Re: Stage/platform

[bcasterline]

Look on the bright side here Steve- if the AHJ declares it Ord Haz II,  
you could spec high temp, standard response heads, and the successful  
contractor can finally use those old pendent heads that've been taking  
up shop space.

Is EVERYTHING ever finally said about ANY sprinkler code issue? :)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Stage/platform

[bcasterline]

one of these days: .008 GPM per sq.ft. per feet ceiling height over  
entire STAGE-FORM area, (1) 1.5" hose valve w/30' hose and  
extinguisher in cabinet centered on back wall, intermediate temp,  
standard coverage, QR heads.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

an ice plug 'by the way'

[bcasterline]

for the same reason we do not want to screw a dry pend into a 1" C.I.  
90 looking down, we should not screw a dry pend into a 1" pipe-o-let  
looking down--the top of the dry pend does not make it above the  
bottom of the pipe so after the hydro water sits on top of it and if  
it freezes it becomes an ice plug.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Remote Area Question

[bcasterline]

well... i'm not a lost cause yet. i'll give it some more thought. thanks.

Quoting Roland Huggins :


I was hoping I'd be able to convert you :)

The question of the most demanding would be WHICH cross main you  
drop the rectangle on.


Roland

On Aug 23, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Brad Casterline wrote:


Roland, the way you see it is worth a great deal to a great number of
people. The way I see it is worth a great deal to me, not because of
semantics, but because of intent, along the lines of reasoning as detailed
by Ron G in his original post on this thread. I see a 1.2x area parallel to
the branch lines as a required calc, with supplemental calcs as necessary,
and, again, the most demanding is not obvious in this example, as I see it.



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Antifreeze Update

[bcasterline]

search this forum for 'calcium chloride'- there are issues with that  
too i know, but nothing that could not be resolved. the reason you mix  
it slowly is bcoz heat is generated, which tells me we "pre-combust"  
it. with a pressure tank as the approved water supply, bfp's, tapping  
fees, etc go away-- some smart people out to be able to figure  
something out.
btw, George, i just google professional and opinion and i believe you  
are entitled if anyone is, and btw^2, congrats sir Man 'O the Year ;)

brad
Quoting George Church :

Hard to imagine having enough paperwork to document the introduction  
of solutions we've just proved can explode and kill those we're  
charged with protecting.


For those of you who don't know, while Scott wasn't in nJ for the  
fireball, he was at UL for the replication of those fireballs and he  
said it was unlike anything he's seen. How do we politically  
correctly say it scared the Shiite out of him? And we've got folks  
putting this in today? Like I said, little in the "How stupid can we  
be" dept surprises me any longer.


When the owner in ND or MN has an AF system, and doesn't want to  
spend the money to switch to dry- or likely hasn't GOT the money to  
do so, or if it's a CPVC system that can't go dry and its all  
occupied residential, drywall ceilings- the cost could be simply  
astronomical and beyond the $ of mere mortals, real estate LLCs and  
small corporations- then what choices do they have?


If I knew that, I'd be in Mark, Rod's and Scott's backyards selling  
it. And this need will, soon, stimulate the development of suitable  
solutions. Until then- call Scott or Mark and get the opinion of a  
qualified PE (this is where I'd insert the Iowa dig if I wasn't in  
defensive mode and this being a serious life-safety discussion) as  
to options and make the best of it. Maybe a 10 PSI dry system of  
CPVC with 4 second trip Vizor or QRS switch could be done as a  
workable non-lethal band-aid? Better than napalm.



George L.  Church, Jr., CET  
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
877-324-ROWE   570-837-6335 fax
g...@rowesprinkler.com



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott  
A Futrell

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update

in Rod and Mark's neighborhood there are contractors using propylene  
glycol in CPVC systems (that's a no no) over 50% (that's another no  
no) and they know it because "what else can they do?".


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


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
George Church

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update

If you were in Rod's or Frozen Mark's neighborhood, where you need  
180% concentrations to keep from freezing, I'd would argue that's  
reckless (and stupid). But if you're doing what NFPA said with the  
exception of it not being listed, I'd say until there is a listed  
one on the market the case could be made for continuing to do your  
business as you have, so long as you don't install the chance of  
explosion. We didn't stop installing fire pumps when #20 said you  
need a PLD or VSD not a main relief truncating the supply in order  
to control excess churn pressure. But once a listed VSD and/or PLD  
was on the market, you should have switched over to using the listed  
product. Let's face it, haven't we, forever, been using the  
FM-Approved version of devices on FM jobs UNLESS NONE WAS AVAILABLE,  
in which case we used a UL listed version as the best we could do,  
and just what we all used if it was something that might not have  
needed- or with some oddball devices, that no one bothered to  
obtain- a UL listing either.



George L.  Church, Jr., CET  
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
877-324-ROWE   570-837-6335 fax
g...@rowesprinkler.com



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Dewayne Martinez

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update

Thanks George, this is the same way we have been looking at it.  I  
was just wondering how the other contractors were handling the  
situation.  We know that our competition has not stopped using A/F  
yet and to bid these same buildings with dry sprinkler systems would  
cost us a lot of business.


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
George Church

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Antifreeze Update

Dewayne, I

Re: thermal barrier

[bcasterline]

the old.edu in me suggests putting 1 head in the 47 and calling the  
other 2 bathrooms closets.


ps- *persuing, not perusing

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: 4-WAY BRACING INCLUDING PRYING ACTION ON FASTNERS PER OSHPD'S OPA#601

[bcasterline]

George,
I have never had to, am away from my desk, and would rather not aswer  
a question with a question, or be overly general, but I would like to  
know the extent of your problem-- how many "risers" (vertical pipes)  
do you have to brace? I have to admit I think there is some confusion  
on what a 4-way brace is, since some manufacturer's details call (2)  
2-way brace AT THE SAME LOCATION a 4-way. The Forum please correct me  
if need be, but I think a 4-way is only for vertical pipes, and if so,  
your task might be lessened, once someone with some experience replies.


Quoting Steve Leyton :


CA - where else?

Steve

Bruce Verhei  wrote:

George
Which State?
Bv

Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T

-Original message-
From: George Medina Jr 
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 22:20:50 GMT+00:00
Subject: 4-WAY BRACING INCLUDING PRYING ACTION ON FASTNERS PER OSHPD'S
OPA#601




Has anyone had to provide prying action factors to seismic calculations
for the Department of State Architecture. I have been requested by DSA
to:'Provide calculations showing 4 way brace connections to take ZOE loads
per NFPA 13 Sec. 9.3.5.5.3 and include prying action on fasteners per OPA
0601 p. 5.4' . I have attached the sheet from the document and have to be
totally honest that I have never had to provide this before.  I use
AFCON's Bracing Calculation Program and would like to know if I am going
to have to end up doing the calculation by hand to add the prying factor.
If someone can briefly explain how the prying factor works I would be
indebted to thee  for the rest of my short natural life.
 I could send a copy of Sheet 5.4 of the OPA #601 to anyone that can help.

Thank You,
George Medina Jr.




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement

[bcasterline]

all i got is some numbers:

27' ceiling height, 9" deflector distance, couch on fire in the middle  
of a large, open furniture showroom---


286F, standard response- activation time = 188 seconds
286F, quick response- activation time = 172 seconds
212F, standard response- activation time = 97 seconds
212F, quick response- activation time = 80 seconds

(details available upon request)

regards,
Anyone...?
:)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement

[bcasterline]

!EXACTLY! Ron :)
I never try to predict anything, per se, I try to find the DIFFERENCE  
between scenarios, in this case the same Ceiling Height and Heat  
Release Rate versus sprinkler Temp and RTI. For a benchmark, I found  
the steady state HRR that would activate a 286 SR in ~180 seconds,  
with the head centered on the plume. This turned out to be 1072  
kilowatt/173 sec (about half a couch actually, but maybe scalable to a  
whole couch centered between two heads.) But steady state means 0 to  
1072 in 1 sec, not very realistic (even though it is similar to the  
"plunge test" used to establish RTI experimentally) so I ramped the  
HRR from 0 to 1072 in 90 sec and calculated the 4 scenarios SEPERATELY  
as posted.
Your talk about innermost ring, next ring out, etc has inspired me to  
model some "SPRINKLER SKIPPING". My understanding of 'skipping' is  
that it is the water in the vapor state equivalent of water in the  
liquid state "COLD SOLDERING", IOW, vapor from activated heads in ring  
1 might cool heads in ring 2 and delay their activation so that heads  
in ring 3 activate before heads in ring 2! Thank goodness there is no  
minimum in 13 to avoid sprinkler skipping ;).
Thanks for requesting some details in that instructor type of way of  
yours. You know how much I enjoy talking sprinklers.

Brad


Quoting Ron Greenman :


SoHigh release vertical heat plume hitting ceiling and starting to
spread out, immediate ring opens starts to cool fire but intermediate heads
in second ring open, dropping flow to first ring, but doing nothing to cool
fire, the third ring with even worse results. My understanding of QR
standard spray is mostly for low heat release horizontal spreading fires
(and mostly where people are likely to be present), fast response links in
special heads used as listed, SR/SS, high temp. where you might want to
slow down the opening of heads in places where you have a high heat release
vertical fire or where you will have a retarded (OK, everyone do a Beavis
and Butthead now, and then get over it) water delivery but quickly
spreading ceiling jet, as in a dry system. Then again, I've been known to
misinterpret the purpose for things being the  way they are.

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:07 AM,  wrote:


all i got is some numbers:

27' ceiling height, 9" deflector distance, couch on fire in the middle of
a large, open furniture showroom---

286F, standard response- activation time = 188 seconds
286F, quick response- activation time = 172 seconds
212F, standard response- activation time = 97 seconds
212F, quick response- activation time = 80 seconds

(details available upon request)

regards,
Anyone...?
:)

__**_
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org 
http://fireball.firesprinkler.**org/mailman/listinfo/**sprinklerforum





--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

all i got is some numbers- Act II (final)

[bcasterline]

In the recent 'Temperature Rating...' post I said:
286 SR, activation time = 188 seconds
286 QR, activation time = 172 seconds
212 SR, activation time = 97 seconds
212 QR, activation time = 80 seconds
This was with a fire directly under the head, with a fire that grew  
from 0 to ~1000 kilowatt/m2 in 90 seconds. The heads were 9" below a  
27' ceiling.


Keeping everything the same except doubling the number of 100 watt  
light bulbs from 10,000 to 20,000 I got:

286 SR, activation time = 85 seconds
286 QR, activation time = 72 seconds
212 SR, activation time = 65 seconds
212 QR, activation time = 54 seconds


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Fire pump annual test

[bcasterline]

Tom, I guess once we equate what goes out of the tachometer with what  
goes into the thermometer, the speed does not change-- the magic of  
the second law of thermodynamics! (or, as you put it-- 'Pump affinity').


Quoting Tom Duross :

Brad, we measure rpm as a means of adjusting pressures to rated  
speed.  These pumps are magic and speed is not supposed to change.   
Pump affinity.  Also, when you have more than one pipe size  
difference between discharge and suction, you should adjust for  
velocity pressure (or read discharge after the increaser).



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Fire pump annual test

[bcasterline]

thanks DJJ8389, that's what I thought. I guess electric motor drive is  
more consistent and closer to expectations than engine driven. As far  
as Tom's 'adjusting the pressure to rated speed' goes though, with  
electric we are at the mercy of the local Power and Light, whereas  
with engine driven, we could adjust the governer to bring the pressure  
up to snuff before we leave. I have never adjusted a govenor- my guess  
is you turn something until the speed reaches rated, then re-measure  
everything.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Concealed space or not

[bcasterline]

Needs 4-6 heads, since it is a mechanical room, Ord. Haz. I.  
Non-accesible or limited access relates to FINISH (i.e., non-walkable  
ceilings). Walkable ceilings are called floors the next level up by  
A.H.Js.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Fire pump annual test

[bcasterline]

George,
78% efficient at overload.. not too shabby!
Do you recall the rated RPM? If I assume a 14" impeller diam. I get 2600 RPM.
I thought about converting the 400 speed reduction to the pump room  
temperature rise but said nahhh.. it would be negligible against the  
1st law of testosterone, Lol, brad


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Fire pump annual test

[bcasterline]

on 2nd thought (calc), 65-70% is closer, I bet.
78% is 4500 @ 170.
by the way, what does PLD stand for?

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


George,
78% efficient at overload.. not too shabby!
Do you recall the rated RPM? If I assume a 14" impeller diam. I get 2600 RPM.
I thought about converting the 400 speed reduction to the pump room  
temperature rise but said nahhh.. it would be negligible against the  
1st law of testosterone, Lol, brad


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: 13R balcony protection

[bcasterline]

words vs numbers, 'true' only at the middle of the aisle

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: 13R balcony protection

[bcasterline]

STINKY gets my vote Ron, as most descriptive for some of the numbers I  
have posted (the ones that come from the other end of my mouth). All I  
can say is excuse me. Today I will model a sidewall sticking out over  
a balcony, with and without overhangs and attic eaves, using different  
size BBQ grills, varying wind speed and direction, etc. And I will  
keep it to myself for your sake (so you will not have to hold your  
nose).


Quoting Ron Greenman :


How about fearful?

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM,  wrote:


words vs numbers, 'true' only at the middle of the aisle


__**_
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org 
http://fireball.firesprinkler.**org/mailman/listinfo/**sprinklerforum





--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Wood pellet manufacturing

[bcasterline]

First thing, verify the spelling? If it is pellets, OH2 for the actual  
manufacturing area and OH4.5 and double the outside hose for the areas  
where they get bunched up awaitng shipment.  What are they used for  
anyway, sling-shot amo?


Quoting Todd Williams :


Any insight into protecting a wood pellet manufacturing facility?

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860.535.2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Wood pellet manufacturing

[bcasterline]

EH1 pipe scheduled tree system Todd, 17/32, 286, SSU-- over every sq  
ft under roof. What normal Sprinkler Contractor includes special  
nozzles to guard against auto-ignition in the hammermill? Talk about  
shielded! We all need all the work we can get these days. I'm pretty  
sure this has worked for decades in small towns where the only supply  
is a garavity tank on the hill over yonder. Say what? It is illegal to  
pipe schedule EH nowadays? Fine!, size it like that and spend a few  
minutes proving an area or two ;)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: New Jersey

[bcasterline]

i look forward to the day when the east coast and the heart of the  
country are once again in equillibrium John. I survived a tornado in  
Ruskin Heights Missouri in 1957 so i can ONLY imagine the hardship for  
you and yours right now.


Quoting John Drucker :

Great sight yesterday, electrical repair crews from Texas (Oncor)  
and Missisippi (Mississipi Power) arrived in New Jersey to help  
restore power to over 1.5 million homes still without power. One  
lineman noted "we did it for katrina we'll do it for sandy"


Volunteers from my fire company gathered up supplies,ice,water, hot  
soup and coffee and headed to the bayshore to make life a little  
better. Volunteers from the Amish community (PA) and Christian  
Ministries (Virginia) were on the ground helping people they didn't  
know clean up, what a sight.


Hopefully the noreaster forecast for next wk wouldn't develop.


John Drucker - Mobile Email

- Original Message -
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  


To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
Sent: Fri Nov 02 11:14:08 2012
Subject: RE: New Jersey

Thanks John,

Cold weather is forecast this weekend and 1.5 million homes are without
power. The situation is dire, if anyone has family or friends in the
northeast please reach out and contact them, help in any way you can. People
are running out of fuel, only 35% of the gas stations are open and lines
miles long for cars and hundreds of feet long for generators. Anyone you can
help is important.

John Drucker
New Jersey

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 321
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 6:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: New Jersey

John,

We here in South Florida know all too well what you are experiencing. Our
hearts and prayers are with you all. Know that it will get better and that
the "Calvary is coming".
 John W. Farabee, Vice President


Bass United Fire and Security




561-707-5150





From: John Drucker 
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Thu, November 1, 2012 4:08:40 AM
Subject: New Jersey

Thursday widespread power still out . Major roads cleared of debris and
trees.
Fuel is precious commodity, lines for gas were two miles long on garden
state parkway. Food was starting to be a problem but some stores reopened on
generators brought in or partial power restored.  Our beautiful coastline
and historic locations are mere memories. Sadly people have died as a
result. Gov and Pres toured yesterday, send money. Flooding has destroyed or
damaged buildings and electrical equipment. On the tech side lots of tripped
dry valves and unpowered fire pumps. All in all were lucky.

John Drucker - Mobile Email

- Original Message -
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org

To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
Sent: Wed Oct 31 15:47:20 2012
Subject: Re: Sodium Silicate

Several reasons

Sodium silicate is a white powder that is readily soluble in water,
producing an alkaline  solution. It
is one of a number of related compounds which include sodium
orthosilicate,
Na4SiO4, sodium
pyrosilicate,

Na6Si2O7, and others. All are glassy ,
colourless and dissolve in water.

Sodium silicate is stable in neutral  and
alkaline 
solutions.
In acidic  solutions, the
silicateion reacts with hydrogen ions
to form silicic acid , which when
heated and roasted forms silica gel
, a hard, glassy substance.

The absence in the US of mandatory aging tests, whereby PFP systems are made
to undergo system performance tests *after* the aging and humidity
exposures, are at the root of the continued availability, in North
America,
of PFP products that can become inoperable within weeks of installation.

Norm

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:08 AM, tcf...@bellsouth.net
wrote:


Stops up drops and heads. It will collect in low points also and cause
obstruction.

Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint

- Reply message -
From: "JSM Fire Pro" 
To: 
Subject: Sodium Silicate
Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 11:48 PM


Why does NFPA 13 not permit this additive for fire sprinkler systems?

Thanks in advance.

J. Scott Mitchell, PE

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
-- next part --  An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...

Re: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports

[bcasterline]

instead of Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, how  
about "Benchmark to Determine Just how far from Reality the Actual  
Situation IS from what Is Written Here-In, Now let's See the Numbers"?


Quoting Ron Greenman :


Email needs a "Like" button.

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Bill Brooks  
wrote:



I definitely don't agree with this. Pipe racks are routinely installed in
industrial settings and are used for transiting roadways and other parts of
industrial sites.  The piping on these racks is designed by folks who use
standards other than NFPA 13.  I would recommend using the equivalency
provisions of Section 1.5 in this case and allowing the piping
professionals
the ability to provide the calculations needed.  Sometimes we lose sight of
this important provision.

Bill Brooks

William N. Brooks, P.E.
Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc.
372 Wilett Drive
Severna Park, MD 21146-1904
410-544-3620
410-544-3032 FAX
412-400-6528 Cell


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports

If the spacing of pipe rack supports does not meet the spacing requirements
of the NFPA Standards you need to supplement with intermediate hangers in
order to have a compliant installation.  I just don't use what's given.

Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
CH2MHILL Extension  74102
craig.pr...@ch2m.com



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
rfletc...@aerofire.com
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:48 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports

I agree that you would have to follow NFPA 13/15 hanger requirements for
spacing of pipe stands you are building to support pipe around like a pump
set or a transformer. In the pipe rack however I think you can only use
what
you are given. In the past we have used flanges to join bulk pipes in the
rack. Threaded branchlines hold up okay with hangers every 20 ft. Of course
we did all of this back before the scientists got involved in NFPA 13 so if
it was solid, wouldn't wiggle if pulled on, didn't fall down from its' own
weight and didn't move when flow tested it was good enough.

Ron Fletcher
Aero -Phoenix

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports

Whether it's a pipe stand, a hanger or pipe rack, they must conform to the
spacing requirements of the applicable standard.  NFPA 15(2012) 5.6 defers
to NFPA 13 for hangers.  I can't find any A10.4.1 in NFPA 15, 2012.

So no, 20' hanger spacing is not compliant with the NFPA 13 or NFPA 15
standards.  The assertions of the structural engineer are incorrect.

Additionally,  I would suggest looking at the installation manuals provided
by the coupling manufacturers to see if they refer to any particular
support
spacing requirements if there is specific direction needed.

Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
CH2MHILL Extension  74102
craig.pr...@ch2m.com


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Hinson,
Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports

I've got a couple projects which have pipe racks for supporting above grade
firewater piping.  These rack supports are spaced at 20' or more on center.
From the NFPA 13 Handbook at the beginning of Chapter 9, pipestands are to
have the same safety factors as hangers.  NFPA 15 is suggested for
additional guidance.  NFPA 13 limits hanger spacing to 15'.  NFPA 15 (2012)
Sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.3 state that firewater piping shall be supported
under fire conditions and shall be supported from steel or concrete
structural members or pipestands.  "Do these also need to conform to the 15
ft maximum spacing?"

I've received this question from a structural engineer regarding the pipe
support requirements for NFPA 13 (2010) Chapter 9.  His assertion is that
this refers to pipe stand and pipe hanger spacing requirements for piping
8"
and smaller only.  As such, his feeling is that there are no limits on
spacing for concrete and steel support conditions other than those require

RE: NFPA 25

[bcasterline]

I know of a contractor that sends an inspection fitter out to inspect  
the original installation! this fitter's feet DOES leave the floor,  
and scours the Standards for total compliance. This way, if the  
original installer loses the I.T,&M, nothing should come back to bite  
them so hard they go out of business. Good Business Plan, IMHO.


