Risk category is a term established in the 2010 edition of ASCE7, and is
defined in Table 1.5-1 of that document. If your documents establish it
as III, here's the examples from ASCE7:
Buildings and other structures not included in Risk Category IV
(including, but not limited to,
Jerry,
The only reference I could find in NFPA 13 is not a direct
requirement, but rather is annex material to support 6.2.6.1on areas
where corrosion resistant sprinklers are required. One of the examples
is areas over and around swimming pools, which sort of suggest those
areas are to
Brian,
There is no option in NFPA 13 which allows omission of longitudinal
bracing. In the scenario you describe, the 40' long main would indeed
require a longitudinal brace,and any location along the length of that
main would be acceptable, as it must be no more than 40' from the end of
the
Todd,
I completely agree with Ed.
13.2.1 (5) would let it qualify as miscellaneous storage, and use Table
13.2.1, and Figure 13.2.1.
13.2.2 (2) tells you that the same, except you can apply
Chapter 11 for OH 1 2, and EH 1 2
So, if you apply 13.2.2(2), and Table 13.2.1, class
Rod,
Only one g.
I've looked at some structural stuff which dealt with net vertical
reaction forces, which is sometimes referred to as surge, as a result
of the physics involved in the discharge from the sprinkler, however
I've never seen anything similar to what this refers to.
Brad,
Part 1 - Gibberish. Pure and simple. The tables in NFPA 13 didn't
reduce the force and distance by half in their calculations. It
simply used the formula to calculate the maximum moment at the point of
the load for a simple beam, based on the maximum length of various pipe
sizes
is rather ugly and not real user friendly because it
takes after me
On 6/3/2013 7:51 AM, ParsleyConsulting wrote:
Brad,
Part 1 - Gibberish. Pure and simple.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http
Could it reasonably meet the definition of miscellaneous storage in
13? If so, depending on the commodity, and height of storage, OH2 may
be the required design.
*
PARSLEY CONSULTING
*
Ken Wagoner
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
website: www.ParsleyConsulting.com
Bob, and everyone else who weighed in on this,
My apologies for not chiming in sooner, I was away from the office
yesterday.
ASCE7 is the basis for when fire sprinkler systems require
seismic protection, and while I'm not sure about other states, here in
California that document is
Chris,
I'd suggest you call the individual who made the proposal for this
change, which was voted down in it's original language at the ROP, and
then revised, and adopted at the ROC. There's a fairly lengthy set of
explanatory notes in the ROC. See ROP 13-479, Log #298 which was
Ralphy,
I think you need to look at the next two paragraphs, 16.2.4.3.1 and
16.2.4.3.2, along with the annex material for 16.2.4.2.3.
Seems to me the intent (from the annex) is for the sprinklers to be (at
least) in every transverse flue. It would also appear that if the
transverse flues
Brian,
I don't know that there's any specific reference to an ELO
sprinkler in NFPA-13, at least not that's called out that way. My
understanding of what we used to refer to as large drop sprinklers is
that they are now regarded as CMSA sprinklers, so the application of
large drop rules
To extend Roland's remarks, there is also language in the new edition of
-13 (and -24) which limits the length that underground pipe can be run
under the foundation without arching, trenching or isolation valves to
no more than 10'-0 from the edge of the foundation.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken
Joel,
Read carefully the information in section 13.2.1, item (5). If it's
less than 12'-0 of Class I-IV, and you're directed to chapter 13 from
16.2.1.2, as Bob noted, it *is* miscellaneous storage for NFPA-13's
purposes.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
And that suggests to me that if the building Jarron is working on is not
in an area where seismic protection is required that the use of the 3/4
pipe nipples is allowed. Have I got that wrong?
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
Chris,
The agency you're referring to is the Division of the State
Architect here in California, which has authority over all public school
construction in the state. They do indeed have such a requirement for
sprinkler system design. The agency publishes an interpretation of
Matt,
Based on what I saw on their website this morning they don't have
and EC concealed which is approved. They have a good number of recessed
EC sprinklers in both light and ordinary hazard applications, but no
concealed.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
A big BOOM!
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/bride-blasts-hotel-ruining-wedding-day/nPK9M/
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.nete-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com
Ron,
I had the same thought George did, because the question Ralphy asked was
about residential sprinklers. This paragraph came to mind:
8.10.3.3 The minimum distance between sprinklers within a
compartment shall be 8 ft (2.44 m), unless the listing of the
sprinkler requires a
Scott,
I think Scot Deal raised an interesting question. He's correct in
the increase in area of 30%, per 12.5.1, but the question remains, if we
have in-rack sprinklers, do we increase the number of them flowing in a
dry system calculation? If so, why? If not, why not? The table Scot
Ron,
That is indeed one of the difficulties encountered when dealing with
AHJ's who lack the training
and experience to interpret the adopted edition of the IBC correctly.
The section you reference
regarding the word throughout probably comes across my desk twice a
month from clients on
both
Brad,
The ROP is the report on the proposals (ROP) considered by the
committee in the cycle noted in the report, in this case the 2012
cycle. Roland's proposal, 13-240 Log #159, was rejected by the
installation committee (AUT-SSI) at their meeting in Savannah in
February of 2011.
