AHJ that's allowed it.

Tom

 

The intent of the standard is to mandate one roof connection for testing but
if the roof's not accessible or flat enough for containment-type of
drainage, then there's no point installing header that you can't get to or
that would cause water to cascade off the roof in a torrent.   The
connections referenced in 905.4 can be (conventional) single connections -
the only mandatory two way is the one for testing.   These are normally
located at the highest landing of each stair or at the roof level landing if
there's a penthouse.

 

Now, having said that .  many FD's (especially here in CA where we're
proactive and aren't subject to freezing, generally speaking) require that
you top your standpipes without exception.   Many view these connections as
potential water supplies in a fire fight and we've had incident reports
where roof connections were very successfully used to fight (or supplement
the fight) from adjacent buildings, including one in downtown San Diego
about 5 or so years ago.

 

The preceding is my opinion only and is not  a formal or informal
interpretation of the NFPA 14 standard, nor does it necessarily represent
the opinion of other committee members or NFPA staff.

 

Steve Leyton

 

 

Typically, for a standpipe system I have always provided one Roof Top
Manifold on my standpipe systems.  NFPA 14 - A.7.3.2 states "Only one
standpipe is necessary to serve the roof; it is not the intent to extend
each standpipe to the roof level".  I have always understood the RTM to be
mostly for test purposes.  I have a contractor telling me I should be taking
all standpipes to the roof.  He referenced the IBC, which doesn't appear to
address the location of standpipe valves.  In the IFC, however, I found the
following statements:

 

*   905.2 states that standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance
with this section and NFPA 14
*   905.4 #5 states, "Where the roof has a slope less than four units
vertical in 12 units horizontal, each standpipe shall be provided with a
hose connection located either on the roof or at the highest landing of a
stairway with stair access to the roof.  An additional hose connection shall
be provided a the top of the most hydraulically remote standpipe for testing
purposes."

 

So what is the consensus of the forum?  Are we to provide the RTMs at the
top of every standpipe where the roof is considered flat?  Are we to provide
them only at stairways with roof access?  Or should we follow NFPA 14 and
install only one? 

 


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV 

Dynamic Fire Designs


 


Mail: micah.da...@dyanmicfiredesigns.com
 
Mobile: 931-242-1299
  www.dynamicfiredesigns.com 


Dynamic Fire Designs . 13063 Count Line Rd. Box #87 . Spring Hill . FL .
34609

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on
the Internet. 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: NYC Standpipe

[Tom Duross]

I would think the height would state size so 4" and 6".  I do believe NYFD
has their own FDV flow requirements, 230 gpm at 80 psi (if I remember
right).

TD

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Mike Stossel
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: NYC Standpipe

 

In New York City they have the following requirement:

 

7.6.1 Delete and replace with the following: Class I and Class III
standpipes in buildings with floor heights less than 150 feet (45 720 mm)
above grade plane shall be at least 4 inches (100 mm) in size. Standpipes in
buildings with floor heights greater than 150 (45 720 mm) feet above grade
plane

shall be no less than 6 inches (150 mm) in diameter.

 

I am currently doing a project that is greater than 150'0" in height, so I
know that my main standpipes will be 6", but I have a couple areas of the
building that only go up 50' that will also require standpipes.  Can the
areas of the building that are less than 150' in height have 4" standpipes,
or because they state building and not standpipe, all of the standpipes will
need to be 6" regardless off height?  I have always designed it as all since
they state building, but wanted to see what everyone else thinks.

 

Thanks in advance for the help.

 

Mike Stossel SET



36 Barren Road

East Stroudsburg, PA 18302

Office: 973-670-2627

m...@knssprinkler.com  

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

[Tom Duross]

Funny thing is they’re not valves, if we’re talking about pilot operated 
regulating devices.  

Some of the spring operated regulating valves that purport to act as check 
valves will actually allow reverse flow.  Same with a pilot operated relief 
valve, it will allow counter flow.

I wish they’d do away  with the term reducing and just use restricting or 
regulating.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Don Casey
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 11:25 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

 

The acronym PRV is an hold over from the past and has become a colloquialism 
(or a signal of one’s age).  

 

13 and 14 both define this grouping of valves as ‘pressure regulating devices’. 
 Not sure about 20 but I’ll guess it’s the same

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: 2017/07/07 11:12 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: RE: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

 

Agreed.  There should be 3 definitions.  

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of rongreenman .
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 11:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Re: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

 

When you guys are using "PRV" without further clarification, how do I determine 
when "R" is reducing, relief or regulating? 

 

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com 
<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > wrote:

In USA, listings stop at 350 for now; in Canada, 400 PSI.   These metrics the 
latest that I am aware of but if anyone out there knows of newer and higher 
ratings, chime in.

 

SL

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> ] On Behalf Of Roland 
Huggins
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 7:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Re: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

 

What he said.  Thank goodness for the master PRV in NFPA 14 so we can say if 
not allowed why’s it there?

 

I’ve never gone looking so what’s the maximum rating available for PRV’s?

 

Roland

 

 

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> 

 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives

 

 

 

On Jul 6, 2017, at 6:50 PM, Travis Mack <tm...@mfpdesign.com 
<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > wrote:

 

Yes. That is what we do with standpipes all the time. You can design for 300 
psi, your components on the discharge side of the pump just have to be 300 psi 
rated. 

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org





 

-- 

Ron Greenman


rongreen...@gmail.com <mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com> 

253.576.9700

 

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

[Tom Duross]

Agreed.  There should be 3 definitions.  