Quoting Tom Duross :


Some of us although are following earlier versions as adopted by our States.
I'd be willing to bet most of the changes, clarifications, etc., made to the
current edition would have no teeth in our court of law.  It would make
things easier to justify but probably be disallowed.

It is tempting, very tempting, when conducting a quarterly or annual
inspection to almost wear blinders when inspecting some systems so
apparently in (violation?/error?/sloppy?).  It gets tricky.
The head is missing an escutcheon but not report due to its rough too high.


I wonder if anyone has been successful in arguing the use of a more current
edition.
TD

and a rather accurate opinion.  It's just those trying to shift the
responsibility for their mistakes that seem to have a problem with such
explicit text.

Roland


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

[bcasterline]

the fill line would only have city water behind it, where-as the  
metered return would have the fire pump behind it, meaning the metered  
return could enter the tank anywhere and still prevail, but there  
would be an elevation where the fill would be unable to STUFF more  
water in-- interesting theory-- i do not agree with the IF/Then, but  
the vortex thing makes sense


Quoting Kenneth Berman :


I am curious about the tank failure in Florida. I want to know if they were
using a meter loop to test the fire pump. I've seen some meter loops
discharge directly into the tank instead of being piped to the top of the
pool as the fill lines are. If piping the fill line to the top, shouldn't
the metered return line go to the top also? My concern is getting the tank
of water spinning in a vortex and making the tank collapse.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ron Greenman  wrote:


Scot,

I tried searching OSHA and couldn't find anything more.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Ron Greenman wrote:

> I wrote that Brad. I can also lift heavy things.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Brad Casterline <
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>wrote:
>
>> scot,
>>
>> i searched the archives yesterday when you posted this ('lake placid')
>> because i remember George Church first posted it several months ago. I
did
>> not reply because none of those posts said whether tank was bolted or
>> welded. Mistakes? as i type i am reminded of a quote i heard years ago
>> and i
>> use it nearly daily, since it fits me to a tee--
>> I MIGHT BE SLOW BUT I MAKE A LOT OF MISTAKES. (author unkown, to me
>> anyway).
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: å...  [mailto:eurekaig...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:18 AM
>> To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY
>>
>> Tank fail was in FL, not NY--that they were wearing short sleeve shirts
in
>> early April should have been the clue.  Make mistakes?  I do.
>>
>> I don't expect a response on this question, in part due to my conviction
>> that we work with Fire Codes that provide safety conditions
>>  a-level-above-the-minimum.  If not, and we really were so close to
>> Occam's
>> dividing line between unsafe/safe, would we not be quicker to offer and
>> solve each other's life safety challenges and questions better?  It
>> appears
>> to me, that money and liability take a priority before volunteering to
>> improve safety.  And that luxury suggests we are above-the-minimum level
>> of
>> safety.
>>
>> best of health to you,
>>
>>
>> scot deal
>> excelsior fire
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know and care to share, whether the ~ 300,000 gallon tank
that
>> failed about the 7th of April in Lake Placid, NY in 2011 was a welded,
or
>> a
>> bolted tank?  I am doing no litigation work, nor I am being paid by any
>> party relative to this incident.
>>
>>
>>
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bu
>> rsts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wave<
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bursts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wave
>
>>
>> Scot Deal
>> Excelsior Fire Engineering
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <
>>
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
>> s/20121116/9d054781/attachment.html<
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121116/9d054781/attachment.html
>
>> >
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Greenman
> Instructor
> Fire Protection Engineering Technology
> Bates Technical College
> 1101 So. Yakima Ave.
> Tacoma, WA 98405
>
> rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu
>
> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/
>
> 253.680.7346
> 253.576.9700 (cell)
>
> Member:
> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC
>
> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis
> Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
>



--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121116/d9e42d04/attachment.html
>

Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

[bcasterline]

on the other hand, a vortex might relieve pressure on the  
circumference. i think it was a matter of like chris said-- a vaccumnn  
was drawn, if only for an instant, allowing the weight of the ocean of  
air above it to CRUSH it.

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

the fill line would only have city water behind it, where-as the  
metered return would have the fire pump behind it, meaning the  
metered return could enter the tank anywhere and still prevail, but  
there would be an elevation where the fill would be unable to STUFF  
more water in-- interesting theory-- i do not agree with the  
IF/Then, but the vortex thing makes sense


Quoting Kenneth Berman :


I am curious about the tank failure in Florida. I want to know if they were
using a meter loop to test the fire pump. I've seen some meter loops
discharge directly into the tank instead of being piped to the top of the
pool as the fill lines are. If piping the fill line to the top, shouldn't
the metered return line go to the top also? My concern is getting the tank
of water spinning in a vortex and making the tank collapse.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ron Greenman  wrote:


Scot,

I tried searching OSHA and couldn't find anything more.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Ron Greenman 
wrote:



I wrote that Brad. I can also lift heavy things.


On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Brad Casterline <

bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>wrote:



scot,

i searched the archives yesterday when you posted this ('lake placid')
because i remember George Church first posted it several months ago. I

did

not reply because none of those posts said whether tank was bolted or
welded. Mistakes? as i type i am reminded of a quote i heard years ago
and i
use it nearly daily, since it fits me to a tee--
I MIGHT BE SLOW BUT I MAKE A LOT OF MISTAKES. (author unkown, to me
anyway).

-Original Message-
From: å...  [mailto:eurekaig...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:18 AM
To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org
Subject: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

Tank fail was in FL, not NY--that they were wearing short sleeve shirts

in

early April should have been the clue.  Make mistakes?  I do.

I don't expect a response on this question, in part due to my conviction
that we work with Fire Codes that provide safety conditions
 a-level-above-the-minimum.  If not, and we really were so close to
Occam's
dividing line between unsafe/safe, would we not be quicker to offer and
solve each other's life safety challenges and questions better?  It
appears
to me, that money and liability take a priority before volunteering to
improve safety.  And that luxury suggests we are above-the-minimum level
of
safety.

best of health to you,


scot deal
excelsior fire




Does anyone know and care to share, whether the ~ 300,000 gallon tank

that

failed about the 7th of April in Lake Placid, NY in 2011 was a welded,

or

a
bolted tank?  I am doing no litigation work, nor I am being paid by any
party relative to this incident.




http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bu

rsts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wave<

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bursts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wave




Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire Engineering
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<


http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment

s/20121116/9d054781/attachment.html<

http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121116/9d054781/attachment.html



>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis
Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)





--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinkler

Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

[bcasterline]

no way Bruce-- impossible to overfill or over-pressurize this type of  
water storage tank



Quoting Bruce Verhei :

Or the opposite. Tank provided with in adequate atomospheric  
ventilation, overfilled, and pressurized.


But I'd much rather hear from someone who has facts than listen to  
my own speculation.


Bv


Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T

-Original message-
From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Sat, Nov 17, 2012 07:31:35 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

on the other hand, a vortex might relieve pressure on the  
circumference. i think it was a matter of like chris said-- a  
vaccumnn was drawn, if only for an instant, allowing the weight of  
the ocean of air above it to CRUSH it.

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

the fill line would only have city water behind it, where-as the >  
metered return would have the fire pump behind it, meaning the >  
metered return could enter the tank anywhere and still prevail, but  
> there would be an elevation where the fill would be unable to  
STUFF > more water in-- interesting theory-- i do not agree with  
the > IF/Then, but the vortex thing makes sense


Quoting Kenneth Berman :


I am curious about the tank failure in Florida. I want to know if they were
using a meter loop to test the fire pump. I've seen some meter loops
discharge directly into the tank instead of being piped to the top of the
pool as the fill lines are. If piping the fill line to the top, shouldn't
the metered return line go to the top also? My concern is getting the tank
of water spinning in a vortex and making the tank collapse.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ron Greenman  
 wrote:



Scot,

I tried searching OSHA and couldn't find anything more.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Ron Greenman 
wrote:



I wrote that Brad. I can also lift heavy things.


On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Brad Casterline <

bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>wrote:



scot,

i searched the archives yesterday when you posted this ('lake placid')
because i remember George Church first posted it several months ago. I

did

not reply because none of those posts said whether tank was bolted or
welded. Mistakes? as i type i am reminded of a quote i heard years ago
and i
use it nearly daily, since it fits me to a tee--
I MIGHT BE SLOW BUT I MAKE A LOT OF MISTAKES. (author unkown, to me
anyway).

-Original Message-
From: å...  [mailto:eurekaig...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:18 AM
To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org
Subject: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

Tank fail was in FL, not NY--that they were wearing short sleeve shirts

in

early April should have been the clue.  Make mistakes?  I do.

I don't expect a response on this question, in part due to my conviction
that we work with Fire Codes that provide safety conditions
 a-level-above-the-minimum.  If not, and we really were so close to
Occam's
dividing line between unsafe/safe, would we not be quicker to offer and
solve each other's life safety challenges and questions better?  It
appears
to me, that money and liability take a priority before volunteering to
improve safety.  And that luxury suggests we are above-the-minimum level
of
safety.

best of health to you,


scot deal
excelsior fire




Does anyone know and care to share, whether the ~ 300,000 gallon tank

that

failed about the 7th of April in Lake Placid, NY in 2011 was a welded,

or

a
bolted tank?  I am doing no litigation work, nor I am being paid by any
party relative to this incident.




http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bu

rsts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wave<

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bursts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wave




Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire Engineering
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<


http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment

s/20121116/9d054781/attachment.html<

http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121116/9d054781/attachment.html



>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis
Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1

Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

[bcasterline]

i guess i could run some numbers BEFORE i run my mouth. i think it  
imploded as opposed to exploded-- is their any doubt it did one or the  
other? i got this weekend off, so i'll give it more thought, including  
the doubt.


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

no way Bruce-- impossible to overfill or over-pressurize this type  
of water storage tank



Quoting Bruce Verhei :

Or the opposite. Tank provided with in adequate atomospheric  
ventilation, overfilled, and pressurized.


But I'd much rather hear from someone who has facts than listen to  
my own speculation.


Bv


Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T

-Original message-
From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Sat, Nov 17, 2012 07:31:35 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

on the other hand, a vortex might relieve pressure on the  
circumference. i think it was a matter of like chris said-- a  
vaccumnn was drawn, if only for an instant, allowing the weight of  
the ocean of air above it to CRUSH it.

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

the fill line would only have city water behind it, where-as the >  
metered return would have the fire pump behind it, meaning the >  
metered return could enter the tank anywhere and still prevail,  
but > there would be an elevation where the fill would be unable  
to STUFF > more water in-- interesting theory-- i do not agree  
with the > IF/Then, but the vortex thing makes sense


Quoting Kenneth Berman :

I am curious about the tank failure in Florida. I want to know if  
they were

using a meter loop to test the fire pump. I've seen some meter loops
discharge directly into the tank instead of being piped to the top of the
pool as the fill lines are. If piping the fill line to the top, shouldn't
the metered return line go to the top also? My concern is getting the tank
of water spinning in a vortex and making the tank collapse.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ron Greenman  
 wrote:



Scot,

I tried searching OSHA and couldn't find anything more.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Ron Greenman 
wrote:



I wrote that Brad. I can also lift heavy things.


On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Brad Casterline <

bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>wrote:



scot,

i searched the archives yesterday when you posted this ('lake placid')
because i remember George Church first posted it several months ago. I

did

not reply because none of those posts said whether tank was bolted or
welded. Mistakes? as i type i am reminded of a quote i heard years ago
and i
use it nearly daily, since it fits me to a tee--
I MIGHT BE SLOW BUT I MAKE A LOT OF MISTAKES. (author unkown, to me
anyway).

-Original Message-
From: å...  [mailto:eurekaig...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:18 AM
To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org
Subject: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

Tank fail was in FL, not NY--that they were wearing short sleeve shirts

in

early April should have been the clue.  Make mistakes?  I do.

I don't expect a response on this question, in part due to my  
conviction

that we work with Fire Codes that provide safety conditions
a-level-above-the-minimum.  If not, and we really were so close to
Occam's
dividing line between unsafe/safe, would we not be quicker to offer and
solve each other's life safety challenges and questions better?  It
appears
to me, that money and liability take a priority before volunteering to
improve safety.  And that luxury suggests we are  
above-the-minimum level

of
safety.

best of health to you,


scot deal
excelsior fire




Does anyone know and care to share, whether the ~ 300,000 gallon tank

that

failed about the 7th of April in Lake Placid, NY in 2011 was a welded,

or

a
bolted tank?  I am doing no litigation work, nor I am being paid by any
party relative to this incident.




http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bu

rsts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wave<

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/185855/250/Massive-water-tank-bursts-kills-two-following-tsunami-like-wave




Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire Engineering
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<


http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment

s/20121116/9d054781/attachment.html<

http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121116/9d054781/attachment.html





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.ed

Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

[bcasterline]

The tank did not burst. Tornados do not blow the roof off a house,  
even though the news might say it did. A slight atmospheric pressure  
difference does phenomenal things to structures. A full and  
pressurized (with water) tank would be like a reading at churn. So it  
either 'shivered' as Frans suggested, or got 'sucked in like a pop  
can' as Chris suggested. The numbers I am going to run are "what is  
the inside dry surface area times atmospheric pressure differece  
required to CRUSH the tank". (as soon as the extra strength Tylenol  
kick in :))


Quoting Ron Greenman :


All I've seen about this is the news reports and the OSHA report of the
occurrence. The photos are all after the fact. OSHA is only concerned about
recording the deaths in the event report. The news says, depending on the
degree of sensationalism, that the tank either burst or EXPLODED, knocking
down the building and creating a Tsunami like wave. Lot of speculation here
and some pretty exciting words to describe an event nobody actually saw
except a couple of dead guys. There's a chance the building collapsed first
and ruptured the tank. Osama bin Laden could have flown a plane into the
thing. Implosion. Collapse from a vacuum. Rupture. Explosion. An elaborate
method to cover-up the murder of the two workers by a rival sprinkler
cartel. And what numbers are you planning on running Brad?

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM,  wrote:


i guess i could run some numbers BEFORE i run my mouth. i think it
imploded as opposed to exploded-- is their any doubt it did one or the
other? i got this weekend off, so i'll give it more thought, including the
doubt.


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

 no way Bruce-- impossible to overfill or over-pressurize this type of

water storage tank


Quoting Bruce Verhei :

 Or the opposite. Tank provided with in adequate atomospheric

ventilation, overfilled, and pressurized.

But I'd much rather hear from someone who has facts than listen to my
own speculation.

Bv


Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T

-Original message-
From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org
Sent: Sat, Nov 17, 2012 07:31:35 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

on the other hand, a vortex might relieve pressure on the circumference.
i think it was a matter of like chris said-- a vaccumnn was drawn, if only
for an instant, allowing the weight of the ocean of air above it to CRUSH
it.
Quoting bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com:

 the fill line would only have city water behind it, where-as the >

metered return would have the fire pump behind it, meaning the > metered
return could enter the tank anywhere and still prevail, but > there would
be an elevation where the fill would be unable to STUFF > more water in--
interesting theory-- i do not agree with the > IF/Then, but the vortex
thing makes sense

Quoting Kenneth Berman :

 I am curious about the tank failure in Florida. I want to know if they

were
using a meter loop to test the fire pump. I've seen some meter loops
discharge directly into the tank instead of being piped to the top of
the
pool as the fill lines are. If piping the fill line to the top,
shouldn't
the metered return line go to the top also? My concern is getting the
tank
of water spinning in a vortex and making the tank collapse.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ron Greenman 
wrote:

 Scot,


I tried searching OSHA and couldn't find anything more.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Ron Greenman 
wrote:



 I wrote that Brad. I can also lift heavy things.



On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Brad Casterline <


bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>wrote:



 scot,


i searched the archives yesterday when you posted this ('lake
placid')
because i remember George Church first posted it several months
ago. I


did



not reply because none of those posts said whether tank was bolted or

welded. Mistakes? as i type i am reminded of a quote i heard years
ago
and i
use it nearly daily, since it fits me to a tee--
I MIGHT BE SLOW BUT I MAKE A LOT OF MISTAKES. (author unkown, to me
anyway).

-Original Message-
From: å...  [mailto:eurekaig...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:18 AM
To:  
SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.**org

Subject: water storage tank: 300,000 gallon size: failure: FL not NY

Tank fail was in FL, not NY--that they were wearing short sleeve
shirts


in



early April should have been the clue.  Make mistakes?  I do.


I don't expect a response on this question, in part due to my
conviction
that we work with Fire Codes that provide safety conditions
a-level-above-the-minimum.  If not, and we really were so close to
Occam's
dividing line between unsafe/safe, would we not be quicker to offer
and
solve each other's life safety challenges and questions better?  It
appears
to me, that money and liability take a priority before volunteering
to
improve safety.  And that luxury suggests we are above-the-minimum
level
of
safety.

best of

Re: 2010 NFPA 13: high piled storage: in-rack and ceiling sprinklers: riser coverage areas: performance based

[bcasterline]

scot,
play like there was not one single control valve in the whole  
sheebang, calc every head in the airspace above a certain floor area  
untill you find the most demanding (balanced at the ONE common point,  
then add 'system control valves based on ease of maitenance :). i  
think this is like you were on the road and got a flat-- first thing  
you do is call someone for advice, even though you know they ae going  
to say 'either put the spare on or call road assistance :)




Quoting "å... " :


So, no in-rack control-valves up at ceiling level (to save piping on the
N-systems we have in this building).  Might as well put the control valves
down low, since we know the in-racks are going to flow when the forklifts
play Super Mario with them.  Essentially then, we have separate risers for
overhead and in-racks.  Thank you, Dewayne.

scot deal
excelsior fire
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum




___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Sprinklers under platforms

[bcasterline]

does anybody else find the fact that the floor itself is an obstuction  
to pattern development a bit disturbing? at 6 feet between sprinklers  
with 7 inch max deflector above the floor, the 'dry spots' are going  
to be 2 or 3 feet long!


Quoting rfletc...@aerofire.com:

8.15.6.1 refers to "combustible" platforms. I think 8.16.5.2 #3 is  
there in case the platform is made of grating. The handbook says  
8.16.5.2 is there as an exception to the rule that all "combustible"  
spaces be sprinklered.


 Ron Fletcher
Aero Phoenix

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Cahill, Christopher

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinklers under platforms

Is it enclosed concealed space under the platform except for the  
perforated deck?  Guess I haven't seen any equipment platform that  
is enclosed underneath making them all need heads.  But if it meets  
#1 and the only question is tight yeah I think so.  I think the  
requirement is to keep trash out.  Yes , I know that's what #1 says  
and seems redundant to say again a different way in #3.


Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns &  
McDonnell

8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone:  952.656.3652
Fax:  952.229.2923
ccah...@burnsmcd.com
www.burnsmcd.com

Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For  
*Registered in: MN





-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
craig.pr...@ch2m.com

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:51 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sprinklers under platforms

Got an elevated non-combustible equipment access platform that is 8"  
off the floor.  The contractor is informing the GC that because the  
platform is over 48" wide there needs to be sprinklers below.


Trying to put this fire out and it appears the NFPA 13-2007,  
8.15.6.2 would cover it.


However the deck is perforated aluminum plate with 1/4" holes on  
1/2" centers with a polyurethane non-slip coating on top and there  
is question on whether 8.15.6.2 would nullify the permission to omit  
sprinklers "(3) The floor over the space is of tight construction".


There are no flammable of combustible liquids in the space.

Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
CH2MHILL Extension  74102
craig.pr...@ch2m.com


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum




___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Sprinklers under platforms

[bcasterline]

Perfect examples of the limitations of 13 as a Standard. Question:  
Does a 50" sqare ceiling cloud require heads above and below?  
Definatley below, but what if the distance from the main ceilinf to  
the cloud does not exceed 12", or 22"? For some reason, upon reading  
the original post I thought 'No sprinks required because the height of  
the platform above the main floor does not exceed 12". A little  
twisted I know, but tying depths and heights to deflector distance  
would help 13 address non-standard situations like this in a more  
physical, as opposed to semantic way, IMHO.


Quoting "Law, Kevin W" :


We have a similar question about the need for sprinklers below large
industrial equipment mounted on skids.  Some are asking if we need
sprinklers below these chillers and compressors that are about 12-18
inches above the floor resting on structural steel skids.  My belief is
that at the core of the need to sprinkler below an "obstruction" is what
is the hazard below the obstruction that needs additional sprinklers.
The concrete floor below a piece of machinery does not present a fire
hazard.  The examples given in the standard of conveyors and cutting
tables are prone to have stuff under them that catch on fire in large
enough quantites to cause a problem.   We put sprinkler over hazards,
not under them.  Sprinkler coverage is to get water onto the
combustibles, not just the floor.