I've offered to review plans electronically for several years now, and I
like it more and more every time a contractor elects to do so. Using
Acrobat it allows me to not only mark electronically those things I see
that don't conform to the standard and show the designer/submitter where
those
Ben,
I'd never heard that, but it would trouble me greatly. The fire
marshal would need access to any number of CAD programs - some of which
have great difficulty in interchanging their formats, as well as a
similar number of hydraulic calculation files. Or, the opposite would
be true,
Ryan,
I can't say for sure but it appears the section in NFPA 20 you're
referring to was added in an attempt to help calm any problems that
might arise with the presence of a fuel tank in a pump room. The
language you're referring to was a part of a much larger proposal
dealing with the
Bruce,
I agree that a call to the structural engineer to get an idea of
what loads might be accounted for in the structural design of the
building, that's a good course of action, particularly if there's some
lingering question regarding pipe support and/or seismic bracing
attachment
Mike,
The sprinkler fitter hanging from the pipe was never the intent of the
250# additional load. The handbook blue text to section 9.1.1.2
identifies this load of 250# is intended to account for certain types of
piping not being able to support such loads. That applies to the hanger
I'm with you, Ron. There's going to have to be a serious discussion of
why I have to waste several thousand gallons of water to prove I can get
30-50 out of a system main. I don't know about the rest of the country
but in Southern California you'd have a better chance of convincing Tyco
to
Chris,
291 says 25% drop, or flow needed for fire-fighting purposes.
Section 4.3.6.
Insert NFPA-291 committee member disclaimer here.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.nete-mail
Ron,
I'd look closely at 9.3.2.3(4), and Annex A.9.3.2.3(4), because the
annex text gives some guidance, in my opinion very clear guidance, on
the different intent of a building expansion joint and a seismic
separation joint, as far as fire sprinkler systems are concerned.
Further, I'd
Greg,
I think that's going to change when the 2013 edition comes out. As
of right now, section 6.3.1.1.1 will read:
6.3.1.1.1* Underground pipe shall be permitted to extend into the
building through the slab or wall not more than 24 inches.
The annex note reads:
A.6.3.1.1.1 Extending
As with most things in the press, the first accounts were not very
complete. This article gives a slightly more complete picture.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-firefighter-killed-20120216,0,512896.story
The fireplaces were added after the job was completed. Everyone
screaming (at
Vince,
I don't have anything other than a gut feeling to go by. I believe the
intent of have a separate control valve for in-racks is to minimize the
amount of fire sprinkler protection which is impaired when maintenance
or modifications are taking place. Under the condition I see in your
Ok, another article from our friends in the media regarding a water
problem at the statehouse in Annapolis, MD.
http://wbal.com/article/85570/3/template-story/Malfunctioning-Sprinkler-Floods-Senate-Building
Which state senator do we believe? Jacobs, who claims a fire sprinkler
I must have missed your question on the tanks, Todd, and I admit I don't
have any answers.
For Tony's question, my first return inquiry would be - are the plastic
totes open top, and do they have a solid base?
The open top shuts off most of the easy answers I've seen in NFPA-13,
chapter 17
Bob,
The language below is from the handbook, and might help in deciphering
the requirements:
The seismic separation assembly shown in Figure A.9.3.3(a) or Figure
A.9.3.3(b) is
intended to provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate the
substantial relative motion
that can be
One of the questions I'd ask the inspector Travis mentioned would be Do
you think the plan reviewer who approved the location of the sprinklers
relative to the walls is an idiot?
Now it's been turned around, and the difference of opinion is now
internal to that jurisdiction, and the training
Travis,
I'd ask him to take a long look at Figure A.8.1.1.2.2 in -13D and ask
him to explain his theory to me in light of that figure because it sure
doesn't line up with his remarks.
For sprinkler #4 in that sketch, the dimension to the corner to the left
is 11.13', but the distance perp
Dewayne,
Both Afcon and Tolco have end-thread only rods, which can be fabricated
galvanized. Afcon is Fig 660, I think, and Tolco is Fig 103, I think.
Probably some of the other manufacturers have them as well.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
Valid points all George, and much to think about.
For those of us blessed or cursed (depending on your perspective) to be
in California the issue has another quirk which has to be included in
the mix. Here, in projects under the requirements of the California
Building Code, the
George,
Would that it were that simple. There is a district here in Southern
California which requires recessed quick response sprinklers in all
single family garages, and that such sprinklers be provided with
sprinkler guards. Steve Leyton and I, along with a few others have used
all the
Jim,
Maybe I missed the intro to what Craig was asking about, but I had the
impression that these systems were existing. That would make it very
difficult if not impossible to replace the sprinklers and fittings with
higher rated devices.
Craig? Existing or new?
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken
Bobby,
Count yourself lucky.
There's an independent plan reviewer here in Southern California who on
their own initiative decided that fire sprinkler shop installation
drawings are for the use of others, and must be signed by the
contractor over their stamp.
Only one problem, the state
Greg,
I'm not sure he's stating it correctly, but I think I understand what
he's talking about.