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of rongreenman .
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 11:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

 

When you guys are using "PRV" without further clarification, how do I determine 
when "R" is reducing, relief or regulating? 

 

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Steve Leyton  > wrote:

In USA, listings stop at 350 for now; in Canada, 400 PSI.   These metrics the 
latest that I am aware of but if anyone out there knows of newer and higher 
ratings, chime in.

 

SL

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 ] On Behalf Of Roland 
Huggins
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 7:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Subject: Re: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

 

What he said.  Thank goodness for the master PRV in NFPA 14 so we can say if 
not allowed why’s it there?

 

I’ve never gone looking so what’s the maximum rating available for PRV’s?

 

Roland

 

 

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://www.firesprinkler.org  

 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives

 

 

 

On Jul 6, 2017, at 6:50 PM, Travis Mack  > wrote:

 

Yes. That is what we do with standpipes all the time. You can design for 300 
psi, your components on the discharge side of the pump just have to be 300 psi 
rated. 

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org





 

-- 

Ron Greenman


rongreen...@gmail.com  

253.576.9700

 

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

[Tom Duross]

End treatment seems to the norm round these parts.  Up to 350 in the room and 
the standpipes set for 175 static on the roof and up as you go down.

Either a master regulator for each FCV/FDV on each floor or separates in the 
stairways.  

Would love to start a thread on that Figure A.7.10.1.2.1.1. sometime for those 
of us doing this.

Tom

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 11:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

 

In USA, listings stop at 350 for now; in Canada, 400 PSI.   These metrics the 
latest that I am aware of but if anyone out there knows of newer and higher 
ratings, chime in.

 

SL

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 7:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Subject: Re: NFPA 20 2013 confusing wording

 

What he said.  Thank goodness for the master PRV in NFPA 14 so we can say if 
not allowed why’s it there?

 

I’ve never gone looking so what’s the maximum rating available for PRV’s?

 

Roland

 

 

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://www.firesprinkler.org  

 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives

 

 

 

On Jul 6, 2017, at 6:50 PM, Travis Mack  > wrote:

 

Yes. That is what we do with standpipes all the time. You can design for 300 
psi, your components on the discharge side of the pump just have to be 300 psi 
rated. 

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Pump pads

[Tom Duross]

A peeve of mine.  Pads are a building code item taken out of chapter 9 and #20 
because many manufacturers are different.

Rule of thumb.  Pad is required, grouting dependent upon manufacturers base 
design.  Pad (and grout) should assume 3x the mass (weight) of driving 
equipment and extend a minimum of 6” beyond doweled anchors on all sides.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 5:04 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
Subject: RE: Pump pads

 

I was taught it was a requirement of the pump manufactures for horizontal split 
case pumps. 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 ] On Behalf Of John 
Irwin
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:11 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Subject: Pump pads

 

We have a client who wants us to install our pumps directly to the floor with 
no maintenance pads. We can't find a requirement in 20 that says we must have 
pads.

 

What say you?

 

 

 

John Irwin 

Division Manager - Fire Sprinklers

Critical System Solutions 

jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com   

813-618-2781

 

 

Sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity, spelling errors and 
punctuation gaffes.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire pump testing

[Tom Duross]

Always do affinity adjustments.  In fact I just disapproved an annual report
for not adjusting because after I did myself, pump fell below 5% triggering
a 'look see'.
TD


Forumites:
I know some of you test pumps frequently (Tom D., Todd).
Do you interpret NFPA 25 to require affinity law corrections for annual
testing of electric pumps?
>From NFPA 25, 2011:
8.3.5.2 Engine Speed.
8.3.5.2.1 
Theoretical factors for correction to the rated speed shall be applied where
determining the compliance of the pump per the test.

[Handbook commentary: NFPA 25 requires the use of affinity laws for
correction to the rated pump speed. This correction is needed as the pump
ratings were established under ideal factory conditions and most pump
performance will vary from the factory ratings under field conditions.
Uncorrected pump performance must be sufficient to supply the required
system demand as required in 8.3.5.7, to assure that the active systems are
properly supported with appropriate pressure and flow.]

The above states clearly engine and of course not motor.
I've always corrected, and required correction for motor's too.  

>From NFPA 25, 2017:
8.3.7.1 *  Data Interpretation.
8.3.7.1.1 
The interpretation of the flow test performance relative to the
manufacturer's performance shall be the basis for determining performance of
the pump assembly.

8.3.7.1.2 
Qualified individuals shall interpret the test results.

8.3.7.1.3 
Where applicable, speed and velocity pressure adjustments shall be applied
to the net pressure and flow data obtained to determine compliance with
8.3.7.2.3(2).

8.3.7.2 Evaluation of Fire Pump Test Results.
8.3.7.2.1 
The fire pump test results shall be evaluated in accordance with 8.3.7.2.2
through 8.3.7.2.9.

Do you correct results?
If so, for engine driven pumps only?

Thanks in advance.

Scott Futrell
 
Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Pump Flowmeter Alternate Means

[Tom Duross]

I would write the committee for an exception for tanks only but you might not 
make it.  I think part of the reason for 3 year traditional measuring is also 
to verify the meter is accurate.  

 

 

NFPA 20, 2013 edition requires an alternate means of measuring flow when a 
metering device is installed in a loop arrangement for fire pump flow testing.  
I assume (since it doesn’t say that you don’t have to) you still need the test 
header (alternative means) if your water supply is a water storage tank??