Kevin Law, PE
PTF Fire Protection Engineer
Bechtel National - WTP Project
Ph.   509-371-8296
Cell   509-531-0093

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron
Greenman
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:12 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Sprinklers under platforms

I was going to say indoors does not make trash accumulation a non-issue,
we sprinkler under conveyors and cutting table, but once you say
moveable it becomes furniture and and sprinklering makes no sense. I
have four by four worktables in my lab that I'm constantly moving
around. Nobody has ever thought about sprinklering under them even
during discussions about many of the issues raised in this thread.
Should we sprinkler under those king  size beds in hotel rooms? And
please don't say I'm bringing questions/issues into the discussion that
are obviously unrelated. I could say the same about many of the
"stretches" I think we all make in trying to apply Rule A to Situation
B. I personally think a large bed is a greater fire hazard than this
platform.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Todd Williams  wrote:


Since it is a moveable object, sprinkler protection is impractical.
However, if the hydraulic fluid is combustible and there is a leak,
fluid could end up under the platform and the potential does exist for



a shielded fire. What is the surrounding occupancy and what is there
for sprinkler protection? At what density/area?


At 10:32 AM 11/30/2012, you wrote:
>Let's review the conditions:
>
>This is indoors so trash accumulation is a non-issue.
>
>It is 8" off the floor and the space between the deck and the floor
>is
enclosed with sheet metal.
>
>The platform is movable by fork truck for equipment maintenance
>access,
it is not permanent.
>
>One small section (8ft x 4ft) does have a lift mechanism where there
>is a
small hydraulic cylinder with hydraulic fluid.  (this just came up)
>
>There are no flammable or combustible liquids under or near the rest
>of
the platform.
>
>The platform is non-combustible throughout.
>
>The deck is perforated aluminum with 1/4" holes spaced on 1/2"

centers.

>
>
>I could see some justification of a sprinkler below the lift section
>due
to hydraulic fluid but the quantity is so small that if in any type of



building it would not require any kind of protection whatsoever, so I
would lean to exclude any sprinklers below the platform, period.
>
>
>
>Craig L. Prahl, CET
>Fire Protection
>CH2MHILL
>Lockwood Greene
>1500 International Drive
>Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
>Direct - 864.599.4102
>Fax - 864.599.8439
>CH2MHILL Extension  74102
>craig.pr...@ch2m.com
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:
sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:12 AM
>To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>Subject: RE: Sprinklers under platforms
>
>Craig,
>
>We just had a similar case yesterday where we successfully used this
section to eliminate coverage. This platform was not grated however. I



think the heart of the question is does this meet the 8.15.2 (3)
requirement of tight construction? I had it in my mind that this was
to slow fire moving from one are to the next. The trash issue was
already addressed in #1 so I didn't think that was the reasoning.
Based on Chris statement I am rethinking. Could this be to prevent
trash collection that isn't wind - borne? I will be interested to hear



others understanding o

RE: Sprinklers under platforms

[bcasterline]

none of us likes gray Chris, least of all we engineering technicians,  
since our job is to ensure the intent of you EORs and AHJs is APPLIED  
to the physical reality of the field. To do this we need measuring  
devices (things with numbers on them). But if your intents do not come  
with numbers, what hope of doing a good job do we have?



Quoting "Cahill, Christopher" :

True but at some point of clear space above the concrete floor  
becomes storage for misc items.  Maybe not at 6" maybe not at 18"   
but at some point it does.  Boils down to judgment of the EOR and  
AHJ.  Mindful most AHJ are probably going to ask for/require the  
sprinkler earlier than most EOR's.  18" you are starting to get into  
my gray area.  True, you probably can't get enough filters under an  
18" high space to be a big deal or uncontrollable fire.   But why  
risk at $150-$200 per head for most of these drops?


Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group
Burns & McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone:  952.656.3652
Fax:  952.229.2923
ccah...@burnsmcd.com
www.burnsmcd.com

Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
*Registered in: MN





-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Law,  
Kevin W

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:34 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinklers under platforms

We have a similar question about the need for sprinklers below large  
industrial equipment mounted on skids.  Some are asking if we need  
sprinklers below these chillers and compressors that are about 12-18  
inches above the floor resting on structural steel skids.  My belief  
is that at the core of the need to sprinkler below an "obstruction"  
is what is the hazard below the obstruction that needs additional  
sprinklers.
The concrete floor below a piece of machinery does not present a  
fire hazard.  The examples given in the standard of conveyors and  
cutting tables are prone to have stuff under them that catch on fire  
in large

enough quantites to cause a problem.   We put sprinkler over hazards,
not under them.  Sprinkler coverage is to get water onto the  
combustibles, not just the floor.



Kevin Law, PE
PTF Fire Protection Engineer
Bechtel National - WTP Project
Ph.   509-371-8296
Cell   509-531-0093

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:12 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Sprinklers under platforms

I was going to say indoors does not make trash accumulation a  
non-issue, we sprinkler under conveyors and cutting table, but once  
you say moveable it becomes furniture and and sprinklering makes no  
sense. I have four by four worktables in my lab that I'm constantly  
moving around. Nobody has ever thought about sprinklering under them  
even during discussions about many of the issues raised in this  
thread.
Should we sprinkler under those king  size beds in hotel rooms? And  
please don't say I'm bringing questions/issues into the discussion  
that are obviously unrelated. I could say the same about many of the  
"stretches" I think we all make in trying to apply Rule A to  
Situation B. I personally think a large bed is a greater fire hazard  
than this platform.


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Todd Williams  wrote:


Since it is a moveable object, sprinkler protection is impractical.
However, if the hydraulic fluid is combustible and there is a leak,
fluid could end up under the platform and the potential does exist for



a shielded fire. What is the surrounding occupancy and what is there
for sprinkler protection? At what density/area?


At 10:32 AM 11/30/2012, you wrote:
>Let's review the conditions:
>
>This is indoors so trash accumulation is a non-issue.
>
>It is 8" off the floor and the space between the deck and the floor
>is
enclosed with sheet metal.
>
>The platform is movable by fork truck for equipment maintenance
>access,
it is not permanent.
>
>One small section (8ft x 4ft) does have a lift mechanism where there
>is a
small hydraulic cylinder with hydraulic fluid.  (this just came up)
>
>There are no flammable or combustible liquids under or near the rest
>of
the platform.
>
>The platform is non-combustible throughout.
>
>The deck is perforated aluminum with 1/4" holes spaced on 1/2"

centers.

>
>
>I could see some justification of a sprinkler below the lift section
>due
to hydraulic fluid but the quantity is so small that if in any type of



building it would not require any kind of protection whatsoever, so I
would lean to exclude any sprinklers below the platform, period.
>
>
>
>Craig L. Prahl, CET
>Fire Protection
>CH2MHILL
>Lockwood Greene
>1500 International Drive
>Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
>Direct - 864.599.4102
>Fax - 864.599.8439

RE: Water damage from multiple opened sprinklers

[bcasterline]

Dear @riskmanage,
there is no similar experience: this is a clear case of present/former  
drinking buddy vandalism. the report from the municipality is  
superfulous (a worker there noticed a spike in usage, shut it down,  
drove around town, saw no prob., brought it back up). By this time the  
two whom had been messing with the system sobered up enough to close  
the system valve. I am thinking Jake and Burt, a couple young guys in  
a small town feeling the despair of 50% unemployment. Or Not.



Quoting Matt Grise :


Has the relief valve been tested to see if it works?

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II
Sales Engineer
Alliance Fire Protection
130 w 9th Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116

*Licensed in KS & MO

913.888.0647 ph
913.888.0618 f
913.927.0222 cell
www. AFPsprink.com


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dan  
Arbel

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Water damage from multiple opened sprinklers

Dear Forum members,

I am investigating a case where 10 out of 45 sprinklers were found open
causing  total loss of food raw material .

No fire traces were found.

Normal static pressure is 75 PSI.

There is a report that the municipality shutoff water supply and reopened
the supply during the night.

However the pressure gauges show no permanent deformation and the 12 bars
relief valve does not show any trace of leakage.

I found several sprinkler fitting  loose with leakage between the fittings
and pipes (loose bolts).

Corrosion traces are consistent with several days leakage (my inspection
took place 4 days after the event).

I would appreciate a report of similar experience by the forum members.

Regards,

www.riskmanage.com
d...@riskmanage.com
T:  +972-4-8243337
F:  +972-4-8243278
M: +972-52-6611337



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum




___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: advice

[bcasterline]

i vote for forgiveness all around, this one time.

Quoting Justin Reid :

And the reviewer stated it as though it was fact. This comment has  
the potential to harm this persons ability to conduct business and  
make a living. If Steve's remedy is not effective, I would think  
this has the potential to be a libel case.


Justin Reid

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:56 PM, "Steve Leyton"  
 wrote:



I'm familiar with both the agency and plans reviewer here in San Diego
County that Ken is referring to.  This agency is a private company that
for many years has been the "go to" 3rd party plan review consultant for
structural, non-structural and FLS on public projects for the county and
some municipalities.   The issue here is that they are, by contractual
extension, functioning as a public agency in this scenario and the
subjective comments in question are completely and totally out of line,
ESPECIALLY if they are off base.

Even a completely moron who walks up to the counter with his or her hair
on fire is entitled (usually by law) to a fair and impartial review.
If someone has so egregiously breached the professional code of conduct
that is imposed by engineering or contracting licensure, there are means
and methods to file a complaint or comment with the issuing agency.
Otherwise, to impugn the character or credentials of a submitter is not
only unprofessional, it might well be a statutory violation of the plan
reviewer's conduct as articulated by the procedures or scope of work in
the contract his company has with the governmental agency who hired
them.

If you're the submitter, and are convinced (rightly or wrongly) that
this comment is inappropriate, you first have to ask, "Do I want to try
and solve this with the plans reviewer to preserve the relationship."
If so, contact them directly to discuss and plead your case both for
your character and to defend the basis of design.   If you don't care
what they might think going forward, or if you try that and it doesn't
resolve the situation, you contact their direct-report supervisor with a
3-point letter:

1) I disagree with the comment(s) made by Plan Reviewer X, based on
(substantiate your design here).   I have attempted to discuss this with
X, but we have reached a point in the process where conversation does
not appear to be productive.

2) I am offended by the comments made by X, because he/she has
unprofessionally made this issue personal and groundlessly attacked my
character and qualifications.

3) I request an immediate in-person meeting with yourself and X, so that
we can resolve both the technical and personal issues that have arisen
and complete this review in the most expeditious manner possible.

This way you call them out and can still claim to be "living in the
solution".


Steve Leyton




-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron
Greenman
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: advice

I question the credentials of a lot of third party reviewers, Burton.
Especially those that would make such a comment. And in this case the
designer's ability to design isn't in question, it's his ability to run
a computer program. I had a reviewer that refused to accept hand calcs
with the excuse that there were always too many mistakes. I used to send
him computer calcs in which I purposely entered erroneous data and which
he always approved. He trusted the Great and All Knowing Computer Oz
because "confusers can't make mistakes" but not those pesky hand calcs
that are easy to review for accuracy. Why? Because he couldn't do or
read calcs. I don't know the issues with Ken's friend, the reviewer,
etc., but the comment was unprofessional and so I doubt the reviewers
competency.

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Ford, Charles  wrote:


Uh.  Any chance that there is some truth to the statement? The least
he could do is point out some of the most obvious errors ( assuming
there are
some) Your friend could revise or defend.
I have a friend who is a 3rd party reviewer. His stories of lousy,
wrong, inadequate, even potentially dangerous designs will curl your

hair.

Just sayin.

C. Burton Ford
NICET Certified IV
NFPA Certified Fire Protection Specialist Cintas Fire Protection Inc
1038 Conshohocken Rd
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Tel 610-233-1400
Fax 610-233-1401


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:
sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matsuda,

Richard

Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:02 AM
To: parsleyconsult...@cox.net; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: advice

Don't know what do tell you about this...it's really not a proper

comment

to reject a submittal.
I guess the best thing to do is make the corrections and check it

twice

before resubmitting.

The best (worst) comment that I've heard of was: "Seek professional
ass

Re: Combustible Concealed Space

[bcasterline]

I don't get this, Rons. Are you talking about what NFPA 5000 was  
supposed to become 30 years ago? That was also the deadline for  
converting to metric. But since the American West was not won 25.4  
millimeters by 25.4 millimeters, but inch by inch, and most systems  
are installed on Earth, we can keep things like we like them. I need  
to ponder the Code vs Standard fued, and will do so for the remainder  
of the evening.


Quoting Ron Greenman :


Yeah Ron. When will that happen? Any day like any day we'll adopt the
metric system? I think the next time an AHJ tells me the state code adopted
version of the IBC is the code, and the referenced version of 13 in that
code is just a standard I'm going to revert to a younger version of me and
there will be a set of bloody knuckles and a bloody nose. You can decide
who's sporting what.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Brad Casterline
wrote:


fill it (nearly) full of non-comb insulation and tell everyone to have a
nice day :) (that still works, right? the insulation i mean)

-Original Message-
From: rfletc...@aerofire.com [mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:51 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Combustible Concealed Space

It's another case of Architects designing buildings that don't comply with
NFPA #13s' construction requirements. When will they learn that NFPA 13 is
building code as well as a sprinkler system installation standard?

Ron Fletcher
Aero Phoenix

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:35 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Combustible Concealed Space

I have a combustible concealed space above the main floor of a two storey
building that is required to be sprinklered. This space is 16" deep and
consists of open web trusses spaced 16" on-centre. The webs are made of
2x4's, causing considerable obstructions. This space qualifies for the use
of heads listed for this use.

My questions/dilemmas are as following:

(1) There is no feasible possibility to avoid obstructions. Any comments?
(2) As far as I know, the CC heads are only made by TYCO and they are not
ULC listed. I'm in a Canadian jurisdiction. So can I say there is no listed
head (as the building code validates only ULC listings) and use standard
heads?
(3) If I use CC heads, can I use exposed blazemaster piping (subject to the
restrictions of course)? The problem is exposed blazemaster piping is
allowed only in its UL listing and not in ULC. So just going around in
circles.

Thanks for any comments.

Tony



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Combustible Concealed Space

[bcasterline]

not messing with you Ron-- i totally do not understand how words can  
better describe the built environment better than numbers, i.e.,  
Code=Words, Standard=Numbers. i am terrible with numbers, as you know,  
and have warned me about (i was an English major when i dropped out of  
college), but i love the physical concepts of sprinklers, since they  
entail the sum total of everything know about phycics until now,  
including quantum mechanics. i have only had one broken bone, and that  
was my nose, so, no, i am not messing with you sir.


Quoting Ron Greenman :


Brad,

I hesitate to get you going but... and I've said this a lot The IBC,
NFPA 5000, Dr. Seuss' Building Code, etc. are models presented to the
public as a method of regulating buildings that can be adopted, usually by
reference  (cheap) or by publication (expensive), written by private code
model providers/companies looking to sell books. Jurisdictional entities
then choose a model (pretty much universally the IBC, much to the chagrin
of Dr. Seuss) to adopt as law. They have the opportunity to amend it before
adoption by adding, deleting or changing passages. Upon adoption the IBC
ceases to be the official title of that law/code, usually becoming the
Revised Code of (enter name of entity here) # whatever. Once adopted any
document that is referenced as being a part of that code are code, no
matter what it may have been entitled before the adoption, such as Standard
for the). The big difference, as I see it between a model code,
standard, guideline, etc. is a model code has enabling language whereas a
standard does not and so needs to be referenced. A guideline won't be
referenced but may be mentioned as a recommended practice. Other referenced
publications can be documents originating from ASCE,such as number 7, ASTM,
etc. If you look at IBC Chapter 9, you will find (and I don't have the
numbers in my head) 904.xx referencing NFPA 13 (as amended) as the part the
code governing the installation of sprinklers in commercial buildings, and
904.xy and 904.xz referencing 13R & 13D for installation in multi-family
and SFD respectively. Once adopted as part of a law there is no distinction
regarding whether something is a code or not. When documents adopted as
code disagree, as sometimes occurs wit Federal work where the IBC/IFC and
NFPA 101 are both adopted then the more restrictive typically applies.

As for the metric system let's use the basic unit of measurement, the
meter, mas opposed to the imperial unit of the foot. Go smaller and 100
centimeters equals the meter while 1000 meters equal the kilometer, all
multiples of ten. Let's look at the foot. Twelve inches, broken down into
1/4s. 1/8s, 1/16ths, etc. Going the other way it's 5280 feet that make a
mile, but not a nautical mile. Then there are yards, chains, furlongs to
add spice. Weight? 1000 grams equals a kilogram, but 16 ounces equals a
pound. Volume is great. A thousand milliliters equals a liter, but imperial
volumes: 2 cups = 1 pint. 2 pints = 1 quart but 4 quarts = 1 gallon. I
forget how many gallons in a bushel, bushels in peck. Temperature is a
favorite. Both use the state change thresholds of water as markers. So
metric equals 0 degrees for solid/water phase and 100 for water/gas phase,
but lets use 32 and 212 'causer hat makes more sense. Now I hope you, the
number guy, was just messing with me on this.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:29 PM,  wrote:


I don't get this, Rons. Are you talking about what NFPA 5000 was supposed
to become 30 years ago? That was also the deadline for converting to
metric. But since the American West was not won 25.4 millimeters by 25.4
millimeters, but inch by inch, and most systems are installed on Earth, we
can keep things like we like them. I need to ponder the Code vs Standard
fued, and will do so for the remainder of the evening.

Quoting Ron Greenman :

 Yeah Ron. When will that happen? Any day like any day we'll adopt the

metric system? I think the next time an AHJ tells me the state code
adopted
version of the IBC is the code, and the referenced version of 13 in that
code is just a standard I'm going to revert to a younger version of me and
there will be a set of bloody knuckles and a bloody nose. You can decide
who's sporting what.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Brad Casterline
**wrote:

 fill it (nearly) full of non-comb insulation and tell everyone to have a

nice day :) (that still works, right? the insulation i mean)

-Original Message-
From: rfletc...@aerofire.com [mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com**]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:51 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org
Subject: RE: Combustible Concealed Space

It's another case of Architects designing buildings that don't comply
with
NFPA #13s' construction requirements. When will they learn that NFPA 13
is
building code as well as a sprinkler system installation standard?

Ron Fletcher
Aero Phoenix

-Original Message-
From:  
sprinklerforum-bounces@**fire

Re: Combustible Concealed Space

[bcasterline]

the French invented the System Internationale, and decided MASS would  
be their ONE. In English, FORCE is ONE. Since pressure is force/area,  
and force is mass times acceleration, and 'most systems are installed  
on the Earth', why should sprinks convert?
The beauty of multiples of ten is simply calculating similar to using  
an abbacus, but instead of beads, you move a decimal point left and  
right.



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

let's get this forum started

[bcasterline]

who's had enough turkey/ham/brisket and specialty dishes for about a year?