 

I understand the reasoning behind the alternative means if you have a city 
supply because you could pump water back to suction during your test with a 
meter and it doesn’t really test the water supply.  With the meter arrangement 
you could potentially have a partially closed valve on the underground, but you 
wouldn’t necessarily know it.

 

I didn’t look it up in 25, but I believe if you have a flowmeter arrangement 
you still have to flow water through the test header every 3 years.  Just 
curious if there are multiple reasons for that requirement and if your supply 
is a tank, if it still makes sense to flow water at least every 3 years rather 
than just use a meter loop.

 

Thank you.

 

Reed Roisum

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: NFPA 20 4.7.7.2

[Tom Duross]

Looks like you could be above 200 PSI churn or system pressure.  The
standard (2013 referenced) does not allow you to use the relief as a means
of blowing off excess pressure above 175.

Tom

 

Is the 140 psi total pressure or pump rating?

 

The pressure relief valve comes into play if the combination of supply
pressure and pump pressure exceeds the allowable system pressure, which for
most cases is 175 psi.

 

So if you had fluctuating supply pressures, during a higher than normal
pressure event, the system could relieve and not damage your downstream, 175
psi rated system.

 

Is this a diesel or electric?

 

How much pressure do you need at these heads?

 


Craig L. Prahl 



 

Hi Forum , 

 

Could someone shed some light on the requirements for 4.7.7.2  .   I have a
project where the quoted fire pump comes with a Pressure relief valve and
waste cone . 

 

City pressure is 58/56/1586  ,  we are using a 1500gpm pump at 140 psi to
get the flow and pressure we need to supply a freezer using LP-46 heads .  I
find many references to the use of Pressure relief valves being 

Used but 4.7.7.2 is  causing me to scratch my head . 

 

 

Colin 

 

 

 

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Another NFPA 25 Question - Controllers

[Tom Duross]

What do you mean by out of control?  Monthly or weekly runs?

I’m still old school but I do wear full PPE (most of the time) during annual 
testing, even after 3 arc flashes.  I know..

I do a flush, 4 points with everything, 3 manual, 3 auto, exercise both 
disconnects, full run handle, even light bulbs!

TD

 

 

Speaking of owner’s don’t care, does any think that NFPA 25 is completely out 
of control regarding pumps?

 

 

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://www.firesprinkler.org  

 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives

 

 

 

On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:51 AM, John Irwin  > wrote:

 

I love the sentiment. But that’s a lot of up-selling when it comes to selling 
an inspection. We’re still competing with bottom feeders. And most property 
managers just don’t care.

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Air Relief Time

[Tom Duross]

Sounds like an automatic dry standpipe off a low differential dry valve but 
you’re not concerned about water delivery time or even water pushing out the 
air?  Just a 2 ½” outlet at the top?

Where’s Brad?

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Stossel
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Air Relief Time

 

The standing air pressure is a minimum of 13psi and a maximum of 18psi.  The 
gauge located at the FDC must read zero within 3 minutes of full open.  
Compressor is connected and running.  Four 4” stacks top of stack is 70’0”.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike Stossel SET



36 Barren Road

East Stroudsburg, PA 18302

Office: 973-670-2627

m...@knssprinkler.com <mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com> 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 7:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: RE: Air Relief Time

 

NYC has a requirement for construction standpipes in all high-rises to be 
pressurized and monitored with a placard indicating required FDC pressures for 
required flows at each floor.  Boston adopted this last year.  Roadway 
standpipes are required to be timed for water delivery but are empty and have 
automatic air vents  at the FDV’s.  What’s the application requiring exhaust of 
standing air pressure?  Is there a compressor connected and running?  
Horizontal or vertical installation?  

TD

 

Sidestep the issue. If you can, pull a slight vacuum on the standpipe instead 
of pressurizing it. 

 

 

On Feb 28, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Mike Stossel <m...@knssprinkler.com 
<mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com> > wrote:

 

I am trying to calculate the time it will take for a 2-1/2” hose valve to 
relieve a standpipe system of air.  I am designing a temporary standpipe system 
in NYC and the requirement is to fill the entire system with air and a single 
2-1/2” hose valve needs to relieve the pressure within 3 minutes or a second 
will need to be added.  My total system volume will be 1902 gallons and the 
staring air pressure will be at 18psi.  Does anyone know of a way to calculate 
this?

 

Thanks for the help.

 

Mike Stossel SET

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Air Relief Time

[Tom Duross]

NYC has a requirement for construction standpipes in all high-rises to be 
pressurized and monitored with a placard indicating required FDC pressures for 
required flows at each floor.  Boston adopted this last year.  Roadway 
standpipes are required to be timed for water delivery but are empty and have 
automatic air vents  at the FDV’s.  What’s the application requiring exhaust of 
standing air pressure?  Is there a compressor connected and running?  
Horizontal or vertical installation?  

TD

 

Sidestep the issue. If you can, pull a slight vacuum on the standpipe instead 
of pressurizing it. 

 

 

On Feb 28, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Mike Stossel  > wrote:

 

I am trying to calculate the time it will take for a 2-1/2” hose valve to 
relieve a standpipe system of air.  I am designing a temporary standpipe system 
in NYC and the requirement is to fill the entire system with air and a single 
2-1/2” hose valve needs to relieve the pressure within 3 minutes or a second 
will need to be added.  My total system volume will be 1902 gallons and the 
staring air pressure will be at 18psi.  Does anyone know of a way to calculate 
this?

 

Thanks for the help.

 

Mike Stossel SET

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Webinar

[Tom Duross]

With handouts!