"It is what it will be minus what it was."
~~~Brad Casterline, circa 2 months ago~~~

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Auxiliary Dry Pipe Question

[bcasterline]

Hey Vince!
I think the intent of a main drain test is to check the 'status' of  
the automatic water supply near the source, at acceptance, and  
regulary to catch and unacceptable degradation. I might be wrong  
though, since i have only thought that for about 2 minutes so far.

HNY 2 U 2!
Brad

Quoting Vince Sabolik :


Good morning & Happy New Year!

A 2" main drain test is required for system acceptance.

We're installing a dry pipe valve downstream and
auxiliary to a wet system with an alarm valve and a 2" drain.

My question is , would a 2" main drain test from the existing wet
system stand for an acceptance test or do we have to find a way
to run a worthless 2" drain line from the new dry system (at an inside wall)
to an outside wall?

Thanks!   Vince


Vince Sabolik, West Tech Fire Protection, Inc.
11351 Pearl Road / Strongsville, Ohio 44136   440 238-4800  
Fax 440 238-4876


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Maximum in-rack sprinkler spacing - plastic over 25ft

[bcasterline]

GREAT  SCOTT!! i mean, great, scott.
i have to admit i cringed a bit at 5' spacing-- SIX is The Minimum!
but that's when max deflector distance is also in play :)

you have inspired me to post a test question (test because i already  
know the answer-- the job went out a couple years ago)


Quoting "å... " :


Very good points Bill and Wayne:

2007 NFPA 13:  Chapter 17.3


I bet with 98% confidence that NFPA 13 intended the maximum horizontal
spacing of in-rack sprinklers for plastic storage in open, double- and
multiple-row racking at heights >= 25 ft to be
   a).  10 ft for double pallet bays (for lack of a better name), and
   b).   5 ft for single pallet load bays.

The true intention is eagerly sought, regardless of winning a bet or not.

The 10 ft horizontal maximum spacing "bet" is based on Note to Figure
17.3.1.2 and Note in Figures 17.3.1.4.3(a-d).
The 5 ft horizontal maximum spacing "bet" is based on Figure 17.3.4.1.4.

Coincidence as to the 10:5 ft maximum horizontal in-rack sprinkler spacing
relative to the 2:1 pallet loading/bay?

I think one item that bears repeating, is the intention to put an in-rack
sprinkler *in the transverse flue, *not simply comply with the maximum
horizontal spacing of in-rack sprinkler, wherever that spacing lands within
the bay.

Now, if I were the AHJ, and any contractor of honesty presented me with
rack columns having a  10' 4" transverse flue spacing, and the sprinkler
designer wanted to go with the "install in-rack sprinklers every-2-pallets"
horizontal spacing strategy... I would *strongly* consider giving a
variance of 4-inches on this maximum 10 ft iin-rack horizontal spacing.
 Was I present at all or even more than a handful of  UL or FM in-rack
full-scale fire tests,  to fully know the implications of this variance?
 No.  But are many of the results from these tests presented as monograph
or video literature publicly available, and the essential findings from
these same tests, distilled as text into Annex A and B comments?  Sure they
are.  Have I reviewed them?  You can bet that I have.  Are there some
compensatory
mitigations that I as the AHJ might ask of our stakeholders, were I the AHJ
stakeholder to grant such a variance to the team?  Sure, there are.  If
those mitigations decreased sprinkler activation time, or increased water
delivery density, then those would be good mitigations, in that order.

Exercise of  "good judgment" is the lubrication that keeps the customer
coming back for more...to borrow a mixed metaphor from that Conservative
party leader across the pond who -- two days on, at the Hague -- may "give
us more."

Most young professionals strive to learn the rules;  many older
professionals struggle to remember the exceptions.  Consideration of both,
rather than dogmatic overconfidence and/or blind allegiance to just one
ideology, is often more than enough to put a wind at our back as we go down
the path of delivering good decisions.

scot deal
Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering


On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Bill Brooks  
wrote:



In my case the rack uprights were 10' 4" but with only two pallet loads. It
caused the addition of an extra sprinkler even after much writing and
attempted explaining of the rack uprights being the transverse flue.  I
don't think this was the intent but it sure is written this way. It's an
unusual looking in-rack arrangement.

Bill Brooks

William N. Brooks, P.E.
Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc.
372 Wilett Drive
Severna Park, MD 21146-1904
410-544-3620
410-544-3032 FAX
412-400-6528 Cell

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of å... 
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:38 PM
To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Maximum in-rack sprinkler spacing - plastic over 25ft

Wayne:

You make a good point.

Per NFPA 13 in-rack sprinkler layouts,  I don't perceive that a gap between
pallets constitutes a formal transverse flue.   I think the transverse flue
is
formed by the steel column of the racking structure.

Wayne, you are correct in that 2007 NPFA 13 Figure 17.3.1.2(a) includes the
exception-to-the-rule of having in-rack sprinklers in each transverse flue
(TF) for plastic storage in open racks two-or-more-bays deep, [1] that
stores commodities at heights 25+ ft..  NFPA 13 however, mitigates the
reduction of in-rack sprinklers (particularly, but not exclusively) at
every
transverse flue.  For the case of Figure 17.3.1.2(a), this mitigation calls
for horizontal barriers above each level of in-rack sprinkler *with
face-sprinklers*.  Does our situation you are describing contain such
horizontal barriers in the racking scheme?

One *could* assume (at least I do) that the horizontal spacing between in
rack sprinklers in Figure 17.3.1.2(a) is not to exceed 10 ft, as this is
maximum width of two pallets mentioned in Note 7 of this Figure.  This
maximum horizontal spacing between in-rack sprinklers is enforce

can an extended coverage pendent be used in a ceiling cloud with a slope of 3 in 12?

[bcasterline]

?.light hazard, 20x20 cloud, head listed as Quick Response at 20x20,  
centered in the cloud.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Maximum in-rack sprinkler spacing - plastic over 25ft

[bcasterline]

beside myself with...
shame-- i mispelled your good name..
please forgive me scot.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: FP/Building Development Services: what qualifications are required of new plan review hirees, and what qualities make for a good plan reviewer

[bcasterline]

to realize it takes a village to raise a good system. no single pe,  
tech, reviewer, installer, or inspector should think they alone can do  
that. since humility is an accurate estimate of one's ability and  
importance, i think you hit the nail on the head scot.

(r.i.p., the perished, and comfort, the survivors, the tragedy in Brazil)


Quoting "å... " :


1. Will plan reviewers for jurisdications please share what their
requirements are for hiring new employees to take a FP plan review chair?

This is no witch/warlock hunt.  The information will help fire protection,
as one of my colleagues is setting requirements for their jurisdiction at
this moment.

2.  If forum member would  share as well, attributes they find in a
desireable, effective, fair plan reviewer, I actually am more interested in
these.  Personally,  I think humilityis one of the the top attributes I
find makes working with just about anyone, even plan reviewers, more
enjoyable.



Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering
gsm:  +218 9 164 430 87
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Window sprinklers

[bcasterline]

I think only horizontal mullions are considered an obstruction to  
wetting the glass. Also, in IBC 2013, the sprinkler equivalent for  
Fire Rated is no longer approved.


Quoting Rod DiBona :

Pretty sure you do. The mullion acts as a barrier. More than likely  
if you present the dilemma to the A/E team they change the window.


Rod at Rapid

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
A.P.Silva

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Window sprinklers

I have two windows, each 2'-6" wide, separated by a vertical  
mullion. Do I need two window sprinklers?


Tony

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Window sprinklers

[bcasterline]

I beg the Forum's pardon. I should know better than to post from home  
(snow day in Kansas. I have a good memory, it's just short). I think  
vertical mullions not being an obstruction makes sense though,  
otherwise the listing would not distiguish?


Quoting Justin Reid :


IBC 2012, 703.4

Justin Reid

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:33 PM, "Cahill, Christopher"  
 wrote:


Not to be picky but IBC 2013?  Don't ya mean '12?  What section are  
you referring to that sprinkler rating equivalent changed?  I can  
think of two areas that had rating tied to sprinklers, atriums and  
substitute for 1 hour construction.  Did they change?


Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group
Burns & McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone:  952.656.3652
Fax:  952.229.2923
ccah...@burnsmcd.com
www.burnsmcd.com

Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
*Registered in: MN




-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Window sprinklers

I think only horizontal mullions are considered an obstruction to  
wetting the glass. Also, in IBC 2013, the sprinkler equivalent for  
Fire Rated is no longer approved.


Quoting Rod DiBona :


Pretty sure you do. The mullion acts as a barrier. More than likely if
you present the dilemma to the A/E team they change the window.

Rod at Rapid

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
A.P.Silva
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Window sprinklers

I have two windows, each 2'-6" wide, separated by a vertical mullion.
Do I need two window sprinklers?

Tony

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Window sprinklers

[bcasterline]

Well.. each mullioned section would mean vertical, since horizontal  
are not allowed. This means the water has to run accross the glass,  
not just down. I saw the width of it running down, regardless of  
vertical mullions as the max horizontal spacing. I think a case for be  
made for not needing a baffle; the 6' min. is for generic sprinklers,  
not Special Sprinklers. If the spray went 90 degrees 3' sideways each  
way, it seems the above would apply. Besides, a cold soldered head can  
always un-solder if need be! That's part of what makes it special :)


Quoting "A.P.Silva" :


Thanks for sharing this information.

My question is this: Tyco data sheets state "locate window sprinklers within
each mullioned segment". Whereas it is not required for butt-jointed window
assemblies, provided the sprinkler spacing is maximum 8 feet. So clearly
they consider the mullion to be an obstruction. However, vertical sidewalls
can be installed upto 12 inches from the glazing. And sometimes the mullion
is not very deep. In my case it is about 3" wide and 1" deep (depth measured
perpendicular to the glass". Really, I don't know even if the two glass
panels are butt-jointed, but the seam is covered for aesthetics. I'm still
checking this out. In any case, I think a vertical sidewall 12" away centred
at the mullion/frame should be adequate. What do you think?

What bugs me is that Tyco data sheets don't take the depth of the mullions
to any consideration.

Tony

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fairchild,
Jack
Sent: February 22, 2013 7:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Window sprinklers

The ICC pulled the evaluation report based on the code change, but it should
be noted the onerous was always (and still is) on the building official to
accept the alternative method regardless of the evaluation report.  See here
for a more detailed explanation of what occurred:
http://www.icc-es.org/Criteria_Development/1210-pre/3_AC385.pdf

Jack Fairchild


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
AKS-Gmail-IMAP
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Window sprinklers

From what I understand Tyco was not invited to the hearings for the proposed
changes and the rug was pulled out from under them in regard to the Tyco WS
sprinkler for 1hr and 2hr equivalency. This is a big deal that has yet to
hit the fan so to speak now that atrium like spaces seem to be latest
architectural rage.

I do believe vertical mullions are obstructions in the Tyco WS installation
requirements. The idea to center the WS on a vertical mullion is also nixed
in their installation requirement. Sprinklers at atrium glass is still a
permitted exception in IBC 404.6 and the wording, "The sprinkler system
shall be designed so that the entire surface of the glass is wet upon
activation of the sprinkler system without obstruction" , does not leave any
room for a challenge to a creative idea that gets water to bend around a
mullion. You'll have two sprinklers per side at that window pair and you'll
have a sprinkler baffle between them because they will be less than 6 feet
apart. Good luck convincing the architect the real ramifications of what
that will look like if they do not have a construction detail aptitude.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO


On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:02 PM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote:


I beg the Forum's pardon. I should know better than to post from home

(snow day in Kansas. I have a good memory, it's just short). I think
vertical mullions not being an obstruction makes sense though, otherwise the
listing would not distiguish?


Quoting Justin Reid :


IBC 2012, 703.4

Justin Reid

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:33 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" 

wrote:



Not to be picky but IBC 2013?  Don't ya mean '12?  What section are you

referring to that sprinkler rating equivalent changed?  I can think of two
areas that had rating tied to sprinklers, atriums and substitute for 1 hour
construction.  Did they change?


Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns &
McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone:  952.656.3652
Fax:  952.229.2923
ccah...@burnsmcd.com
www.burnsmcd.com

Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
*Registered in: MN




-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Window sprinklers

I think only horizontal mullions are considered an obstruction to

wetting the glass. Also, in IBC 2013, the sprinkler equivalent for Fire
Rated is no longer approved.


Quoting Rod DiBona :


Pretty s

Re: 10 Pipe Diameters

[bcasterline]

Generally speaking, sprinkler flows are in the turbulent range. For a  
double suction pump, water splits and enters the impeller eye from  
both sides. To avoid uneven wear on the bearings, the velocity at each  
side should be equal. Witn a vertical ell, this would be the case. For  
a horizontal ell, the velocity would be more 'bunched up' on one side  
than the other. The ten diameter rule is arbitrary, because if it was  
not, the minimum downstream distance would vary by size, before the  
velocity profile equalized at least as much as a vertical ell. I think  
the bigger the pipe the fewer min diameters you would need to ensure  
no undue, unever wear and loss of efficiency (but then i am not the  
AHJ).


Quoting Kenneth Berman :


Pump #1 suction needs 100" of straight pipe from the 16" 90. Any way to
move the 16 x 10 x 10 tee to where the 16" 90 is now, and lengthen the pump
#2 suction? The end goal is eliminating turbulance and achieving 150% flow.
If the tee's bullheaded supply to pump #2 doesn't cause enough turbulance
to hinder pump #1, I count the 16" pipe between the 90 and tee as straight
run added to the length of 10" between the tee and suction flange. Given
sequential starting, I assume pump #1 is first.


On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:00 PM,  wrote:


NFPA 20 requires 10 pipe diameters of straight pipe after a horizontal
elbow. We have a 16" suction line going to two 2500 gpm pumps in parallel.
The 16" tees off to two 10" lines before pump #1 and 10" goes to pump #2.
The horizontal ell is 16". Does the 16" ell have to be 160" or 100" of
straight pipe from the suction of Pump #1? The 16X10X10 tee is about 3'
from the suction flange of pump #1. Pump #2 is far enough away that it
isn't a concern. I have made a week attempt at a stick drawing to depict
the setup. Because of limited space the least length of straight pipe the
better.

Ron F

10" X >100"
   __Pump #2
  |
10"
  |
  16" |  10"
|Pump #1
|
16" |
|   PLAN VIEW

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Seismic and ASCE 7

[bcasterline]

I think the most important factor is "Is it an essential facility",  
like hospital, fire station, police station, after an event. a  
warehouse would not be.


Quoting Ron Greenman :


Hmmm, maybe just my West Coast interpretation. I've never done anything
without bracing. Bracing has always been and just got nuts when ASCE 7
based calcs got into the code. I just thought that was special West Coast
stuff applied to the generic stuff. Parochial thinking on my part.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Cahill, Christopher
wrote:


Well ...
9.3 Protection of Piping Against Damage Where Subject to Earthquakes.
9.3.1* General.
9.3.1.1 Where water-based fire protection systems are required to be
protected against damage from earthquakes, the requirements of Section 9.3
shall apply, unless the requirements of 9.3.1.2 are met.

9.3.5 has the 40/80 stuff and BL's are covered in 9.3.6.

Only place I know of and you can't get to .5 and .6 until you get past
9.3.1.1.  And you can only get there from IBC/ASCE 7 SDC C or higher.

I'm all ears (well technically eyes in this forum) if you have some other
sections I'm missing.  Vast majority of US doesn't do any bracing.  Working
in MN I never saw one in 16 years until I started this job and work
everywhere except MN.  We just did a job in Boise and none required (which
surprised me as I figured it was close enough to Yellowstone).

Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group
Burns & McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone:  952.656.3652
Fax:  952.229.2923
ccah...@burnsmcd.com
www.burnsmcd.com

Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
*Registered in: MN





-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:
sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Seismic and ASCE 7

If you're asking me Chris, quite the contrary. It seems that everyone else
is saying bracing only applies where performance per ASCE 7 is required,
whereas I think the 40/80 tuff applies for everything except in seismic
zones where more severe requirements apply.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Cahill, Christopher
wrote:

> Are you thinking sway bracing of mains and large BL's 9.3.5 vs.
> restraint of BL's 9.3.6?  Only applies when seismic is required 9.3.
>
> Chris Cahill, PE*
> Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns &
> McDonnell
> 8201 Norman Center Drive
> Bloomington, MN 55437
> Phone:  952.656.3652
> Fax:  952.229.2923
> ccah...@burnsmcd.com
> www.burnsmcd.com
>
> Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
> *Registered in: MN
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:57 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Seismic and ASCE 7
>
> Doesn't 13 require sway bracing on all systems and seismic bracing,
> per the prescriptive methods of 13 that meet the performance criteria
> of ASCE 7 or by engineering calculations per that same criteria, when
> in a seismic zone that requires seismic bracing. Now that was a
> mouthful but sway bracing and seismic bracing are very distinct things
> in my mind. But then I may be misinterpreting.
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Chris Born  wrote:
>
> > My opinion is that sprinkler systems are not required to be braced
> > under ASCE 7 in seismic design category B.  ASCE 7 specifically
> > exempts mechanical and electrical equipment in seismic design
> > category B.  I believe it appropriate to consider a sprinkler system
> > under the same umbrella as mechanical and electrical systems.
> >
> > Mechanical and electrical systems are also exempt from seismic
> > protection in seismic design category C, unless the importance
> > factor is greater than 1.  Because sprinkler systems have an
> > importance factor of 1.5, they do require seismic protection in design
category C.
> >
> >
> > Christopher Born, P.E.
> > Director, Fire Protection Engineering Clark Nexsen Norfolk, VA
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:03 PM, "Bob"  wrote:
> >
> > > There is a project that I am not involved in, but the AHJ called
> > > for an opinion.  The situation revolves around the idea that if a
> > > building is in site class C and design category B, the sway
> > > bracing requirements of
> > NFPA 13
> > > are waved by ASCE 7.  I have not come across this before, and
> > > there is a certain fire sprinkler contractor that is eliminating
> > > the sway bracing, retaining straps, etc... on several large
> > > warehouse / distribution buildings.  The claim is that ASCE 7 allows
for this.
> > > Has anyone come across this and have information verifying or
> > > negating it?  I am meeting with several AHJ's in regard to this
> > > tomorrow m

Re: Seismic and ASCE 7

[bcasterline]

I would rather not leave it up to someone to tell me where it would be  
required, what with sink holes swallowing men as they sleep, and as  
the reward for a nice drive hitting the fairway (the increase in  
fracing and the New Madrid fault, etc). I would rather keep it almost  
as simple as planning that a fire could happen anywhere any time. I  
should have put "I think" in quotes :)


Quoting Chris Born :

That is a consideration, but that is one of the factors that is  
evaluated to determine the seismic design category.  This is not an  
area that the average sprinkler contractor or designer should  
generally have to deal with or determine.


As long as someone has determined the seismic design category,  
preferably a licensed structural engineer, the sprinkler  
contractor/designer should be clear of any determination as to  
whether seismic protection is required.  If its seismic design  
category A or B, no seismic protection. Is required,  C and above,  
seismic protection is required.  If C, ASCE 7 acknowledges that
compliance with NFPA 13 is adequate,  D or above, I believe  
determination of loads, etc., gets more involved,


Christopher Born, P.E.
Clark Nexsen
Norfolk, VA

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 14, 2013, at 11:38 PM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote:

I think the most important factor is "Is it an essential facility",  
like hospital, fire station, police station, after an event. a  
warehouse would not be.


Quoting Ron Greenman :


Hmmm, maybe just my West Coast interpretation. I've never done anything
without bracing. Bracing has always been and just got nuts when ASCE 7
based calcs got into the code. I just thought that was special West Coast
stuff applied to the generic stuff. Parochial thinking on my part.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Cahill, Christopher
wrote:


Well ...
9.3 Protection of Piping Against Damage Where Subject to Earthquakes.
9.3.1* General.
9.3.1.1 Where water-based fire protection systems are required to be
protected against damage from earthquakes, the requirements of Section 9.3
shall apply, unless the requirements of 9.3.1.2 are met.

9.3.5 has the 40/80 stuff and BL's are covered in 9.3.6.

Only place I know of and you can't get to .5 and .6 until you get past
9.3.1.1.  And you can only get there from IBC/ASCE 7 SDC C or higher.

I'm all ears (well technically eyes in this forum) if you have some other
sections I'm missing.  Vast majority of US doesn't do any  
bracing.  Working

in MN I never saw one in 16 years until I started this job and work
everywhere except MN.  We just did a job in Boise and none required (which
surprised me as I figured it was close enough to Yellowstone).

Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group
Burns & McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone:  952.656.3652
Fax:  952.229.2923
ccah...@burnsmcd.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Glycerine Viscosity in Centipoise?!?!?!

[bcasterline]

Ralphy,

I made a spreadsheet a while back to work the Darcy-Weisbach friction  
loss formula 'by hand'. The kinematic viscosity is a required input,  
and is the absolute viscosity divided by the density. I wanted to be  
able to vary the temperature too, and since density is a function of  
temperature, I put some
formulas together to calc the absolute viscosity based on temp and  
density. In doing this I discovered why I think these look-up tables  
have a wider range of data for temp and density than for viscosity--  
imagine parallel steel plates 1 foot apart (top and bottom), with a  
fluid in-between-- if the top plate is 1 square foot, the viscosity of  
the fluid would be a measure of the force required to slide the top  
plate with a velocity of 1 foot per second. This force should actually  
be measured for the particular fluids at the particular temps and that  
is why I think the tables only go so far. The formulas I put
together based on heat loss theory (friction) might become  
increasingly inaccurate the further they get from actual measured  
conditions, for any liquid fluids other than pure water.
The way I try to deal with the percent by weight vs volume is with  
Specific Volume-- the inverse of density,i.e., if the weight density  
of water at 40F is 62.4 lbs/ft3, the specific volume is .016 ft3/lb.  
If the weight density of propylene glycol at 40F is 9 lbs/gal and we  
figure 7.48 gal/ft3, the weight
density would be 67.3 lbs/ft3, and the specific volume would be .0149  
ft3/lb. (then I have to scratch my head til i find what i'm looking  
for).


brad

Quoting "å... " :


Ralphy appears to be more in need of datapoints, than data conversions.

0 C =  32  F
-18 C  =0  F
-40 C =  -40 F

Back in the day, Prausnitz and Reid had the best estimation techniques for
gases and liquids.
Today, Prausnitz is in fifth edition of this book, with Poling as chief
author, 91 usd on
Kindle.
 But with all the glycerine production these days, I am sure some libraries
have this data, if not your local biodiesel facility.

Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Glycerine Viscosity in Centipoise?!?!?!

[bcasterline]

and p.s. regarding your 'hat in hand' feeling:
"nothing about any of this is easy, and it never will be"
~me~ just now

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


Ralphy,

I made a spreadsheet a while back to work the Darcy-Weisbach  
friction loss formula 'by hand'. The kinematic viscosity is a  
required input, and is the absolute viscosity divided by the  
density. I wanted to be able to vary the temperature too, and since  
density is a function of temperature, I put some
formulas together to calc the absolute viscosity based on temp and  
density. In doing this I discovered why I think these look-up tables  
have a wider range of data for temp and density than for viscosity--  
imagine parallel steel plates 1 foot apart (top and bottom), with a  
fluid in-between-- if the top plate is 1 square foot, the viscosity  
of the fluid would be a measure of the force required to slide the  
top plate with a velocity of 1 foot per second. This force should  
actually be measured for the particular fluids at the particular  
temps and that is why I think the tables only go so far. The  
formulas I put
together based on heat loss theory (friction) might become  
increasingly inaccurate the further they get from actual measured  
conditions, for any liquid fluids other than pure water.
The way I try to deal with the percent by weight vs volume is with  
Specific Volume-- the inverse of density,i.e., if the weight density  
of water at 40F is 62.4 lbs/ft3, the specific volume is .016 ft3/lb.  
If the weight density of propylene glycol at 40F is 9 lbs/gal and we  
figure 7.48 gal/ft3, the weight
density would be 67.3 lbs/ft3, and the specific volume would be  
.0149 ft3/lb. (then I have to scratch my head til i find what i'm  
looking for).


brad

Quoting "å... " :


Ralphy appears to be more in need of datapoints, than data conversions.

0 C =  32  F
-18 C  =0  F
-40 C =  -40 F

Back in the day, Prausnitz and Reid had the best estimation techniques for
gases and liquids.
Today, Prausnitz is in fifth edition of this book, with Poling as chief
author, 91 usd on
Kindle.
But with all the glycerine production these days, I am sure some libraries
have this data, if not your local biodiesel facility.

Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Glycerine Viscosity in Centipoise?!?!?!

[bcasterline]

"-- imagine parallel steel plates 1 foot apart (top and bottom), with  
a fluid in-between-- if the top plate is 1 square foot, the viscosity  
of the fluid would be a measure of the force required to slide the top  
plate with a velocity of 1 foot per second."


Correction: the top plate does not have to be 1 square foot. The units  
for absolute (dynamic) viscosity are FORCE times TIME divided by  
LENGTH times LENGTH. We get one of the lengths from the velocity and  
the other from the distance apart (plates 2 feet apart, top plate  
velocity 2 ft/sec, etc). In SI, abs. vis. would be PASCAL times SECOND  
divided by METER times METER. I think centipoise is the absolute times  
1000, to get water close to 1.


my apologies,
Brad

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Glycerine Viscosity in Centipoise?!?!?!

[bcasterline]

Ralphy, I predict you will be sizing an expansion chamber soon. Since  
chambers only come in so many sizes, and if you are uneasy about what  
the maximum static pressure at the chamber might be, you might  
consider this:


maximum system static =  ((vec - Delta L) * wp) / vec, where:

vec = chamber volume in cubic feet, likely 'max. acceptance' in the  
data in gallons. divide the gallons by 7.48 for cubic feet.


Delta L = solution expansion in cubic feet. see NFPA 13. an example  
for a 75 gal capacity of 40/60 (by weight i think) propylene glycol  
between -10F and 110F would be: 75 * ((8.75/8.5)-1) = 2.2 gallons.  
Divide 2.2 gallons by 7.48 for Delta L in cubic feet.


wp = max working pressure of the chamber in atmospheres (psi+14.7) /  
14.7, for example (175+14.7) / 14.7 = 12.9 atmosphere.


the max static at the chamber would then be given in atmosphere, which  
you would multiply times 14.7 and then subtract 14.7 for PSI.


using the above as an example, if the data shows 9 gal. max.  
acceptance, your max static would be:


((1.2-.29)*12.9)/1.2=9.8 atm, times 14.7=143.8, minus 14.7 ~~ 129 PSI.

This works pretty good unless the chamber itself is also located in an  
area where the temp varies wildly during the year.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

numbers for low, moderate, and high

[bcasterline]

well--so far, a number for Low Heat Release Rate from NFPA 13, if Low  
means Light Hazard, and Light Hazard means .1 GPM/SQ FT: 744 kilowatt  
per square meter. The inherent safety factor here is that 100% of the  
fuel mass is converted to heat, i.e., not one ash or piece of soot  
left over anywhere. I saw in a European Building Code (possibly for  
'Performance' more than Standard) that for an Office type occupancy,  
figure a Heat Release Rate of 250 kilowatt per square meter, hence,  
for Low HRR from 13, so far in my own mind, saftey factor = ~3. For  
Combustibility of the Contents, I decided to ignore stuff that is not  
combustible. For Quantity of Combustibles-- that is just a matter of  
how much total water we need until the Fire Department gets there, and  
30 minutes still seems reasonable. The link to the U-Tube video I  
mentioned will take me longer than I thought (I made some for  
marketing showing flames and smoke being exhausted and people  
undergoing panic egress, etc, but I plastered the company logo here  
and there on the building so it would not be appropriate for this  
Forum). Besides, my intent is to give some ideas to sprinkler people  
to whittle down the expense of sprinklers for OH2 and less, which  
takes 'proving equivalency', and I do not have enough experience  
hob-knobbing with the upper
eschelon and following through with it in any formal manner myself. I  
just have a good idea. And the worst that could happen is that 13 will  
never admit the numbers for Low, Moderate and High, so no big deal.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: numbers for low, moderate, and high

[bcasterline]

I will try to type ledgeably using numbers that will leave no doubt.  
Before a proposed change proving equivalency can be considered,  
equivalent has to be established. I had almost lost hope thinking  
proving eqivalency meant first meeting a 3X safety factor, and it  
still might-- i still have a bit of vaugeness pinning this thing down.  
Thanks Roland, Brad


Quoting Roland Huggins :


on-line submittal go to:

http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?docnum=13&tab=nextedition&cookie_test=1

Quite easy but there are some wrinkles depending on what you're  
changing.  Any one that runs into any of them feel free to call me  
at (214) 349-5965 X 121


Roland

On Mar 29, 2013, at 1:02 PM, "Brad Casterline"  
 wrote:



Where do I find the paperwork to do this Roland?
Would this be where I could propose a quantifying for the definition, for
Low anyway?
I worked it from a different angle, said forget Europe, and discovered, as
usual, 13 RULES BABY!
Based on .1/1500 for 30 minutes with heat release rate per unit area of ~750
kW/m2, the fuel load is ~5 lbs/ft2, which is correct! And the only safety
factor is the inherent one I mentioned earlier.

So don't anybody be thinking about cutting any corners...

Brad Casterline, S.E.T. :)

The cut-off date is May 31 so those of you that have sections that are
irritating, submit a PI.

Roland

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

sprinkler thesaurus

[bcasterline]

NFPA 13:
1) The Red Book
Escutcheon:
1) Canopy, 2) Beauty Ring
Welded, threaded, female outlet:
1) Pipe-o-let
Grooved coupling:
1) Vic, 2) Groover
Drip Cup:
1) Slobber Cup, 2) Dookie

Does that about cover it, or are there any other names for Velocity  
Check, Grooved Stubby, etc?


ED? George?

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

just for fun--sprinkler thesaurus

[bcasterline]

1) NFPA 13
a) The Red Book b) ?

2) Welded, Threaded, Female Outlet
a) Pipe-O-Let b) ?

3) Escutheon
a) Canopy, b) Beauty Ring c) ?

4) Grooved coupling?
a) ? b) Vic

5) Dookie 6) Velocity Check 7) Grooved Stubby

8) thru 12) ?

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: sprinkler thesaurus

[bcasterline]

ROSETTE! a new one on me-- i love it
from down south no doubt?

Quoting drm...@swbell.net:




-Original Message- From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com Sent:  
Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org  
Subject: sprinkler thesaurus NFPA 13:

1) The Red Book
Escutcheon:
1) Canopy, 2) Beauty Ring, 3) Rosette
Welded, threaded, female outlet:
1) Pipe-o-let
Grooved coupling:
1) Vic, 2) Groover
Drip Cup:
1) Slobber Cup, 2) Dookie

Does that about cover it, or are there any other names for Velocity   
Check, Grooved Stubby, etc?


ED? George?

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Don Mitchell
drm...@swbell.net
Cell-214-505-1216
Ph -972-248-9580
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: sprinkler thasaurus

[bcasterline]

new this week:
rosette, mud leg, stub chuck, jodi blond.
still nothing for velocity check...
Mr. Vinning? Vince?

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Is there enough room under a low ceiling for different, but similar, hydraulic designs?

[bcasterline]

good question Scot. I only have my '07 on me but I want to read  
parameter #2 as "For OH2 and less".

Brad


Quoting "å... " :


2010 NFPA 13

Was it the intention, to the best of our collective imaginations, that
Section 11.2.3.2.3.1 meant to include *both* LH and OH hydraulic design
areas (as a mixture) within the low-ceiling reduced area?

Literally speaking, I say no; though, if we are giving a concession to
either alone, then why not when they are hung next to each other?

Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering

(Pardon if the question was mentioned in the past).
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Is there enough room under a low ceiling for different, but similar, hydraulic designs?

[bcasterline]

Thanks for this Scot! In pondering this I finally discovered what I  
believe is the equivalency and reasoning behind QR Reduction: It  
reduces the amount of time the fire department has to respond based on  
ceiling height. This makes total sense because the lower the ceiling  
the faster the heat travels across it, the faster the heat (at the  
activation temp) travels across the head the faster it activates, and  
the faster the FD gets the call. I even have numbers for it for LH  
through OH2: for 10' ceiling height they get 18 minutes and for 20'  
ceiling height they get 22.5 minutes. As it turns out these numbers are
embarassingly easy to arrive at, but took me a couple of years and  
going the long way around to get there. (I had to prove 'equivalency'  
to myself using no man-made safety factors first). And no matter what  
the mix of quantity, combustibility and heat release rate, the numbers  
are the same.


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

good question Scot. I only have my '07 on me but I want to read  
parameter #2 as "For OH2 and less".

Brad


Quoting "å... " :


2010 NFPA 13

Was it the intention, to the best of our collective imaginations, that
Section 11.2.3.2.3.1 meant to include *both* LH and OH hydraulic design
areas (as a mixture) within the low-ceiling reduced area?

Literally speaking, I say no; though, if we are giving a concession to
either alone, then why not when they are hung next to each other?

Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering

(Pardon if the question was mentioned in the past).
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Is there enough room under a low ceiling for different, but similar, hydraulic designs?

[bcasterline]

Bruce-
I will go out on a Forum limb here and say regarding control mode of  
accidental fires in terms of water application versus burning rate  
there is only ONE BUFFER. It is huge, but it is not man-made. Imagine  
an abandoned wood shack in the middle of nowhwere, struck by  
lightning, non-sprinklered and no FD response- was there any smoke  
produced or charred remains at the site? If yes, we could have reduced  
the water application rate proportionately. To budge from this  
Ultimate Safety Factor would be playing with fire and life safety in  
my opinion, and is a path we should not go down. On the other hand,  
average fuel loads for different occupancies, and FD response times  
can be looked at more closely, as they relate to this ONE BUFFER.

Scot,
Please see the last sentence of my previous reply.
For heat of combustion with regard to burning rate i used the Oxygen  
Consumption Calorimetry method, 13,100 kJ/kg. For heat of vaporization  
of water = 2257 kJ/kg. For .1/1500 for 30 min. w/ heat release rate  
per unit area of 750 kW/m2, the fuel load is 4.35 lbs/ft2. .2/1500 for  
60 min. at the same HRRPUA would control 8.7 lbs/ft2, and is why i  
think the only thing that varies using QR Reduction no matter what the  
LH and OH mix percent, is the amount of time we have til we run out of  
water, and hope the Fire Department has arrived. And, once more, by  
figuring 100% fuel mass to heat, we can relax a little on the 18  
minute thing, if traffic is particulary heavy, etc.




Quoting "å... " :


The decision here  is to allow the low-ceiling reduction to MHRA, despite
the MHRA containing some rooms with OH (hydraulic design basis "A") and
other rooms containing LH (hydraulic design basis "B").  If this does not
agree with some persons' sense of propriety, there may still be time for
you to submit a wording change to the TC before the date of this cycle's
expiry.   The 2010 wording in 11.2.3.2.3.1 seems to leave room for
interpretation though the consequences appear to be a minor one.

Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire/Risk
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: 9" deflector is the sweet spot

[bcasterline]

I guess a pdf in a Dropbox is not even really necessary.
What I learned from actually doing the modeling is that a skylight  
turns otherwise unobstructed construction into obstructed when the  
sprinkler is directly below it-- like Pete cited ~below the main  
ceiling like the skylight wasn't there~
And like Roland says about the depth being irrelevant, at 6" deflector  
with a 155 QR, 12" depth vs 48" is 1 sec activation time dif  (so  
that's 18 vs 54 inch deflector).

How can that be?
Like Roland said, it's all about how much of the plume (ceiling jet)  
is NOT captured.

Skylights create a kind of upside down obstructed construction!

Brad


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


Hi Forum.
Prompted by the recent deflector distance in skylight thread and  
what I said about what Roland said about it and after about three  
weeks doing nothing other than imagining what happens -- I did some  
modeling on it. Ron G made me aware of the modeling ~5 years ago and  
at that time some key words in a Goolge search put it on page one.  
But now it seems Roland's modelling is lost somewhere in the R.O.C.  
(Republic of China) and you have to sign in to get it.

No way I'm doing that so I did some modeling of my own.

I'll make a pdf and put it in Dropbox by mid next week if there is  
any intrest but I can tell you:
when it comes to a mix of obstructed, unobstructed, and the presence  
of skylights/small pockets, 9" deflector is the sweet spot.


Thanks,
Brad

___
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: Church Steeple

[bcasterline]

I would see if the AHJ would consider calcing (2) at each of (11)  
levels = 22 + 1 at the peak = 23. This approximates .1/1950. The 2  
would be on the 'remote' side from the vertical supply riser.
I envision what is referred to as a Spill Plume fire for calculating  
smoke exhaust rates in high rise atriums like you see in hotels.


Brad.

Quoting David Bitton :

There is a landing at each of 11 levels, the stairs are in the  
center of the tower, with some additional floor space at each  
landing. The whole thing is of combustible construction so we have  
sprinklers at each level. It is more an 11 storey tower than a  
continuous shaft.  Also, it is not heated, so we have a dry system  
to feed all the sprinklers.




David Bitton, ing./Eng.

Quest Loss Control Services Inc.

Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest

5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200

Montréal, Québec

H4P 1T8

(514) 341-4545

  www.questlosscontrol.com



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Prahl, Craig/GVL

Sent: February 8, 2018 12:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Church Steeple



When you say levels, we picture separated floor levels.  Is that  
what you have?




But then again it sounds more like a continuous shaft.



Are there landings at these levels?  How often do they occur?  How  
big are they?




Does the stair run up through the center?




Craig L. Prahl
Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
Direct - 864.920.7540

Fax - 864.920.7129
Direct Extension  77540
CH2M is now Jacobs.
200 Verdae Blvd.
Greenville, SC  29607
craig.pr...@ch2m.com 
  http://www.jacobs.com



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
David Bitton

Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 12:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org  


Subject: RE: Church Steeple [EXTERNAL]



That’s not my situation, as the pitch is strictly at the top level.   
Imagine an 11 storey tower, roughly 25 x 25 ft, with an 80 ft high  
peaked roof above it.  There is only one sprinkler at the top level,  
and about 4 sprinklers at each level beneath it. The tower has an  
open staircase within it so all of the levels are communicating.  My  
question is do I include sprinklers on multiple levels or just one  
level at a time?




David Bitton, ing./Eng.

Quest Loss Control Services Inc.

Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest

5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200

Montréal, Québec

H4P 1T8

(514) 341-4545

  www.questlosscontrol.com



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Roland Huggins

Sent: February 8, 2018 10:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org  


Subject: Re: Church Steeple



ALONG the pitch of the ceiling(s) that is inside the HORIZONTAL  
floor area IS one level. That’s why we have the section in 8.6.4.1.3  
on steeply pitched ceiling




Roland



Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://www.firesprinkler.org 



Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives







On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Fpdcdesign  > wrote:




It's a tough call without seeming the drawing and/or visiting the  
building. Without NFPA 13 (or other technical source) guidance, it  
comes down to engineering judgement.



Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

  860-535-2080 (ofc)

  860-553-3553 (fax)

  860-608-4559 (cell)





On Feb 7, 2018 at 6:27 PM, <   
David Bitton> wrote:


Hello,



I have a very tall but narrow church steeple to protect.  At the  
peak, there is a single sprinkler head, with the lower levels having  
between 2 and 4 sprinklers at each level.  I am having a problem  
determining the heads to include in my design area.  The levels are  
not closed off from each other, so I think that restricting the  
calculations to one level would not be conservative enough.  I have  
not found any guidance in NFPA 13.




I would appreciate your thoughts about this issue.



David Bitton, ing./Eng.

Quest Loss Control Services Inc.

Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest

5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200

Montréal, Québec

H4P 1T8

(514) 341-4545

  www.questlosscontrol.com



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


___
Spri

Re: Church Steeple

[bcasterline]

This would be phenomenally interesting to analyze using all the latest  
tools, including but not limited to:

1) FDS
2) any current/familiar hydraulics software (or by hand)
3) Sprink Fdt (sp?).

Brad

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

I would see if the AHJ would consider calcing (2) at each of (11)  
levels = 22 + 1 at the peak = 23. This approximates .1/1950. The 2  
would be on the 'remote' side from the vertical supply riser.
I envision what is referred to as a Spill Plume fire for calculating  
smoke exhaust rates in high rise atriums like you see in hotels.


Brad.

Quoting David Bitton :

There is a landing at each of 11 levels, the stairs are in the  
center of the tower, with some additional floor space at each  
landing. The whole thing is of combustible construction so we have  
sprinklers at each level. It is more an 11 storey tower than a  
continuous shaft.  Also, it is not heated, so we have a dry system  
to feed all the sprinklers.




David Bitton, ing./Eng.

Quest Loss Control Services Inc.

Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest

5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200

Montréal, Québec

H4P 1T8

(514) 341-4545

 www.questlosscontrol.com



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf  
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL

Sent: February 8, 2018 12:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Church Steeple



When you say levels, we picture separated floor levels.  Is that  
what you have?




But then again it sounds more like a continuous shaft.



Are there landings at these levels?  How often do they occur?  How  
big are they?




Does the stair run up through the center?




Craig L. Prahl
Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
Direct - 864.920.7540

Fax - 864.920.7129
Direct Extension  77540
CH2M is now Jacobs.
200 Verdae Blvd.
Greenville, SC  29607
craig.pr...@ch2m.com 
 http://www.jacobs.com



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf  
Of David Bitton

Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 12:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org  


Subject: RE: Church Steeple [EXTERNAL]



That’s not my situation, as the pitch is strictly at the top level.  
 Imagine an 11 storey tower, roughly 25 x 25 ft, with an 80 ft high  
peaked roof above it.  There is only one sprinkler at the top  
level, and about 4 sprinklers at each level beneath it. The tower  
has an open staircase within it so all of the levels are  
communicating.  My question is do I include sprinklers on multiple  
levels or just one level at a time?




David Bitton, ing./Eng.

Quest Loss Control Services Inc.

Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest

5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200

Montréal, Québec

H4P 1T8

(514) 341-4545

 www.questlosscontrol.com



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf  
Of Roland Huggins

Sent: February 8, 2018 10:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org  


Subject: Re: Church Steeple



ALONG the pitch of the ceiling(s) that is inside the HORIZONTAL  
floor area IS one level. That’s why we have the section in  
8.6.4.1.3 on steeply pitched ceiling




Roland



Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://www.firesprinkler.org 



Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives







On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Fpdcdesign  > wrote:




It's a tough call without seeming the drawing and/or visiting the  
building. Without NFPA 13 (or other technical source) guidance, it  
comes down to engineering judgement.



Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

 860-535-2080 (ofc)

 860-553-3553 (fax)

 860-608-4559 (cell)





On Feb 7, 2018 at 6:27 PM, <   
David Bitton> wrote:


Hello,



I have a very tall but narrow church steeple to protect.  At the  
peak, there is a single sprinkler head, with the lower levels  
having between 2 and 4 sprinklers at each level.  I am having a  
problem determining the heads to include in my design area.  The  
levels are not closed off from each other, so I think that  
restricting the calculations to one level would not be conservative  
enough.  I have not found any guidance in NFPA 13.




I would appreciate your thoughts about this issue.



David Bitton, ing./Eng.

Quest Loss Control Services Inc.

Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest

5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200

Montréal, Québec

H4P 1T8

(514) 341-4545

 www.questlosscontrol.com



___ Sprinklerforum  
mailing list    
Sprinklerforum@lists.fir

Re: threaded union fitting - follow up

[bcasterline]

Makes sense Douglas.
Matt:
Mix - 1964 #8. Needles and Pins - The Searchers:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rLqPtZUWJI&list=RD5rLqPtZUWJI


Quoting Douglas Hicks :

I don’t know about water, but gas piping is not allowed to have  
unions hidden in a wall.


From: Matt Grise
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: threaded union fitting - follow up

Just to follow up with this – after reviewing with the code  
inspector, it was the plumbing code requirement they were thinking  
of – not applicable to sprinklers. (I know you all have been on pins  
and needles!)




Matt





From: Matt Grise
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:33 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'  


Subject: threaded union fitting



I recently had an inspector say that all threaded union fittings  
must be accessible (access panel provided for union behind sheet  
rock). I have hear that this is a requirement for domestic water  
piping, but I have never heard about this for fire sprinklers. Does  