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Webinar

 

There’s a webinar?

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of etamb...@aerofire.com <mailto:etamb...@aerofire.com> 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 8:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: RE: Webinar

 

I have it at 10:00 MST

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tim Stone
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: RE: Webinar

 

What time zone are you?

It starts at 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968   Fax: (802) 434-4343

   tston...@comcast.net <mailto:tston...@comcast.net> 

 

11:00 CST 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Webinar

 

Anyone else having trouble connecting to the webinar?

 

Tom Duross

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Webinar

[Tom Duross]

OK, my confirmation said something about being able to connect an hour prior.  
I hang in and reload.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of etamb...@aerofire.com
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Webinar

 

I have it at 10:00 MST

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tim Stone
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: RE: Webinar

 

What time zone are you?

It starts at 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968   Fax: (802) 434-4343

   tston...@comcast.net <mailto:tston...@comcast.net> 

 

11:00 CST 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Webinar

 

Anyone else having trouble connecting to the webinar?

 

Tom Duross

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: K for a 2½" Hose Valve

[Tom Duross]

K of 25 for a 250 flow at 100 and 50 for a 500 flow at 100 have always worked 
for me in doing a simple standpipe calc to verify 150 at the FDC.

 

 

That would be on the inlet side of the valve.   2½” angle and globe pattern 
hose valves have losses of 3-5 psi at 250 gpm, so the discharge side “K” at 100 
psi might be as low as 24.4 at 250 gpm.   But my point is still, why?

 

SL

 

 

Dear All

 

250gpm flow at  100psi for 2-1/2" angle valve, K-factor shall be 25 ( 
250/sqrt(100))=25




With warm regards


D.RADHAKRISHNAN

​

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

VSRD

[Tom Duross]

Does anyone have access to older Potter flow switch info?

I have a 3” VSR-D, 80’s vintage to replace with a new VSR-F.

Nothing on their website.  Wondering if the hole sizes are the same.

Thanks,

 

Thomas Duross

The Fire Pump Testing Company

11 Varney Street

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

T 617-971-0700

F 617-524-7171

C 617-592-4236

t...@thefirepumptestingcompany.com



 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Pitot flow test kits

[Tom Duross]

I’ve had good luck over the years using hydraulic swivels.  I get them from a 
local heavy equipment dealer.

 

TD

I always remove the gauge and treat it as if it were delicate instrument. Oh 
wait, it is. Lubing the quick connect after it';s dry is also a good idea. 
These are measuring devices, not pipe wrenches. The difference between a fine 
single malt and Bud Light.

 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Fred Musser  > wrote:

Dewayne,

 

Hopefully it is not one of ours or NEMCO (our supplier), we supply only Parker 
fittings, brass body and full stainless internals and pay considerably extra 
over imported ones.

 

Please contact me off line

 

Fred Musser

Fire Safety Technology

m...@firesafetytech.com  

 

 



Sent from my iPad


On Jan 19, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Dewayne Martinez  > wrote:

Anyone else have a problem with these new pitot flow test kits with the air 
“quick” couplings for the gauge rusting up and giving inaccurate readings?

If so what have you done about it?  I am thinking we should remove the gauge 
from the coupling after every use and blast it with WD-40 or the equivalent.

Thanks,

Dewayne

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org





 

-- 

Ron Greenman


rongreen...@gmail.com  

253.576.9700

 

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: DI Piping

[Tom Duross]

What Ron said (I think he meant fittings) and I’ve seen many instances of 
grooved unlined DI piping within pump rooms (talk about heavy!) but if used on 
the potable side, I believe like Dave said, cement lined CL52.

TD

 

 

In many companies DI has replaced CI for small screwed piping. Grooved fittings 
are DI. The only problem I could see is the connection method and restraint, 
and small leakage if using PE fittings on the pipe. 

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:24 AM å...   > wrote:

 

I don't know of a many good reasons to deny this design.  If anyone calls you 
on your judgment, preempt their question by caveatting your decision using 
Section 1.5.

 

Scot Deal

Excelsior Fire & Risk Engineering

gsm:  +420 722 141 478

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: How many standpipes do I calculate?

[Tom Duross]

Seeing a fair amount of hybrids around here.  Between stored water as a second 
source and it also being a pumper supply to ultra-green buildings with unheated 
stairways.  

Would love to round table 5-year #14 testing with PRV’s if that’s of interest 
to the forum.  Even older systems without drain risers.

TD

 

 

IT does present an interesting nuance.  You answered the question that it IS 
one system so naturally when doing the FDC calc, you assign the total flow 
regardless of whether portions are automatic per manual.  On the automatic side 
though, how can you flow more than actually connected.  Sure you could assign 
whatever you want but does that make any sense?  I’d say no.  Until the FDC is 
pressurized, they can’t use the manual standpipes.  Needless to say, ensure the 
AHJ concurs.

 

SO how often do these hybrid systems occur?

 

Roland

 

Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: How many standpipes do I calculate?

[Tom Duross]

Even if they're separate systems Travis?  Probably have separate FDC's.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 12:46 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: How many standpipes do I calculate?

 

If all of the the stairs are on the same level then you calculate up to 1000
gpm (3 standpipes if sprinklered) or 1250 gpm (4 standpipes if
unsprinklered).  Dry or wet does not change that requirement.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com  
 
http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

On 12/26/2016 10:42 AM, Dewayne Martinez wrote:

I have a building that has two automatic wet standpipes and two automatic
dry standpipes.  Do I calculate them separately on the top floor or all
together?  My initial thought was all together because any of the hoses
could be used to fight the fire on the top level.  