this ring a bell with anyone?




Thanks!



Matt






___
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: threaded union fitting - follow up

[bcasterline]

I was a nine year old with a transistor Bruce...
imma go all in or fold-- give me a minute
b..

Quoting Bruce Verhei :


Searchers, 1964. I’ll raise you one.
Seekers, 1964, with pipes in lyrics.


https://youtu.be/4mpJYIACehQ



On Feb 13, 2018, at 22:18, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote:

Makes sense Douglas.
Matt:
Mix - 1964 #8. Needles and Pins - The Searchers:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rLqPtZUWJI&list=RD5rLqPtZUWJI


Quoting Douglas Hicks :

I don’t know about water, but gas piping is not allowed to have  
unions hidden in a wall.


From: Matt Grise
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: threaded union fitting - follow up

Just to follow up with this – after reviewing with the code  
inspector, it was the plumbing code requirement they were thinking  
of – not applicable to sprinklers. (I know you all have been on  
pins and needles!)




Matt





From: Matt Grise
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:33 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'  


Subject: threaded union fitting



I recently had an inspector say that all threaded union fittings  
must be accessible (access panel provided for union behind sheet  
rock). I have hear that this is a requirement for domestic water  
piping, but I have never heard about this for fire sprinklers.  
Does this ring a bell with anyone?




Thanks!



Matt






___
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: threaded union fitting - follow up

[bcasterline]

November 1, 1954 here.
And, actually, I like The Forum most when it is rough and tumble and  
rather ugly-- it reminds me of home, so, so far it's been a pretty  
good week.

Quoting Bruce Verhei :


I started on Earth in 56.

Sent from my iPhone


On Feb 13, 2018, at 23:21, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote:

I was a nine year old with a transistor Bruce...
imma go all in or fold-- give me a minute
b..

Quoting Bruce Verhei :


Searchers, 1964. I’ll raise you one.
Seekers, 1964, with pipes in lyrics.


https://youtu.be/4mpJYIACehQ



On Feb 13, 2018, at 22:18, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote:

Makes sense Douglas.
Matt:
Mix - 1964 #8. Needles and Pins - The Searchers:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rLqPtZUWJI&list=RD5rLqPtZUWJI


Quoting Douglas Hicks :

I don’t know about water, but gas piping is not allowed to have  
unions hidden in a wall.


From: Matt Grise
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: threaded union fitting - follow up

Just to follow up with this – after reviewing with the code  
inspector, it was the plumbing code requirement they were  
thinking of – not applicable to sprinklers. (I know you all have  
been on pins and needles!)




Matt





From: Matt Grise
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:33 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'  


Subject: threaded union fitting



I recently had an inspector say that all threaded union fittings  
must be accessible (access panel provided for union behind sheet  
rock). I have hear that this is a requirement for domestic water  
piping, but I have never heard about this for fire sprinklers.  
Does this ring a bell with anyone?




Thanks!



Matt






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




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




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


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




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

Re: QR/SR Sprinklers

[bcasterline]

Might be a good thing to kick around a little bit!-
Quoting Rocci 3 Cetani :

Currently Brad Casterline  is frantically working up a model, give  
it a few days and I’m sure he will post a response  😊


Rocci Cetani III, CET
Senior Designer
Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com
www.norcalfire.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying  
it may contain confidential information
belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the  
use of individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended  
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this  
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any  
disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the  
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have  
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by  
telephone to arrange for return of the documents.


From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Ron Greenman

Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: QR/SR Sprinklers

John, you can’t mix them. So is it the bulb size I can’t mix or the  
listing in the application? What if it’s a fast response link in a  
typically QR sprinkler that is listed SR in this application? I  
think your reasoning and Nick’s and mine all have merit, but I think  
we’re trying to parse out what this all means in 13. I’m just  
reading the rules without concern for which is best in an actual  
situation because then you gave to ask which works first and then if  
more than one goes which is best. I don’t think the code can tell us  
that.


On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 3:28 PM John Denhardt  
mailto:jdenha...@stricklandfire.com>>  
wrote:
My 3 cents.  I would us the QR.  The other sprinklers are QR but in  
this application, they only receive the SR.


QR provides better protection in my opinion.

John
John August Denhardt, P.E.
Strickland Fire Protection

On Feb 15, 2018, at 5:28 PM, Ed Kramer  
mailto:e...@bamfordfire.com>> wrote:
Reference section 8.3.3.2 of the 2013 edition of NFPA 13:  “Where QR  
sprinklers are installed, all sprinklers within a compartment shall  
be quick-response unless otherwise permitted in 8.3.3.3.”  Section  
8.3.3.3 isn’t applicable for this question.


I’m protecting an OH II sales area with EC sprinklers spaced  
(mostly) at 18’x18’.  This particular sprinkler is listed as SR at  
that spacing, but is listed as QR for 14’x14’ and smaller spacing.   
This sales area has a small 20 sf nook (not a separate compartment)  
that requires an additional sprinkler.  My intent is to protect that  
nook with a K5.6 sprinkler.


Should the K5.6 sprinkler be SR or QR?

The answer is probably SR since the EC sprinklers are installed at a  
spacing that has a SR listing.  But that would be mixing a  
standard-response element with a fast-response element – something  
I’ve been led to believe is not cool.


The 2016 flavor of NFPA 13 has a new section 8.3.3.5 that allows  
mixing a SR listing with a QR listing as long as it’s the same  
sprinkler (and therefor both have the same fast-response element).


Anybody want to give their 2 cents?

Ed Kramer
Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc.
5134 Merriam Dr./Shawnee Mission, KS  66203
Phone: 913-432-6688  Fax: 913-432-5294  Cell: 785-766-4894
e...@bamfordfire.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
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile




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

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's

[bcasterline]

I never saw a wall that didn't go all the way down to the floor.
Brad.
Quoting "Mark.Phelps" :

So this minimum space rule applies to sprinklers under soffits and  
on either side of a lintel? I guess I have been of the understanding  
that this type of obstruction was effectively treated like a wall.  
Is that just not correct?


Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Roland Huggins  
mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote:


Reality can be cruel.  Without an approved variance, the very bad  
news is you have a noncomplying system and all the liability that  
goes with that.  After all the crying and gnashing of teeth,  
sometimes mother has to pick a different baby.


Roland



Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://secure-web.cisco.com/1wXO1nDy8iYAz2-wkUjZWf5n8JBJh5F1GYGMpa5sAkyrXcYp53UgWPDWk7yMm2GAuKGJs-SDyayG2YArmuwjrZSkbCU9sV2phXwIo5VxEdtibGkfHZUTyhybWoBEh0IsLyjXv912KxMOvIr6Bp4zH5R-GGaDYGo3LHJ9JrUeklb9Z5aYBcghFIysl62kH1aZTGXb8i7TgRoKKIgtxu4xmYvCUnboweqOpNXXl1Xcb9qO-9zgvOKDiRw6GUPr8MUhHd2RnanjOoBFe6hAWvVgxmg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org


Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




On Feb 16, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Mark.Phelps  
mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote:


I the applications we work in (real buildings) it is not possible to  
do so. If I have a sprinkler 10 feet from an I Beam, I can only  
install the next sprinkler at the 8' minimum spacing from it. And if  
I space the first sprinkler at that same 8' from there, I am over  
spaced from the obstructing beam by 12". So.. what's a mother to  
do?


Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Roland Huggins  
mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote:


The one doesn’t negate the other. You have to comply with BOTH.


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://secure-web.cisco.com/11AaOLmB4GbEARu4YaU_u16EyUnzrX2BM5FR_tPL5oVcrPe8PDEMGFOFNTZw_W613QOFX-p1sOCSOHfzbYNg3lq2AMVYiobBQvuJWjxM0NYjqixKpqTKgio_t--XFyz30IGG9zBFtDRRS3mfB3wjC6Tpz07kT6wHABc6RZ35mypIW581pVqLhPpfXsddxen3NwS3TfOerPq1b_3AasUH9ODWU7WDUdHaicl5lQ0JD29Z9Vq_WHBRsimXtM3gnSFAH-lU-T0kssWfPvJKpNxzrNg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Mark.Phelps  
mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote:


I'm away from the standards but doesn't NFPA 13 have a paragraph  
which addresses sprinkler spacing on both sides of an obstruction,  
and only limits the spacing to 1/2 the Maximum spacing from the  
obstruction? We routinely space ESFR/Storage sprinklers at 2'-0"  
from an I Beam on both sides in this application.


Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 16, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Roland Huggins  
mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote:


You still need to get approval of the AHJ (as an equivalency) since  
NFPA 13 does not allow it.



Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1itLE6KI-0YvJ1O45X-H49Sz3FDbGxbyzHLZJkAbQXBXC6TUcVFrJZya7TLnA8Ut2OGf3AF_WbKtBmNFbDz5s0noy3S3-pWB0AzUSHu5TX6l1iqlQ05nFibAMML6rSjHcP5pmA8hp_QEbruyQaw8a1pTisuJwPbnzqdKMm7-YmBzD5DJlCkcneBQU0PxOeYljUgXfjbADGEM2pBaTCy610TUk2w7i3H2Pon6RScLsPAmSurc0ob7fCWUadpxLLUhMON7FFAP3xAa9PtY3ru4JdA/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:45 AM, Brian Harris  
mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>> wrote:


Mark-
I got a phone call yesterday from a member of one of the committees  
who essentially said the same thing. I’ve re-spotted heads using  
ESFR in each pocket over the storage area and the calc’s are much  
better, still need to find some more cushion somewhere. Thanks again  
for the response.


Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssytemsinc.com

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR Heads in Concrete Tee's

[bcasterline]

She's the kind of girl whows not too shy and she can tell lm her kind of guy
Quoting Roland Huggins :


I guess you could call the side of the soffit a baffle but since it
doesn’t extend below the pendent it really isn’t.


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives





On Feb 16, 2018, at 3:52 PM, Roland Huggins
 wrote:

Now you go and add another wrinkle from reality and identified
soffits.  That’s an unstated exception since we are required to
install a pendent beneath the soffit when its more than 8 inches
deep (but there’s a sidewall often less than a ft away).  BTW - this
is flagged as needing a little annex material

Good thing this stuff is easy/


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives





On Feb 16, 2018, at 1:35 PM, Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote:

So this minimum space rule applies to sprinklers under soffits and
on either side of a lintel? I guess I have been of the
understanding that this type of obstruction was effectively treated
like a wall. Is that just not correct?

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Roland Huggins
mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>>
wrote:


Reality can be cruel.  Without an approved variance, the very bad
news is you have a noncomplying system and all the liability that
goes with that.  After all the crying and gnashing of teeth,
sometimes mother has to pick a different baby.

Roland


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1wXO1nDy8iYAz2-wkUjZWf5n8JBJh5F1GYGMpa5sAkyrXcYp53UgWPDWk7yMm2GAuKGJs-SDyayG2YArmuwjrZSkbCU9sV2phXwIo5VxEdtibGkfHZUTyhybWoBEh0IsLyjXv912KxMOvIr6Bp4zH5R-GGaDYGo3LHJ9JrUeklb9Z5aYBcghFIysl62kH1aZTGXb8i7TgRoKKIgtxu4xmYvCUnboweqOpNXXl1Xcb9qO-9zgvOKDiRw6GUPr8MUhHd2RnanjOoBFe6hAWvVgxmg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org


Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives





On Feb 16, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote:

I the applications we work in (real buildings) it is not possible
to do so. If I have a sprinkler 10 feet from an I Beam, I can
only install the next sprinkler at the 8' minimum spacing from
it. And if I space the first sprinkler at that same 8' from
there, I am over spaced from the obstructing beam by 12".
So.. what's a mother to do?

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Roland Huggins
mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>>
wrote:


The one doesn’t negate the other. You have to comply with BOTH.


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://secure-web.cisco.com/11AaOLmB4GbEARu4YaU_u16EyUnzrX2BM5FR_tPL5oVcrPe8PDEMGFOFNTZw_W613QOFX-p1sOCSOHfzbYNg3lq2AMVYiobBQvuJWjxM0NYjqixKpqTKgio_t--XFyz30IGG9zBFtDRRS3mfB3wjC6Tpz07kT6wHABc6RZ35mypIW581pVqLhPpfXsddxen3NwS3TfOerPq1b_3AasUH9ODWU7WDUdHaicl5lQ0JD29Z9Vq_WHBRsimXtM3gnSFAH-lU-T0kssWfPvJKpNxzrNg/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org


Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives





On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote:

I'm away from the standards but doesn't NFPA 13 have a
paragraph which addresses sprinkler spacing on both sides of an
obstruction, and only limits the spacing to 1/2 the Maximum
spacing from the obstruction? We routinely space ESFR/Storage
sprinklers at 2'-0" from an I Beam on both sides in this
application.

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 16, 2018, at 8:17 AM, Roland Huggins
mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>> wrote:


You still need to get approval of the AHJ (as an equivalency)
since NFPA 13 does not allow it.


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1itLE6KI-0YvJ1O45X-H49Sz3FDbGxbyzHLZJkAbQXBXC6TUcVFrJZya7TLnA8Ut2OGf3AF_WbKtBmNFbDz5s0noy3S3-pWB0AzUSHu5TX6l1iqlQ05nFibAMML6rSjHcP5pmA8hp_QEbruyQaw8a1pTisuJwPbnzqdKMm7-YmBzD5DJlCkcneBQU0PxOeYljUgXfjbADGEM2pBaTCy610TUk2w7i3H2Pon6RScLsPAmSurc0ob7fCWUadpxLLUhMON7FFAP3xAa9PtY3ru4JdA/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firesprinkler.org

Re: Underground Dry System Pipe Type

[bcasterline]

I would not extend a dry system underground - there's worms and stuff  
down there.


B.
Quoting Richard Matsuda :

Since the pipe is running underground, is PVC or CPVC acceptable?  
Those are already used for underground piping for free-standing  
FDC's.Just trying to think outside the box.rick


On Monday, February 19, 2018 8:06 PM, Bruce Verhei  
 wrote:




https://www.dipra.org/contact-dipra/ask-an-engineer


On Feb 19, 2018, at 17:49, Charles Thurston  
 wrote:


My concern with the cement lined Di. Is it not designed to have  
water in it all the time keeping the cement lining wet? I would be  
concerned on a fry system of the cement drying out. I know I have  
walked on plenty of dry dement walks and gotten that white powder  
off it and the surface has dried out and turned back to powder.




Best regards,
Charles Thurston                          thurst...@pyebarkerfire.com
MYRTLE BEACH FIRE SAFETY GROUP
A Division of Pye-Barker Fire Safety
1445 Cannon Road
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
(843) 916 - 8787
(843) 839 - 3473 facsimile




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On

Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Underground Dry System Pipe Type

Cement lined ductile iron.  If you use standard DI, and a standard  
atmospheric
sourced air compressor you can have rust and scaling buildup with  
ambient air

inside pipe in contact with cooler ground temps.

How are you going to slope underground pipe back to an aboveground valve
room?  Basement level valve room?


Craig L. Prahl
Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
Direct - 864.920.7540
Fax - 864.920.7129
Direct Extension  77540
CH2M is now Jacobs.
200 Verdae Blvd.
Greenville, SC  29607
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
http://www.jacobs.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On

Behalf Of Reed A. Roisum, SET
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Underground Dry System Pipe Type [EXTERNAL]

I asked a similar question a number of years ago and it appears as  
though the

consensus at that time was that dry-pipe system underground pipe should be
ductile iron.  We have an application where the dry-pipe system  
leaves the valve
room and goes underground and then extends above ground.  Is  
ductile iron the
best option for the underground portion?  We are able to slope to  
drain back to

the valve room.

Thank you.

Reed Roisum


Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 |
KFIengineers.com

_
_
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
_
_
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
___
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

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


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



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
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: Draining System below ground....

[bcasterline]

Mr Prahl been smokin hot here lately - on fire.
Can I get a witness?
b.
Quoting "Prahl, Craig/GVL" :

40 gallon trash can and portable sump pump with hose to exterior or  
suitable drain.


That or bucket brigade.  :)


Craig L. Prahl
Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
Direct - 864.920.7540
Fax - 864.920.7129
Direct Extension  77540
CH2M is now Jacobs.
200 Verdae Blvd.
Greenville, SC  29607
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
http://www.jacobs.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Brian Harris

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Draining System below ground [EXTERNAL]

Any suggestions on draining a system located in a basement below grade?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
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: Draining System below ground....

[bcasterline]

Quoting Matt Grise :


I am also getting phishing notices.

Matt


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Steve Leyton

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Draining System below ground

[This message was identified as a phishing scam. Learn about  
phishing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutPhishing]


Attn:  AFSA Admin

Re:   Phishing scam notice

Am I the only one getting the notice, "This message was identified  
as a phishing scam."?


If others are seeing it, there may be something wrong with the  
site's security certificate or some attribute has been added to  
emails generated by the list-server.


Steve



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Draining System below ground

[This message was identified as a phishing scam. Learn about  
phishing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutPhishing]


Mr Prahl been smokin hot here lately - on fire.
Can I get a witness?
b.
Quoting "Prahl, Craig/GVL" :


40 gallon trash can and portable sump pump with hose to exterior or
suitable drain.

That or bucket brigade.  :)


Craig L. Prahl
Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
Direct - 864.920.7540
Fax - 864.920.7129
Direct Extension  77540
CH2M is now Jacobs.
200 Verdae Blvd.
Greenville, SC  29607
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
http://www.jacobs.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Harris
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Draining System below ground [EXTERNAL]

Any suggestions on draining a system located in a basement below grade?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

-- next part -- An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...
URL:

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


probably my fault for saying -smoking hot-

I'll crawl back into bed now, er uhh,


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

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




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

Re: Draining System below ground....

[bcasterline]

It's probably my dumba$$ fault.
Time for me to unsubscribe.
Later,
Brad.

Quoting Dale Wingard :

Same thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago when I asked a  
question.  Guessing that is why I didn't get a lot of responses.  I  
did get 2 emails and 2 phone calls.  Thanks Mark and Roland for your  
helpful insights.




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Brian Harris

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 7:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Draining System below ground

[This message was identified as a phishing scam. Learn about  
phishing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutPhishing]


I've been seeing the same thing the last couple days...

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssytemsinc.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Steve Leyton

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Draining System below ground

[This message was identified as a phishing scam. Learn about  
phishing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutPhishing]


Attn:  AFSA Admin

Re:   Phishing scam notice

Am I the only one getting the notice, "This message was identified  
as a phishing scam."?


If others are seeing it, there may be something wrong with the  
site's security certificate or some attribute has been added to  
emails generated by the list-server.


Steve



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Draining System below ground

[This message was identified as a phishing scam. Learn about  
phishing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutPhishing]


Mr Prahl been smokin hot here lately - on fire.
Can I get a witness?
b.
Quoting "Prahl, Craig/GVL" :


40 gallon trash can and portable sump pump with hose to exterior or
suitable drain.

That or bucket brigade.  :)


Craig L. Prahl
Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
Direct - 864.920.7540
Fax - 864.920.7129
Direct Extension  77540
CH2M is now Jacobs.
200 Verdae Blvd.
Greenville, SC  29607
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
http://www.jacobs.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Harris
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Draining System below ground [EXTERNAL]

Any suggestions on draining a system located in a basement below grade?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

-- next part -- An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...
URL:

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




___
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
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Dale Wingard  SET.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 26062 bytes
Desc: Dale Wingard  SET.vcf
URL:  


___
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: Underground & Stub-In Requirements

[bcasterline]

For some reason in Kansas anyway 4" is min. if no hydrant on it-- 6"  
if it supplies a hydrant too, as far as i remember.

Brad.

ps- does it really take the moderator over one week to approve an  
'unsubscribe' nowadays?


Quoting "Westbrook, Jay" :

See the modification to NFPA 24 in the 120-3-3 Rules and  
Regulations. That may be what you are looking for.


J. Westbrook
Cobb Fire Marshal

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Michael Goodis

Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 3:53 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Underground & Stub-In Requirements

Is a GC able to install 4" piping as a stub-in into a building in Augusta
GA?   I know for years I have always seen and been told the minimum is 6".
I couldn't find it in 120-3-3 where I  thought it was.



Thanks,



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





-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
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: Underground & Stub-In Requirements

[bcasterline]

Thank you Steve.
(suddenly i feel alive again!)

Brad--
.

Quoting Steve Leyton :

If you unsubscribed because you thought you were the cause of the  
phishing advisory, I'm pretty sure it wasn't you.


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com

Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:09 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Underground & Stub-In Requirements

For some reason in Kansas anyway 4" is min. if no hydrant on it-- 6"
if it supplies a hydrant too, as far as i remember.
Brad.

ps- does it really take the moderator over one week to approve an  
'unsubscribe' nowadays?


Quoting "Westbrook, Jay" :


See the modification to NFPA 24 in the 120-3-3 Rules and Regulations.
That may be what you are looking for.

J. Westbrook
Cobb Fire Marshal

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Goodis
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 3:53 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Underground & Stub-In Requirements

Is a GC able to install 4" piping as a stub-in into a building in Augusta
GA?   I know for years I have always seen and been told the minimum is 6".
I couldn't find it in 120-3-3 where I  thought it was.



Thanks,



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