Thanks,

Dewayne






___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Circulators

[Tom Duross]

I have a couple of semi-green customers trying to up the ante of their office 
complexes in the shadows of MIT and Harvard.  We’ve talked about flowmeter 
retrofits for their fire pumps and maybe installing these on their FCV’s not 
only to hasten water waste but to also slow down the MIC issues beginning to 
occur in several key areas.  They pay for water used during pump tests as 
estimated by the water purveyor witnessing the tests but not quarterly-annual 
testing.  

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 10:58 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Circulators

 

Any idea what that cost is, i.e. per floor or test connection?  I’m wondering 
what the amortization schedule might be; metrics of time and costs saved over 
time seem like they might be hard to track or predict.

 

Steve L.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jeremy Blocker
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 8:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: Re: Circulators

 

We have several buildings that have them here in Denver.  Not gaining 
popularity due to installation cost.  

Jeremy Blocker

Sent from my iPhone 6 


On Dec 8, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Tom Duross <tduro...@comcast.net 
<mailto:tduro...@comcast.net> > wrote:

Are there any service folks out there testing buildings with circulators on the 
floor controls?

 

Thomas Duross

The Fire Pump Testing Company

11 Varney Street

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

T 617-971-0700

F 617-524-7171

C 617-592-4236

t...@thefirepumptestingcompany.com <mailto:t...@thefirepumptestingcompany.com> 



 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Circulators

[Tom Duross]

Are there any service folks out there testing buildings with circulators on the 
floor controls?

 

Thomas Duross

The Fire Pump Testing Company

11 Varney Street

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

T 617-971-0700

F 617-524-7171

C 617-592-4236

t...@thefirepumptestingcompany.com



 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: IBC 903.3.5.2 Secondary Water Supply From Swimming Pool & Storage Tanks

[Tom Duross]

I’ve seen this before as well.  Tank is primary and street supply lowered via 
PRV (n.c.) to match tank supply pressure along with auto-fill from street to 
tank.  

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Mike Brown ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: IBC 903.3.5.2 Secondary Water Supply From Swimming Pool & Storage 
Tanks

 

We have done these where the secondary supply is piped into the suction side of 
the pump. That keeps it all automatic. Separate with check valves. 

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

"Follow" us on Facebook:  
 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to MFP Design via:

https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Nov 12, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Mike Brown  > wrote:

Yes, it is a high rise building. It was described to me that the responding 
truck would connect to the connection for the pool / tanks and then pump into 
the FDC.

 

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 3:40 PM, Steve Leyton 
 > wrote:

 

Is this a high-rise building?

 

You didn’t ask, but generally I think the prevailing opinion is that a swimming 
pool is not an acceptable means of storing fire protection water.   
Notwithstanding that is there a pump drafting from this pool/tank(s) combo?  
When you say dry hydrant, are you saying there’s a dry-barrel FH connected to 
the pool/tank(s)?   How is it pressurized if not pumped?

 

Steve Leyton

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Brown
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Subject: IBC 903.3.5.2 Secondary Water Supply From Swimming Pool & Storage Tanks

 

I am working on project that falls in the seismic classification requiring a 
secondary water supply per section 903.3.5.2. The bid documents showed using 
the swimming pool and two additional storage tanks to meet the required 
sprinkler demand. The tanks and the swimming pool are shown to be 
interconnected and piped underground to the front of the building street access 
with a dry hydrant connection located near the FDC connection.  During the 
local AHJ submittal review we were told that the secondary water supply was 
required to be "automatic" and that the dry hydrant connection was not 
acceptable. For those of you that deal with high rise buildings in seismic 
areas how do you connect the secondary water supply to the sprinkler system?

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Truck Supply @ FDC

[Tom Duross]

That’s why I always put a calibrated gauge on the hydrant and a tapped
swivel and calibrated gauge on the FDC.

We usually get spare pumps or out of service pieces for our tests, never
trust the pump gauges.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Phillips
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:29 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Fire Truck Supply @ FDC

 

Also include the friction lose in hose from hydrant to truck  / truck to FDC

Mark

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: Fire Truck Supply @ FDC

 

NFPA 14 will dictate your GPM. The hose size and truck performance are all
info items to get from the FD. 

 

In the past, I have specified that we need 150psi at the FDC inlet – that
takes some of the guesswork out if it for us (since they could come with
different hose lengths/sizes). I have not met much pushback from FD’s with
that approach – but it would not hurt to check before test day.

 

But as previously suggested we use 150@0; 149@ required flow

 

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II  
Sales Engineer 
Alliance Fire Protection 

130 w 9th Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116


*Licensed in KS & MO 

 

913.888.0647 ph 
913.888.0618 f 
913.526.7443 cell 
www. AFPsprink.com 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 2:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: Fire Truck Supply @ FDC

 

Is there a “standard” GPM @ PSI used for a standpipe calc with regard to
what the fire truck will provide? I called the local AHJ and all he would
say is they provide 150psi, didn’t know the gpm or even the hose size for
that matter. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Brian Harris, CET

BVS Systems Inc.

Design Manager

bvssystemsinc.com  

Phone: 704.896.9989

Fax: 704.896.1935

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Truck Supply @ FDC

[Tom Duross]

150 PSI Churn, 1250 GPM @ 149 PSI is what I use for non high-rise standpipe
hydraulics flowing 1-5 FDV's.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Fire Truck Supply @ FDC

 

Is there a "standard" GPM @ PSI used for a standpipe calc with regard to
what the fire truck will provide? I called the local AHJ and all he would
say is they provide 150psi, didn't know the gpm or even the hose size for
that matter. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Brian Harris, CET

BVS Systems Inc.

Design Manager

bvssystemsinc.com  

Phone: 704.896.9989

Fax: 704.896.1935

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Plan review question

[Tom Duross]

What John said.

If you don’t have a complete set of submittals showing every appurtenance and 
appliance from heads to hangers, seismic calculation, hydraulics, etc.; I would 
set them aside too.

Tom Duross

 

I don't know of a backflow with a fixed loss.. NFPA may have a number but if so 
I've never used it. If I was submitting calculations to you I would fully 
expect you to set aside your review of my project until I provided you with the 
data sheets. 

 

 

 

 

 

John Irwin 

Critical System Solutions Sprinkler Construction Manager 

813-618-2781   jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com 
<mailto:jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com> 

 

 

Sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity, spelling errors and 
punctuation gaffes.







All, how does one calculate loss through a master pressure reducing valve?  I 
am an AHJ and didnt receive a data sheet in the submittal.  Is there a fixed 
loss such as through backflows? 

 

Zach

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: MAIN PIPE DRAINS AND INSPECTOR TESTS

[Tom Duross]

After the backflow scare they did that up here too (rainwater is evil) but
then relaxed and let most police themselves (with nice graphics).

Genius.  Look how it worked for the Clintons.  

Dumped 10K Gal today, right into the line.  Probably only dirty the first
1K.  

 

 

 

A few years back the authority actually had us out surveying buildings for
non approved sources into their system. 

 

John Drucker 

Assistant Construction Official

Fire Protection Subcode Official

Electrical Subcode Official

jdruc...@redbanknj.org <mailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org> 

Cell/Text 732-904-6823



Tom Duross <tduro...@comcast.net <mailto:tduro...@comcast.net> > wrote:

Interesting.  The mighty MWRA up here says otherwise.  I wonder if your
storm runs the gammit, digesters and all.  Maybe so. 

Most everything exits the building 'round these parts'. 

  

Tom, with all due respect, in our jurisdiction sewage authority says no. 

  

John Drucker 

Assistant Construction Official 

Fire Protection Subcode Official 

Electrical Subcode Official 

jdruc...@redbanknj.org <mailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org>  

Cell/Text 732-904-6823 



Tom Duross <tduro...@comcast.net <mailto:tduro...@comcast.net> > wrote: 

Plumbing codes do prevail though.  With the possibility of metals, oils,
anaerobics in suspension, this discharge must go to sanitary.  We put 2x2.5
NPTxNH adapters on all our testing accounts outlets that exit the building
and hose to sewer, even 3" drain risers.  Homemade 'hosemonster' style
diffusers suspended down on ratchet straps keep them up and away from the
turds and from splashing on the street.  Unfortunately inside tight drains,
with or without sight glasses or air gaps are a thing of the past.  ASPE
member since 1979. 

TD 

  

  

Notwithstanding applicable plumbing codes the sewage authority has
restricted sanitary to effluent from sinks, water closets, lavatories,
dishwashers, showers requiring biological treatment, ie grey and black
water. The idea is to reduce outfall from sources other than above. 

  



Jeff Bridges <j...@jbfireprotection.com <mailto:j...@jbfireprotection.com> >
wrote: 

Technically any discharge into the sewer system would need to be approved,
and be an Indirect Waste Connection =  1" air gap. The p-trap would also be
required to have a trap primer also as mentioned earlier. 

  

Jeff Bridges JBFP Inc 

  

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: MAIN PIPE DRAINS AND INSPECTOR TESTS

[Tom Duross]

Interesting.  The mighty MWRA up here says otherwise.  I wonder if your
storm runs the gammit, digesters and all.  Maybe so.

Most everything exits the building 'round these parts'.

 

Tom, with all due respect, in our jurisdiction sewage authority says no.

 

John Drucker 

Assistant Construction Official

Fire Protection Subcode Official

Electrical Subcode Official

jdruc...@redbanknj.org <mailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org> 

Cell/Text 732-904-6823



Tom Duross <tduro...@comcast.net <mailto:tduro...@comcast.net> > wrote:

Plumbing codes do prevail though.  With the possibility of metals, oils,
anaerobics in suspension, this discharge must go to sanitary.  We put 2x2.5
NPTxNH adapters on all our testing accounts outlets that exit the building
and hose to sewer, even 3" drain risers.  Homemade 'hosemonster' style
diffusers suspended down on ratchet straps keep them up and away from the
turds and from splashing on the street.  Unfortunately inside tight drains,
with or without sight glasses or air gaps are a thing of the past.  ASPE
member since 1979. 

TD 

  

  

Notwithstanding applicable plumbing codes the sewage authority has
restricted sanitary to effluent from sinks, water closets, lavatories,
dishwashers, showers requiring biological treatment, ie grey and black
water. The idea is to reduce outfall from sources other than above. 

  



Jeff Bridges <j...@jbfireprotection.com <mailto:j...@jbfireprotection.com> >
wrote: 

Technically any discharge into the sewer system would need to be approved,
and be an Indirect Waste Connection =  1" air gap. The p-trap would also be
required to have a trap primer also as mentioned earlier. 