-- next part -- An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...
URL:

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




___
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: Protection Area of Coverage for Sprinkler

[bcasterline]

Oh geez, here we go again.
Now i'll never get to sleep.
.

Quoting Chris Born :

8.5.2.1.1 of the 2016 edition of NFPA 13 covers how to determine the  
area covered by a sprinkler. This seems to be pretty  
straightforward, but I’ve noticed some strange wording. Consider a  
building with exposed structure and some beams that are deep enough  
to be obstructions, 36” as an one example.


For spacing between branch lines, the standard says “Determine  
perpendicular distance to the sprinkler on the adjacent branch line  
(or to a wall or obstruction in the case of the last branch line)  
...” I understand the reference to last branch line when referring  
to a wall, but not with respect to an obstruction. Similar language  
exists for spacing along the line.


Is this just poor wording, or is it really the intent not to allow  
measurement to an obstruction if not the end line or sprinkler? I  
have a case where a deep beam requires an additional line.  The  
designer has spaced heads closer together on the line that is  
further from the beam, so calculating head spacing times twice the  
distance to the beam results in an area of less than 100 sq ft (this  
is extra hazard). However, if the intent is to use the distance to  
the next line (and ignore the beam) then the area is over 100 sq ft.  
I think the layout meets the intent, but am interested in other  
opinions.


Sent from my iPad

Christopher H. Born, P.E.
Director, Fire Protection Engineering|Principal
Clark Nexsen
4525 Main Street, Suite 1400
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
(757) 455-5800
(757) 961-7933 (direct)
(757) 644-8581(mobile)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
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: Protection Area of Coverage for Sprinkler

[bcasterline]

I say a beam only acts like a wall if you can't throw under it, and if  
the sprinkler is that close, the heat flow AT THE SPRINKLER, due to  
the beam is also OBSTRUCTED... very wall-like behavior.

I could probably dig up some snapshots tomorrow.

Brad.

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


Oh geez, here we go again.
Now i'll never get to sleep.
.

Quoting Chris Born :

8.5.2.1.1 of the 2016 edition of NFPA 13 covers how to determine  
the area covered by a sprinkler. This seems to be pretty  
straightforward, but I’ve noticed some strange wording. Consider a  
building with exposed structure and some beams that are deep enough  
to be obstructions, 36” as an one example.


For spacing between branch lines, the standard says “Determine  
perpendicular distance to the sprinkler on the adjacent branch line  
(or to a wall or obstruction in the case of the last branch line)  
...” I understand the reference to last branch line when referring  
to a wall, but not with respect to an obstruction. Similar language  
exists for spacing along the line.


Is this just poor wording, or is it really the intent not to allow  
measurement to an obstruction if not the end line or sprinkler? I  
have a case where a deep beam requires an additional line.  The  
designer has spaced heads closer together on the line that is  
further from the beam, so calculating head spacing times twice the  
distance to the beam results in an area of less than 100 sq ft  
(this is extra hazard). However, if the intent is to use the  
distance to the next line (and ignore the beam) then the area is  
over 100 sq ft. I think the layout meets the intent, but am  
interested in other opinions.


Sent from my iPad

Christopher H. Born, P.E.
Director, Fire Protection Engineering|Principal
Clark Nexsen
4525 Main Street, Suite 1400
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
(757) 455-5800
(757) 961-7933 (direct)
(757) 644-8581(mobile)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
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: PA nursing home fire with multiple fatalities

[bcasterline]

Quoting David Blackwell :


Yes, it had a sprinkler system, but also multiple fatalities...

"In deadly fire at West Chester nursing home, what went wrong?"
  Updated: March 2, 2018 — 4:00 PM EST
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/west-chester-nursing-home-fire-barclay-friends-sprinkler-deaths-pennsylvania-20180302.html



Respectfully,

David Blackwell



thanks David.

My heart goes out to all involved.
Statistics say it was a closed valve.
But what struck me is that hazard classifications for the purpose of  
design, installation and WATER SUPPLY are based on the building  
contents. This fire started outside.


Brad.


David Blackwell, P.E.
Chief Engineer
(803)896-9833

Office of State Fire Marshal
141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203
http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/
(803)896-9800

"Our firefighting starts with plan review..."


___
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: PA nursing home fire with multiple fatalities

[bcasterline]

In other words, if all the ATF is saying is that the fire started  
outside on the patio then it did, and the Federal Prosecutors are  
moving on to other cases.


If the toilets flushed the water supply for this hazard would have  
been enough to smash that fire-- if it had started inside.


Maybe it burned up through the eaves, got above the attic sprinklers,  
spread exponentially, then descended like dark clouds from hell over a  
large area activating sprinklers far from the origin and that is why  
the survivors were wet coming out.
So all the so-called typos ie 363 vs 663 gpm is MOOT-- if it stated  
outide it's like arson -- our control mode designs can't handle it.


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


Quoting David Blackwell :


Yes, it had a sprinkler system, but also multiple fatalities...

"In deadly fire at West Chester nursing home, what went wrong?"
 Updated: March 2, 2018 — 4:00 PM EST
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/west-chester-nursing-home-fire-barclay-friends-sprinkler-deaths-pennsylvania-20180302.html



Respectfully,

David Blackwell



thanks David.

My heart goes out to all involved.
Statistics say it was a closed valve.
But what struck me is that hazard classifications for the purpose of  
design, installation and WATER SUPPLY are based on the building  
contents. This fire started outside.


Brad.


David Blackwell, P.E.
Chief Engineer
(803)896-9833

Office of State Fire Marshal
141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203
http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/
(803)896-9800

"Our firefighting starts with plan review..."


___
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: PA nursing home fire with multiple fatalities

[bcasterline]

'what-was-wanting'
the challenge for the 'up-and-coming'
i love you scot

Quoting "å... " :


Consider the waterflow test really was 90 psig static, 20 psig residual and
363 gpm.
If the fire started outside, the elevation pressure loss to operating
sprinklers is minimal (~ 4.5 psig);   therefore enough water pressure
remains to operate a handful of sprinklers.
And a handful of sprinklers is ordinarily enough to control a fire; if the
fire started inside...


1.  Combustible exterior though, could have contributed to flame spread.
2. If the water department was motivated to upgrade their water supply,
then there probably was something seriously lacking in their product
delivery.
If we can determine if it was the fire pump operator (engineer) whom
declared "...there is no water at the scene!" this points a finger at the
underground water supply.
3. The control valve to the personal care section of the facility could
have been off, but this facility had multiple risers, each with its own
control valve; even if the personal care system control valve was closed,
other CVs to other sprinkler systems should have been open and capable of
delivering water, which again points to lack of municipal water supply.
4. If the control valve to the BFP was closed, then all sprinkler systems
would not be delivering water via the city pressurized underground pipes,
but the FDC should still have been able to deliver water to the individual
sprinkler systems as it should be connected downstream of the backflow
preventer.  So if water from the FDC was not reaching the systems, this
again implicates the municipal water system,

5. Was there a water leak in the municipal supply that prompted the
municipal water department to restrict some valves?
6. Was the sprinkler system to the personal care wing a dry-pipe system,
and impaired due to corrosion?

Usually it takes more than one system (items 1 through 6) to fail in order
to create a significant tragedy.

It is sad to learn of this tragedy.  It is hoped that once what-was-wanting
with these fire suppression systems is identified, these will not be soon
repeated.

​Scot Deal
Excelsior Risk and Fire Engineering
gsm:  +420 606 981 266 <+420%20606%20981%20266>   GMT + 1​
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


___
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: Liquor Store

[bcasterline]

So far Bruce, yes.
45 years has not dulled Vincent's sense of humor (my first mentor- he  
kept me in stitches while instilling a love for this industry).


This is a test post though -- I unsubscribed a while back- at least I  
tried. If it turns out to be like a failed suicide attempt I have to  
admit I will be thankful.

(and re'double' my efforts to 'straight'en up and fly right.)

Brad.

Quoting Bruce Verhei :


Vince wins the March 2018 contest.


Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Mar 14, 2018, at 10:29,   
 wrote:


LOL


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
 On Behalf Of Vince  
Sabolik

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Tony Silva 
Subject: Re: Liquor Store

Ordinary II, neat.




On 3/14/2018 12:44 PM, Tony Silva wrote:
I think this question has been asked before.

What is the occupancy for a standard liquor store? Storage not
exceeding 12 feet high.

Thanks,

Tony
-- next part -- An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...
URL:

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





--

11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876Cell 440 724-7601

/
Vince Sabolik /

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20914 x WTFP Logo NEW1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 30521 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:  


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

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


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




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

Re: Existing 3/4" outlets

[bcasterline]

Does anyone make res heads with 3/4 npt?
If so just replace the heads and let it overflow!
The Standards only spell out minimums.

Brad.

Quoting Dewayne Martinez :


I have a project that was originally designed as a OH II space that will
now be turned into a light hazard residential exposed “loft” space.  The
existing ¾” K8.0 sprinklers over discharge like crazy.  Can I bush the
3/4'” outlets down to ½” to use K5.6 sprinklers?  If not any suggestions?



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/

[image: Consecutive Honors 2012-2017]
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8202 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:  


___
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: Existing 3/4" outlets

[bcasterline]

I only found one maker of UPRIGHT RESIDENTIAL.
I didn't see the npt, but K4.9 so probably not 3/4.
Would a 3/4x0-2 sprig w/ 3/4x1/2 RC be legal?

Brad.

Quoting Matt Grise :

If the system was previously able to provide OH2, is it a problem to  
have over discharge? Could you make sure all of the heads are QR and  
just have a light hazard system with lots of extra water?


Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  
 On Behalf Of  
Dewayne Martinez

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:42 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Subject: Existing 3/4" outlets

I have a project that was originally designed as a OH II space that  
will now be turned into a light hazard residential exposed “loft”  
space.  The existing ¾” K8.0 sprinklers over discharge like crazy.   
Can I bush the 3/4'” outlets down to ½” to use K5.6 sprinklers?  If  
not any suggestions?




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/

[image: Consecutive Honors 2012-2017]
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8202 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:  


___
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: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets

[bcasterline]

Kyle, if there is even a whiff of Residential about the occupancy the  
listed res should be used because, along with the quick response, res  
heads have a superior pattern, wetting not only the floor but high up  
on the walls too (curtains, bookshelves, the curio cabinets full of  
Russian Shadow Boxes, etc.)


Brad.

Quoting "Kyle.Montgomery" :

Do you NEED residential heads, or can you just use any  
quick-response head? Even if it over-discharges, I wouldn't expect  
that to be a problem for the calcs since it was originally designed  
for OH 2.


Why do you even need to change the heads? Are the existing K-8 heads  
standard response?


-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Dewayne Martinez

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets

That’s a thought.The problem is the original shell with 3/4"  
uprights with a pipe centerline of 12" below deck.  No residential  
uprights in 3/4"
and I thought residential pendant heads are not  listed to be  
installed exposed?


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
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.total-2Dmechanical.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=QgdEeClG--ixhAlrzYXkB9w1GVgwdnHkcfh2xsZlbVU&s=m9niRfDrj2QzVwiLzgS0z9PaTLR67E2v662JDvbdOzA&e=


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
 On Behalf Of Mike B  
Morey

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Existing 3/4" outlets

You say bushing, I say sprinkler head extension less than 2" per 6.4.8?


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:   Dewayne Martinez 
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Date:   03/15/2018 06:43 PM
Subject:Existing 3/4" outlets
Sent by:"Sprinklerforum"





BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


I have a project that was originally designed as a OH II space that  
will now be turned into a light hazard residential exposed “loft”  
space.  The existing ¾” K8.0 sprinklers over discharge like crazy.   
Can I bush the 3/4'”

outlets down to ½” to use K5.6 sprinklers?  If not any suggestions?



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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.total-2Dmechanical.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=B1gjGjTnf7-Ej9T8PcnuSRVFemMqu2U1aEPDQxrOPHo&s=RuZ6bsVtOYaDGrG_UfPQiu-9SlgO6obtB79V-_fi8X8&e=


[image: Consecutive Honors 2012-2017]
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_private.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org_attachments_20180315_41e14879_attachment.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=B1gjGjTnf7-Ej9T8PcnuSRVFemMqu2U1aEPDQxrOPHo&s=6cdt-sQIacSh7qM78kH-MF2ygexAPpze5AppEvB6NWY&e=



-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8202 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_private.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org_attachments_20180315_41e14879_attachment.jpg&d=DwIGaQ&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=B1gjGjTnf7-Ej9T8PcnuSRVFemMqu2U1aEPDQxrOPHo&s=b2vPc9rxHD40k3ZkHc9JYKjhqeCngJKY6_kzQNoy5EM&e=



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=B1gjGjTnf7-Ej9T8PcnuSRVFemMqu2U1aEPDQxrOPHo&s=eLw-8Ymu6_DIM_XseIvcGIrkA6vCiJ168TukvdOr5j4&e=




This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain  
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No  
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any  
mistransmission.  If you receive this message in error, please   
immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy  
any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly  
or indirectly, use

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets

[bcasterline]

I just know from reading about the earliest development of Residential  
sprks it was recognized how important it was to get spray high up on  
the wall. So 'superior pattern for residential' and 'far superior  
level of protection for commercial' are different pages of the same  
book.

(and i meant to say lacquer boxes, not shadow).

Brad.

Quoting "Kyle.Montgomery" :

Is that the general consensus? I've never really thought of  
residential heads being far superior to commercial QR heads. I mean,  
we use residential sprinklers all the time, but primarily because  
they are advantageous to us in the types of buildings we are  
installing (4-head calc, better extended coverage options, etc.). I  
guess I've always considered a residential system to be more lenient  
(i.e. less water flow and pressure required) and thus a "lower"  
level of protection than your standard light hazard system.


If residential heads are actually providing a "higher" level of  
protection, then why is it that quick response commercial heads can  
be used in both residential and commercial occupancies, but that  
residential heads may only be used in residential occupancies?


-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 11:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets

Kyle, if there is even a whiff of Residential about the occupancy  
the listed res should be used because, along with the quick  
response, res heads have a superior pattern, wetting not only the  
floor but high up on the walls too (curtains, bookshelves, the curio  
cabinets full of Russian Shadow Boxes, etc.)


Brad.

Quoting "Kyle.Montgomery" :


Do you NEED residential heads, or can you just use any quick-response
head? Even if it over-discharges, I wouldn't expect that to be a
problem for the calcs since it was originally designed for OH 2.

Why do you even need to change the heads? Are the existing K-8 heads
standard response?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Dewayne Martinez
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets

That’s a thought.The problem is the original shell with 3/4"
uprights with a pipe centerline of 12" below deck.  No residential
uprights in 3/4"
and I thought residential pendant heads are not  listed to be
installed exposed?

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
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.total-2Dmechan
ical.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3b
n8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=QgdEeClG--ixhAlrzYXkB9w1GVgwdnHkcfh2xsZlbVU&s=m9
niRfDrj2QzVwiLzgS0z9PaTLR67E2v662JDvbdOzA&e=


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
 On Behalf Of Mike B
Morey
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Existing 3/4" outlets

You say bushing, I say sprinkler head extension less than 2" per 6.4.8?


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:   Dewayne Martinez 
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Date:   03/15/2018 06:43 PM
Subject:Existing 3/4" outlets
Sent by:"Sprinklerforum"





BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


I have a project that was originally designed as a OH II space that
will now be turned into a light hazard residential exposed “loft”
space.  The existing ¾” K8.0 sprinklers over discharge like crazy.
Can I bush the 3/4'”
outlets down to ½” to use K5.6 sprinklers?  If not any suggestions?



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

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.total-2Dmechan
ical.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOS
JoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=B1gjGjTnf7-Ej9T8PcnuSRVFemMqu2U1aEPDQxrOPHo&s=Ru
Z6bsVtOYaDGrG_UfPQiu-9SlgO6obtB79V-_fi8X8&e=


[image: Consecutive Honors 2012-2017]
-- next part -- An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...
URL: <
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkle
r.org_private.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org_attachments_20180
315_41e14879_attachment.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2h
rRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets

[bcasterline]

It's a head scratcher for sure.
One of those Occupancy Classifications that's hard to pin down with  
just words, then apply all the rules that go along with that vagueness.

B.

Quoting "Kyle.Montgomery" :

Well, it does give us something to think about. I wonder, though,  
does the residential sprinkler head's ability to provide "better  
control than spray sprinklers in residential occupancies" (quoted  
from NFPA 13) necessarily mean that the commercial QR head is  
inadequate for the job? I submit that it is not, due to the fact  
that NFPA 13 still allows it's use in this scenario. I mean, a Lexus  
is better than a Toyota, but they'll both get you to work every day.


If I were the engineer of record, I might require residential  
sprinklers in the spec. But, if I were the installing contractor in  
this case (and not otherwise hand-tied by the spec) I think I would  
install the most economical QR sprinkler, be code-compliant, and  
call it a day. Or, maybe not change a thing if the existing heads  
are already QR.


-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
cw bamford

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 4:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets

"the right Sprinkler Head for the right job"
in a Hallway of a hotel or apartment building most AHJ's will accept  
a residential head---or you can use a light hazard head.


Residential Headsreact fast --- high wall wetting Prevent Flashover
--- and give opportunity
to Exit. usually  .05 gpm /sqft

Light Hazard Quick Response   .10 gpm /sqft   a lot more water but is
it Superior? ...for Life Safety?

we started off with THIS quote
"light hazard residential exposed “loft” space"
h  what is that?  a Live Work unit?  a painter? potter with  
kiln?  or just a residence?


Chuck Bamford SET


On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Kyle.Montgomery 
wrote:


Is that the general consensus? I've never really thought of
residential heads being far superior to commercial QR heads. I mean,
we use residential sprinklers all the time, but primarily because they
are advantageous to us in the types of buildings we are installing
(4-head calc, better extended coverage options, etc.). I guess I've
always considered a residential system to be more lenient (i.e. less
water flow and pressure required) and thus a "lower" level of  
protection than your standard light hazard system.


If residential heads are actually providing a "higher" level of
protection, then why is it that quick response commercial heads can be
used in both residential and commercial occupancies, but that
residential heads may only be used in residential occupancies?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
org] On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 11:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets

Kyle, if there is even a whiff of Residential about the occupancy the
listed res should be used because, along with the quick response, res
heads have a superior pattern, wetting not only the floor but high up
on the walls too (curtains, bookshelves, the curio cabinets full of
Russian Shadow Boxes, etc.)

Brad.

Quoting "Kyle.Montgomery" :

> Do you NEED residential heads, or can you just use any
> quick-response head? Even if it over-discharges, I wouldn't expect
> that to be a problem for the calcs since it was originally  
designed for OH 2.

>
> Why do you even need to change the heads? Are the existing K-8 heads
> standard response?
>
> -Kyle M
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> Dewayne Martinez
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:46 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing 3/4" outlets
>
> That’s a thought.The problem is the original shell with 3/4"
> uprights with a pipe centerline of 12" below deck.  No residential
> uprights in 3/4"
> and I thought residential pendant heads are not  listed to be
> installed exposed?
>
> 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
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.total-2Dmech
> an
> ical.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS
> 3b
> n8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=QgdEeClG--ixhAlrzYXkB9w1GVgwdnHkcfh2xsZlbVU&s=
> m9 niRfDrj2QzVwiLzgS0z9PaTLR67E2v662JDvbdOzA&e=
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
>  On Behalf Of Mike B
> Morey
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:57 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Existing 3/4" outlets
>
> You say bushing, I say sprinkler head e

Re: Calc' terminology

[bcasterline]

I think the words clean and dirty just refers to the density Steve,  
which you need to know to get from PSI to feet of head.
13 uses 62.4 lbs/ft^3 (it's not blatant, but I figured it out by  
rearanging other rules).

Define 'algorithm'-- i don't see it in chapter 3...
;)
B


Quoting Steve Leyton :

I'm doing a 3rd-party review of a private fire hydrant system for a  
local AHJ, prepared by a civil engineer.   They've done pressure  
loss calculations that the EOR says were done on a freeware  
"program" that may actually be a spreadsheet.  The output is a  
cumulative table, and there are values given in the friction loss  
section for "clean" and "dirty" pressure loss (PSI), "clean" and  
"dirty" head loss (ft).   I've never heard those terms - can anyone  
help me out with this?   When they summarize the total loss, they're  
using the value for "dirty head loss (ft)" but deducting from the  
available as if it's PSI.   I'm pretty sure the submitter has no  