  

Jeff Bridges JBFP Inc 

  

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: MAIN PIPE DRAINS AND INSPECTOR TESTS

[Tom Duross]

Plumbing codes do prevail though.  With the possibility of metals, oils, 
anaerobics in suspension, this discharge must go to sanitary.  We put 2x2.5 
NPTxNH adapters on all our testing accounts outlets that exit the building and 
hose to sewer, even 3” drain risers.  Homemade ‘hosemonster’ style diffusers 
suspended down on ratchet straps keep them up and away from the turds and from 
splashing on the street.  Unfortunately inside tight drains, with or without 
sight glasses or air gaps are a thing of the past.  ASPE member since 1979.

TD

 

 

Notwithstanding applicable plumbing codes the sewage authority has restricted 
sanitary to effluent from sinks, water closets, lavatories, dishwashers, 
showers requiring biological treatment, ie grey and black water. The idea is to 
reduce outfall from sources other than above.

 



Jeff Bridges  > 
wrote:

Technically any discharge into the sewer system would need to be approved, and 
be an Indirect Waste Connection =  1” air gap. The p-trap would also be 
required to have a trap primer also as mentioned earlier.

 

Jeff Bridges JBFP Inc

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING

[Tom Duross]

Stored water as the second source?  Seeing a lot of that here too.  One under 
construction now has public refilling SB turned into a cistern, 400K gallons. 

I assumed just a 750 but probably 2 stage maybe using 1.4, not too many 2 
stages out there above that so parallels required.  Probably what you needed 
for those hanger nozzles.

Interesting as I have an old 3 stage (just looked at) needing replacement for a 
’73 installation, no pressure requirement then, in fact 14 not even adopted at 
the time for the 12 pages it entailed.  445# in the room last week.  Scary..

TD

 

We made 360 total head at churn if I recall correctly.  Everything downstream 
UL (USA) listed for fire – had to hunt down check and butterfly valves from 
Victaulic rated for 365.   Here in CA all high-rises have tanks, so PSH of 
about 7’ + pump rating at max churn.   Big pump yes, but not a monster as it 
was only a 750.  We had three or four stairs in the basement and podium levels, 
so designed to a couple of points on the curve.   We’ve done foam underwing 
systems for Navy and Marine Corp hangars with .17/15,000 flowing concurrently 
at the roof with total demand of 4,500-5,000 GPM.   Now THOSE are big pumps.

 

SL

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 4:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 
Subject: RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING

 

Must have been one hell of a pump.

 

 

There is no height limit in latest editions of NFPA 14.   Standpipes that 
directly supply hose connections are limited to 350 PSI (stay tuned for 2019 
cycle on that one) but there is no height or pressure limit on express mains 
that serve upper zones.   Our firm designed a 545’ single zone system for a 
tower here in San Diego.

 

The foregoing is my opinion only and is not intended to represent the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor serve as an interpretation of the standard.

 

Steve L.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: HIGH RISE BUILDING

[Tom Duross]

Must have been one hell of a pump.

 

 

There is no height limit in latest editions of NFPA 14.   Standpipes that 
directly supply hose connections are limited to 350 PSI (stay tuned for 2019 
cycle on that one) but there is no height or pressure limit on express mains 
that serve upper zones.   Our firm designed a 545’ single zone system for a 
tower here in San Diego.

 

The foregoing is my opinion only and is not intended to represent the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor serve as an interpretation of the standard.

 

Steve L.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Resi Riser - Character set not allowed

[Tom Duross]

This happened once to me and it was the backflow opening and closing checks, 
does the pressure change on the gauge?  

We took out the checks and it worked beautifully, then got both 3# checks and 
it worked.  Silver bullet.

If not, then I would agree on trapped air expanding and contracting.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of rongreenman .
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 1:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Resi Riser - Character set not allowed

 

I'm seeing a consensus here that the problem has to do with the cushioning 
effect of air and that eliminating air inside the piping is a good idea. 

 

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Mark Phillips  > wrote:

Air Vent up High

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 ] On Behalf Of 
rongreenman .
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 1:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Subject: Resi Riser - Character set not allowed

 

Anyone experienced this before? 

 

The original CSC version of the Tyco rest riser in four inch. 

 

http://tyco-fire.com/index_link.php?link=TFP962 

 &_ga=1.123267982.464632162.1469119864

 

Flow throw the IT port and you can watch the lever in the flow switch move and 
then, before alarming, move back to the static condition and essentially reset 
the diaphragm timing. Watch it long enough and listen to the flow and you can 
identify the flows changing the pitch suggesting turbulence. After a bit you 
can identify and  the tones and know when the paddle will move (indicated by 
the lever) and when it will retreat back to what appears a low flow situation. 

 

The flow switch works fine when flowing the main drain but not throw the test 
orifice, although the technician asking me this question says it worked last 
year. All I can figure is there are lots of corners in solved and the flow 
keeps going from a laminar to turbulent pattern and the paddle resets during 
the turbulent period. It seems to me the flow switch and the test outlet are 
too close together but this is the only one of these I've ever seen this 
particular problem occur on and it is a listed device that's been around for a 
long time in both CSC and Tyco livery. 

 

I suggested the technician try the flow test again at a different time of day 
and see what happens. That won't correct the problem but if it works it 
suggests that the problem was due to a temporary condition (maybe repeating) of 
the water supply. 

 

Any other ideas?

 

-- 

Ron Greenman


4110 Olson Dr., NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

rongreen...@gmail.com  

253.576.9700  

 

A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor 
and engineer (1876-1958)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org





 

-- 

Ron Greenman


4110 Olson Dr., NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

rongreen...@gmail.com  

253.576.9700

 

A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor 
and engineer (1876-1958)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Pre-action system for correction facilities

[Tom Duross]

I did just that a few months ago after noodling it around here a bit.  SIPA.  
This police station 30 cell holding area had been plagued for years with false 
alarms due to vandalism of the heads by ‘guests’.  Now all the get a smelly wet 
wisp of 13 PSI air in their face instead of a torrent of water, panel goes into 
supervisory.  Automatic actuation is from area and duct smokes, cells are 
pressurized, and from pull stations plus manual release in cabinet and remote 
release shunt in guard’s room.

 

Tom Duross

FGOL

 

 

Why a DIPA? Are you planning on protecting frozen prisoners? Use a SIPA with 
supervisory air. My presumption is you want to be able to regulate the flow of 
water from a central control location and be notified if a head is tampered 
with. You can use a single system throughout, a wet in the non holding areas 
and a SIPA in the cell blocks, or multiple SIPAs to cover individual pods or 
groups. All can be controlled by an operator in the control both. Use smoke 
detectors to trip the SIPA and heat detectors (i.e.: sprinklers) to open the 
pipes. There can be a time delaying the release mechanism the the control room 
operator can use to immediately release, abort or Allie to run out and then 
release. 

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Travis Mack <tm...@mfpdesign.com 
<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> > wrote:

I've seen both regular wet and DIP. I would say wet has been more common 

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Gregg Key <gr...@keyfps.com 
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gr...@keyfps.com');> > wrote:

Greetings, Is it common to install a double interlock Pre-action system in the 
cell pod areas in correction facilities?

 

Gregg Key

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: variable speed electric controller and or diesel pressure limiting driver

[Tom Duross]

Suction control valves are actually installed on the discharge of the pump
between check and test tee, sensing line runs to suction.

TD

 

Unless an applicable code supercedes NFPA 20 they're allowable in new
installations.  From NFPA 20 2016:

4.16.10.1 Suction pressure regulating valves that are listed for pump
service and that are suction pressure sensitive shall be permitted where the
authority having jurisdiction requires positive  pressure to be maintained
on the suction piping.




 

My supervisor said that is for existing systems. We are installing new fire
pumps.

Tim

 

I can't do the subject justice of explaining how they work.  But I'm curious
why you wouldn't use the industry standard solution to this concern, a low
suction control valve? EG
http://www.cla-val.com/fire-protection-pump-suction-control-valve-p-188-l-en
.html

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Pressure Reducing Vs Restricting

[Tom Duross]

I wish they had three categories; restricting ($), reducing ($$) and
regulating ($$$).  I find most of the reducing valves are no better than
restricting valves and the only real solution to be the regulating style
whether they be pilot or spring operated serving sprinkler and hose (cause
if you have to regulate hose, you have to regulate sprinkler too) or
separates.  I believe the 2 FDV limit has been removed for master regulation
of that's an option but you need high and low flow capability plus means to
test (for all).

TD

 

 

Why do you need a pressure reducing valve on the system?If it's a master
PRV on the supply side of the entire system, you need to meet the redundancy
requirements of NFPA 14, which will likely entail 4 PRV's on two manifolds.
If the pump can be down-sized so that it churns below 175, that's a better
plan.  If you need PR at each floor, you can use the PR hose and control
valves.

 

To Travis's comment, Pressure Restricting valves use mechanical restrictors
to limit flow and lower the discharge RESIDUAL pressure.   They don't work
in a no-flow condition, hence not suitable when working pressure exceeds 175
on any point of the discharge curve, including shut-off.

 

SL

 

 

We have a High rise system with a pump feeding an combination standpipe. We
would like to install a pressures valve to keep the sprinkler system side
equipment under 175psi. But I'm getting confused on what the difference is
between these valves types, and which one I should be using to reduce the
pressure on the system side. Any advice would be appreciated.

 

 

Jerry Van Kolken

Millennium Fire Protection Corp.

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: standpipe and sprinkler pressures

[Tom Duross]

When you open an FDV, water comes out, it's automatic.  Manual standpipes,
like in unheated parking garages with no water supply, just an FDC, are
manual.
Pump isn't undersized, assuming it serves HMD sprinkler requirements with
hose stream allowances, just doesn't supply standpipe demand, FDC does.
TD

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of very Cool
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:40 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: standpipe and sprinkler pressures

Tom: That's a good point, even if the sprinkler booster pump is undersized
for standpipe requirement, and only manual wet standpipe is required, would
the standpipe be considered automatic wet in this case?
For example, if the sprinkler booster pump is 500 GPM @ 70 PSI, and
standpipe requires 1000 gpm @ 150 PSI in a combined system, would the
standpipe be considered automatic in this case, or will the sprinkler
booster pump need to become a fire pump with more flow and pressure to
achieve 100% automatic operation?







___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: standpipe and sprinkler pressures

[Tom Duross]

If your using 175 class fittings and hydrostatic testing to 200 then you
can't pump in more than 150.  You have to base your standpipe hydraulics at
150 psi max from the pumper at the FDC.
You said combination so your standpipe is automatic, fire pump serves
sprinklers only, fine, FDC serves to supplement standpipes from whatever to
100 at 500-750-1000.
Tom

Ben,

I always do whatever it takes in sizing the standpipe mains to keep the
pressure below 175 (I usually shoot for 150 to 155).  It may mean that you
run more 6" bulk and maybe even 8" to the first standpipe.  If you do this,
you can stay away from PRV's or 'high pressure' valves/ftgs, etc.

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President
Fire Design, Inc. 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org