idea of what they're doing but I'm also not familiar with the format  
and don't want to arbitrarily kick it back if it's a legitimate  
procedure.


Anyone?Brad, you must have an algorithm to correlate the  
clean/dirty thing ...


[Steve Signature (3)]

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 23565 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL:  


___
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: [EXTERNAL] C?

[bcasterline]

The lab would not even need a biologist on staff Vince!
They couldn't tell you what the C Factor was, but if they could  
measure the absolute roughness you could take it from there.
I like Mark's idea of a mechanical tee coupon - send them that and  
they can measure the height/depth of the inside wall 'irregularities'.
Say that comes up .0059 inches- that means moderately coroded-  
Absolute Roughness- that's all they could tell you.
Since the same height on 2" affects the flow of the same height on 6"  
far more, you have to calculate the Relative Roughness.
Then, if I was you, I would use the Swamee Jain equation for solving  
for the friction factor, look at NFPA 750 and rearange the formula  
that solves the friction factor based on C and solve for C based on  
the friction factor instead.

Brad

Quoting "Mark.Phelps" :

My experience with old wet standpipes is that they are almost always  
in very good shape internally. A quick proof is to drill a hole for  
a 2" mech tee and check the coupon for wall thickness and interior  
condition.


Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 21, 2018, at 3:21 AM, Vince Sabolik  wrote:

Forum -

I was wondering if anyone has had occasion  to have a lab test  
piping to establish a C value.
I know that we could back into this value through a point to point  
flow test, but would

rather have it tested for.

If you have had experience with a lab, can you forward their name  
and requirements?


I working in an old building (80 yrs ±) and want to reuse the old  
wet standpipes.


thanks, Vince


11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876Cell 440 724-7601

/
Vince Sabolik /

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:  


-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20914 x WTFP Logo NEW1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 30521 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:  


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=wonrpay3YRA9EUKSZyCiNhdFxfndtvADSfHaW35jg4c&s=dtl4X4fGBtyOiiptraoXk0jsAXCLVhAAs81q3UlBzMM&e=

___
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: concealed space less than 6" deep

[bcasterline]

Thanks Ben. I looked at the book and searched through archives and it  
turns out the largest room in the thread I was remembering was a hotel  
room :)

Brad.

Quoting Ben Young :


Bob, I see where you're coming from with this, but we've seen this in the
past with NFPA (previously doing the 0.10 calc for residential heads
referred back to the small room spacing rules for SSU/P heads).
Also, 8.15.1.2.3 refers only to studs and joists and distances, not
distances between something else.

So 1.2.3 reads '...formed by studs or joists with less than 6" between the
inside edges of the studs or joists...'

1.2.4  reads '...formed by bar joists with less than 6" between roof or
floor deck and ceiling...'

So in 124 you are looking at the space between a floor and ceiling
125 its between the joists and the ceiling.

But in 123, you only have the distances between joists and... more joists.

This is why I hate reading too deeply into the code. Now I'm asking myself
if 123 doesn't work the way you're saying, then how do we not have to
provide sprinkler protection inside of wood stud walls! (I thought that was
a separate section of 8.15.1.2 but its not there that I can see now)


Brad, 11.2.3.1.4 applies to area/density and room design.


Benjamin Young

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Bob  wrote:


Ken,

The figure that is cited is an example of the 6” rule using the figure
from the double joist requirements.  Section 8.6.4.1.5.1 & 8.15.1.2.3 are
two different scenarios.  Borrowing the idea of less than 6” as being a
triggering point (no snowflake innuendo intended) from the other.  They are
not intended to be the same requirement.  In my opinion.



Thank you,



Bob Knight, CET III

208-318-3057 <(208)%20318-3057>



*From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
org] *On Behalf Of *Parsley Consulting
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:09 PM

*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* Re: concealed space less than 6" deep



Bob,

I just looked at that section, and at first glance I see what you're
driving at.  Then I noted "See Figure 8.6.4.1.5.1",  and I looked at the
figure.  It's describing a vertical distance between the studs, not the
distance down from the studs to the ceiling, so I would say that does not
apply to what Ben noted.

sincerely,


*Ken Wagoner, SET*


*Parsley Consulting350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206Escondido, California
92025*
*Phone 760-745-6181 <(760)%20745-6181>**Visit the website
 *

On 03/28/2018 9:52 AM, Bob wrote:

Ken,

While it is true that 8.15.1.2.5 deals with solid wood joist, 8.15.1.2.3
simply uses the terms stud or joist with no mention of solid.  This section
could be applied to allow for the omittance of the sprinklers.  However, as
Travis stated the 3000 sf design area (or 8 sprinklers for residential)
kicks in.



Thank you,



Bob Knight, CET III

208-318-3057 <(208)%20318-3057>



*From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
org ] *On Behalf Of *Parsley
Consulting
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:46 AM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* Re: concealed space less than 6" deep



While I don't like to disagree with my friend Travis I feel compelled to
point out that 8.15.1.2.5 applies *only* to wood joist or solid wood
joist construction.  It's also been hammered at me and many others that
TJI's such as Ben described are not "wood joists" for NFPA 13 purposes.

My thought for the owner, Ben, is that he would not have to fill the space
with insulation, merely from the ceiling to the bottom of the TJI, per
8.15.1.2.8, and follow the firestopping mandates for the channels formed by
the joists.

sincerely,


*Ken Wagoner, SET*


*Parsley Consulting350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206Escondido, California
92025*
*Phone 760-745-6181 <(760)%20745-6181>Visit the website
 *



On 03/28/2018 9:19 AM, MFP Design, LLC wrote:

*I think 8.15.1.2.5 is going to be your best bet.  The issue is that in
many other places of the standard, composite wood joist are specifically
handled differently than wood joist and are not considered “similar solid
member construction.”*



*As far as the specially listed sprinklers, I think you would have to use
them with 8.15.1.6.  This says less than 36”, which I take as from zero to
36” in depth.  The specially listed sprinklers have a requirement of 6”
minimum clear space.  This gets you back to there is no sprinkler that is
available to protect this space.  *



*I would lean back to 8.15.1.2.5 and keep sprinklers out of the space.
But, you will need to increase the design area to 3000 sq ft for adjacent
spaces.*







[image: MFP_logo_F]

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>

fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>

email:tm...@mfpdesign.com



http://www.mfpdesign.com

Re: concealed space less than 6" deep

[bcasterline]

nothing wrong- with green stuff flying out of a sprinks head bud i  
mean bob and ben-jam'n, i hope you know what to do now (i think  
'reasonable degree of protection'... is in every ED).
I know if I ever get another Motel 6 I will ask myself, "is this a 4  
sprk calc or an 8 sprk calc?"


Brad

Quoting Bob :


Ben,

You just made my head spin and green stuff started flying  
everywhere! Not sure what that was all about, but thanks for making  
me think.




Thank you,



Bob Knight, CET III

208-318-3057



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Ben Young

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:45 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: concealed space less than 6" deep



Bob, I see where you're coming from with this, but we've seen this  
in the past with NFPA (previously doing the 0.10 calc for  
residential heads referred back to the small room spacing rules for  
SSU/P heads).


Also, 8.15.1.2.3 refers only to studs and joists and distances, not  
distances between something else.


So 1.2.3 reads '...formed by studs or joists with less than 6"  
between the inside edges of the studs or joists...'


1.2.4  reads '...formed by bar joists with less than 6" between roof  
or floor deck and ceiling...'


So in 124 you are looking at the space between a floor and ceiling

125 its between the joists and the ceiling.

But in 123, you only have the distances between joists and... more joists.

This is why I hate reading too deeply into the code. Now I'm asking  
myself if 123 doesn't work the way you're saying, then how do we not  
have to provide sprinkler protection inside of wood stud walls! (I  
thought that was a separate section of 8.15.1.2 but its not there  
that I can see now)




Brad, 11.2.3.1.4 applies to area/density and room design.





Benjamin Young



On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Bob  wrote:

Ken,

The figure that is cited is an example of the 6” rule using the  
figure from the double joist requirements.  Section 8.6.4.1.5.1 &  
8.15.1.2.3 are two different scenarios.  Borrowing the idea of less  
than 6” as being a triggering point (no snowflake innuendo intended)  
from the other.  They are not intended to be the same requirement.   
In my opinion.




Thank you,



Bob Knight, CET III

208-318-3057 



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Parsley Consulting

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:09 PM


To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: concealed space less than 6" deep



Bob,

I just looked at that section, and at first glance I see what you're  
driving at.  Then I noted "See Figure 8.6.4.1.5.1",  and I looked at  
the figure.  It's describing a vertical distance between the studs,  
not the distance down from the studs to the ceiling, so I would say  
that does not apply to what Ben noted.


sincerely,

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

On 03/28/2018 9:52 AM, Bob wrote:

Ken,

While it is true that 8.15.1.2.5 deals with solid wood joist,  
8.15.1.2.3 simply uses the terms stud or joist with no mention of  
solid.  This section could be applied to allow for the omittance of  
the sprinklers.  However, as Travis stated the 3000 sf design area  
(or 8 sprinklers for residential) kicks in.




Thank you,



Bob Knight, CET III

208-318-3057 



From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Parsley Consulting

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: concealed space less than 6" deep



While I don't like to disagree with my friend Travis I feel  
compelled to point out that 8.15.1.2.5 applies only to wood joist or  
solid wood joist construction.  It's also been hammered at me and  
many others that TJI's such as Ben described are not "wood joists"  
for NFPA 13 purposes.


My thought for the owner, Ben, is that he would not have to fill the  
space with insulation, merely from the ceiling to the bottom of the  
TJI, per 8.15.1.2.8, and follow the firestopping mandates for the  
channels formed by the joists.


sincerely,

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



On 03/28/2018 9:19 AM, MFP Design, LLC wrote:

I think 8.15.1.2.5 is going to be your best bet.  The issue is that  
in many other places of the standard, composite wood joist are  
specifically handled differently than wood joist and are not  
considered “similar solid member construction.”




As far as the specially listed sprinklers, I think you would have to  
use them with 8.15.1.6.  This says less than 36”, which I take as  
from zero to 36” in depth.  The specially listed sprinklers ha

Re: Unsubscribe

[bcasterline]

Dear Thom, if you have not already, please don't pull the trigger--  
according to Roland, if you do it right the process is fully  
automatic! I can't understand, after such a nice post, and being in  
your position now, why you want to call it quits.

.

Quoting Thom Heller :


Ron, thank you…….

From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
Ron Greenman

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe

Thom,

Go here:   
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


Follow the unsubscribe instructions.

Congratulations.




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 Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Thom Heller  
mailto:t...@mlfd.ca.gov>> wrote:
Please remove me from the mailing list as I have finally reach the  
high point in my career, retirement.  It has been a please to follow  
along with the conversations and has been wonderful to learn tidbits  
of facts from such a knowledgeable group.  Keep up the good work and  
bet wishes into the future!!


Thom Heller
Fire Marshal/Division Chief
Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District
3150 Main Street
PO Box 5
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
t...@mlfd.ca.gov
(760) 934-2300 O, (760)  
914-0194 C, (760)  
934-9210 F


[New Image]

This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is  
addressed and may contain information that is privileged,  
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.  Dissemination,  
distribution or copying of this email or the information herein by  
anyone other than the intended recipient, is prohibited and  
unauthorized.  If you have received this email in error, please  
contact me and destroy the original message and all copies  
immediately.



___
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: Vertical Opening

[bcasterline]

Is the opening required to be 'protected' from a building code  
standpoint? If it is, Then you look at the sprinkler rules, such as  
less than 1000 s.f.

I hope this makes sense.
 Brad.

Quoting JD Gamble :

I have a situation where we have 900sq.ft. vertical opening  
communicating between two floors where a draft stop is not a viable  
solution due to head room clearance.  The design team isn't sure if  
or how to protect it?  Thoughts? Options?


It's a Light Hazard - Ord Hazard occ.  The idea of "Barn Door" style  
sliding doors is being proposed but my fear is these things being  
left open in a fire situation.


I thought there was some direction in the 101 about communicating  
spaces, but not sure.  We do not recognize the 101 at the AHL level  
but I think I could offer it as guidance .


Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan

JD Gamble
jgam...@lssofsheridan.com
(307) 763-3361




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

Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]

[bcasterline]

You should probably confirm it with every one J.D. but it seems to me  
if separation (protection, enclosure) is not required there would be  
no reason to use sprinklers as an alernative for providing that  
separation. It's been ten years since I last designed, calcd, and  
listed a water curtain when it wasn't even required.
For history buffs-- water curtains were the first 'sprinkler  
trade-off/equivalent'-- big multi-floor department stores with the  
stairs in the middle. Instead of rated stair shafts they said closely  
space open sprk (deluge) all around -- "walls of water".


Brad.

Quoting JD Gamble :


Restaurant/ Brewery

No ratings, Something about F1 to A not requiring separation

Light hazard seating ordinary in the brew area.


Get Outlook for iOS

From: Sprinklerforum  
 on behalf of Prahl,  
Craig/GVL 

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:52:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]

Is this like an atrium?

What's the occupancy?

Any fire rating of floor/ceiling between levels?



Craig Prahl | JACOBS | Fire Protection | Greenville SC |  
864.676.5252 | craig.pr...@ch2m.com  |  
www.jacobs.com


Quoting JD Gamble :


I have a situation where we have 900sq.ft. vertical opening
communicating between two floors where a draft stop is not a viable
solution due to head room clearance.  The design team isn't sure if or
how to protect it?  Thoughts? Options?

It's a Light Hazard - Ord Hazard occ.  The idea of "Barn Door" style
sliding doors is being proposed but my fear is these things being left
open in a fire situation.

I thought there was some direction in the 101 about communicating
spaces, but not sure.  We do not recognize the 101 at the AHL level
but I think I could offer it as guidance .

Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan

JD Gamble
jgam...@lssofsheridan.com
(307) 763-3361




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


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




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

Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]

[bcasterline]

The vertical rules say when using sprinklers as the alternative  
something something -I'm away from my desk (so far away at home in bed).

Confirm it! It's why I said, "I hope this makes sense"
Brad.


Quoting JD Gamble :


Does that mean that the vertical rules don't apply for this opening?

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Sprinklerforum  
 on behalf of  
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com 

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:13:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]

You should probably confirm it with every one J.D. but it seems to me
if separation (protection, enclosure) is not required there would be
no reason to use sprinklers as an alernative for providing that
separation. It's been ten years since I last designed, calcd, and
listed a water curtain when it wasn't even required.
For history buffs-- water curtains were the first 'sprinkler
trade-off/equivalent'-- big multi-floor department stores with the
stairs in the middle. Instead of rated stair shafts they said closely
space open sprk (deluge) all around -- "walls of water".

Brad.

Quoting JD Gamble :


Restaurant/ Brewery

No ratings, Something about F1 to A not requiring separation

Light hazard seating ordinary in the brew area.


Get Outlook for iOS

From: Sprinklerforum
 on behalf of Prahl,
Craig/GVL 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:52:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]

Is this like an atrium?

What's the occupancy?

Any fire rating of floor/ceiling between levels?



Craig Prahl | JACOBS | Fire Protection | Greenville SC |
864.676.5252 | craig.pr...@ch2m.com  |
www.jacobs.com

Quoting JD Gamble :


I have a situation where we have 900sq.ft. vertical opening
communicating between two floors where a draft stop is not a viable
solution due to head room clearance.  The design team isn't sure if or
how to protect it?  Thoughts? Options?

It's a Light Hazard - Ord Hazard occ.  The idea of "Barn Door" style
sliding doors is being proposed but my fear is these things being left
open in a fire situation.

I thought there was some direction in the 101 about communicating
spaces, but not sure.  We do not recognize the 101 at the AHL level
but I think I could offer it as guidance .

Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan

JD Gamble
jgam...@lssofsheridan.com
(307) 763-3361




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


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




___
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: Vertical Opening

[bcasterline]

Quoting JD Gamble :

"... a draft stop is not a viable solution due to head room "... my  
fear is these things being left open in a fire situation".


When I got into fire modeling 12 years ago I did an activation  
comparison with and without a draft stop. I was curious to see how  
much longer (if ever) it would take for 'without'. I was surprised  
when the difference was only 1-3 seconds! As I studied the graphics-  
temperature and velocity slices- it dawned on me that activation is  
about the heat flowing across the sprinkler too, not just collecting  
around it, so between the collecting and unhindered flowing it came  
out even.
When I mentioned this to a code division person they said the purpose  
of the draft stop is to provide a minimum of 18" 'build-down' of the  
smoke layer before it spills on up the opening.


Brad




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

NFPA 13 prior to 1969 edition

[bcasterline]

Does anyone have access to 13 where the water curtain detail still  
required open sprinklers (deluge)?

I'm curious if the draft stop is required.
Besides smoke protecting the opening it occurred to me the other day  
the draft stop would help form a 'wall of water' by blocking ~9 gpm,  
making it drop straight down, and thereby providing a density of  
greater than 1 gpm/sf around the perimiter.


Thanks,
Brad

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

Re: [EXTERNAL] NFPA 13 prior to 1969 edition

[bcasterline]

Curiosity Kyle- I'm still stuck in last week, tweaking the vertical  
opening discussion, which, I must say, you had an excellent take on.

Thanks, Brad.

Quoting "Kyle.Montgomery" :

Is this just for curiosity, or do you have a project using pre-1969  
version of the code somehow?


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com

Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 10:15 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NFPA 13 prior to 1969 edition

Does anyone have access to 13 where the water curtain detail still  
required open sprinklers (deluge)?

I'm curious if the draft stop is required.
Besides smoke protecting the opening it occurred to me the other day  
the draft stop would help form a 'wall of water' by blocking ~9 gpm,  
making it drop straight down, and thereby providing a density of  
greater than 1 gpm/sf around the perimiter.


Thanks,
Brad

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=w6GU74CLmiyB6RiK5XbtA6AQkNTDSce6O8mUwnATB0A&s=U-HEnu3_4LjbRVJwr5BnT4fNI2V_nTmjvpM1trtPzgU&e=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org




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

Re: NFPA 13 prior to 1969 edition

[bcasterline]

Thanks Scott. Yes, that does help zero in on when it went from open to  
closed sprinklers.
I've recently modeled activation with and without a draft stop for  
3,6,9,12,15, and 18 inch deflector distance, for 135F, 155F, 175F, and  
200F Sprinklers 9" from edge of opening splitting the difference of 6  
to 12.
I remember seeing the detail when open sprk deluge was required I just  
can't recall if there was draft stop or not.


Brad.

Quoting Scott Futrell :


Seems like a fun research project Brad for a Friday afternoon.



From the 1955 edition,

621: Open sprinklers may be used to protect special hazards, for  
protection against exposures, or in other special locations.


777 (c): Where vertical openings are not protected by standard  
enclosures, sprinklers should be so placed as to fully cover them.  
This necessitates placing sprinklers close to such openings at each  
floor level.




I don't see anything else. Maybe narrows it down to 1955-1969.

Scott



Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2

Cell: (612) 759-5556



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 12:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: NFPA 13 prior to 1969 edition



Does anyone have access to 13 where the water curtain detail still  
required open sprinklers (deluge)?


I'm curious if the draft stop is required.

Besides smoke protecting the opening it occurred to me the other day  
the draft stop would help form a 'wall of water' by blocking ~9 gpm,  
making it drop straight down, and thereby providing a density of  
greater than 1 gpm/sf around the perimiter.




Thanks,

Brad



___

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: Exterior Play Area

[bcasterline]

I vote no sprinklers required -- open and noncombustible- the  
rockinghorse on a spring is like a newspaper machine - there will  
always be just one of them- not one today and twelve tomorrow.


Brad.

Quoting Steve Leyton :


8.15.7.5.

From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
John Irwin

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 11:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Exterior Play Area

I can appreciate your opinion, but I need a code reference.  😉

John Irwin
DynaFire Inc. – “Same Day – Next Day”

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

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 1:47 PM
To:  
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Subject: RE: Exterior Play Area

Assuming there’s play equipment there (fire load) and knowing that  
there are kids occupying the space, I wouldn’t call this an  
“exterior projection”.   It’s a shad structure with occupancy below  
and IMO requires sprinkler protection.


SML

From: Sprinklerforum  
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of  
John Irwin

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 10:42 AM
To:  
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Subject: Exterior Play Area

Protecting a light hazard Boys and Girls Club. I excluded an  
exterior, but covered, attached and open play area. Non-combustible.  
It’s a couple thousand square feet. I excluded using NFPA 13 2013  
8.15.7


Client is telling me that he her other fire sprinkler guys telling  
him he needs sprinklers in that areas.


What say you?

[cid:image001.png@01D3D318.846AE470]


John Irwin
Fire Sprinkler Specialist
DynaFire, Inc. – “Same Day – Next Day”
727-282-9243 – Cell

“A customer is the most important visitor on our premises. He is not  
dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption  
on our work. He is the purpose of it. He is not an outsider on our  
business. He is a part of it. We are not doing him a favour by  
serving him. He is doing us a favour by giving us an opportunity to  
do so.”




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