DR-25 C900 pipe, when tested per AWWA C900-1997 standards, was given a
pressure class of 100 psi.
The AWWA C900-2007 standards assign a pressure class of 165 to DR-25 pipe.
So, my thought is
Randy,
Go back and tell him we used to pipe schedule every system as well, and
suggest he could pay you an extra to pipe schedule the building, instead
of hydraulically calculating it.
Potter-Roemer used to have a heat collector in their catalog, but that's
a long time back.
PARSLEY
Matthew,
I believe there is a bit of a problem with the product you mentioned.
In looking at their literature it suggests that a 40% concentration of
their additive solution (which is no longer allowed) will yield
protection to around -6 degrees. NFPA's new TIA limits the
concentration of
Thom,
Yes, explosions. I've read both the preliminary and final editions of
the reports from the Fire Protection Research Foundation on anti-freeze
solutions in home fire systems. The language there discusses the
potential for explosions being much higher as a result of the flash fire
Exactly, you'd hate to think the man would speak like that to someone he
didn't like.
Wow
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.nete-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com
Oscar,
Did you mean to reference section 8.6.2.1.2, for small rooms, rather
than 8.5.6.1 which deals with clearance to storage?
Just wondering.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.nete-mail
Ben,
While the research and testing done by FM Global does support their
approaches to protection methods, it has to be a complete package,
including their requirements for construction, seismic, sprinkler system
installation, finishes, and so forth.
A very wise man from FM Global told me a
This time in Omaha, NE.
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/Phone_Prank_Costs_Hotel_113429209.html
Sick, just sick.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.nete-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com
Ron,
I don't know if I've been looking at the correct edition of UFC-3-600-1,
but the only reference to velocity I can find in that a strainer must be
installed when the UG velocity is 8 ft/sec. (Section 4-2.3.7,
UFC-3-600-01, 2006, with Change 1, 2009)
Now maybe this isn't the current
Roland,
You might want to look at the differences in the headings of the columns
for hose allowances for CMDA, CMSA, and ESFR sprinklers.
CMDA tables all refer to Total combined inside and outside hose, while
the CMSA and ESFR tables all seem to reference hose allowance with no
designation
JP -
I think there are a couple of things to consider, with respect to
control mode density area sprinklers.
First, your density for ordinary temperature sprinklers for a class III
solid pile storage to 20' would be 0.285 gpm/sqft, from table 14.2.4.1
(2010 edition), and the maximum spacing
Joe,
It was removed prior to the 2007 edition, that's what the little dot
means between 8.6.4.1.4.3 and the renumbered 8.6.4.1.4.4.
Comment 13-145 (Log #269) in the 2006 ROC showed the reasons to delete
it, and allow the text of 8.3.4.3 to cover the issue. Our friend Cecil
was the submitter
I'm ready to retire. The entire residential fire sprinkler industry
is now irrelevant, because there's a better way to address any
fire scenario in a single family residence.
As proof, I offer the following website:
https://www.automaticfireball.com/Index.dtm
I am humbled, and will seek
Yes, because per the definitions in NFPA-13, rack storage IS high piled
storage.
3.9.1.17 High-Piled Storage. Solid-piled, palletized, *rack storage*,
bin box, and shelf storage in excess of 12 ft (3.7 m) in height.
Reference is from the 2010 edition.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
No, Brad, I didn't.
What I saw was what the AHJ saw - a pump whose rated capacity was 1,275
gpm. He asked the reasonable question - what kind of pressure am I
going to have available from the municipal supply at that flow?
The calculations for P_F for the underground from the main to the
Brian,
My approach would be as follows:
1) Refer the AHJ to section 4.6.2.3.1 of NFPA-20, 2010, which states
[emphasis mine]:
/4.6.2.3.1 Where the maximum flow available from the water supply cannot
provide a flow of 150 percent of the rated flow of the pump, but the
water supply can
Brad,
I'd like to ask about your comment:
good sense to waive off sprinkler calcs as meaningless.
Can you help me understand what you're referring to here?
I thought the concern was valid. The FM appeared to be asking a
legitimate question, such as what happens if the flow at 150% of rated
Ralphy,
From the material that Brian sent over to me, he did indeed show the
pump flowing 150% of it's rated capacity back to the municipal supply.
At that point on the supply curve the municipal supply could deliver the
flow, but it would only be at a pressure of approximately 18.8 psi
Thom,
I think Brian also needs to look at:
14.2.1 Protection for Class I through Class IV commodities in the
following configurations shall be provided in accordance with this chapter:
(4) Back-to-back shelf storage up to 15 ft (4.6 m) in height
And very carefully, at:
14.2.2 The area and
Steve,
I think the language in the 2010 edition of NFPA-13 addresses your concerns:
12.1.1.2 Early suppression fast-response (ESFR) sprinklers
shall not be used in buildings with automatic heat or smoke
vents unless the vents use a high-temperature rated, standard response
operating mechanism
Matt,
I realize I'm looking at the 2006 edition of the IFC, but I found this
paragraph, which seems to address what you're discussing:
2304.1 General. High-piled storage areas, and portions of high-piled
storage areas intended for storage of a different commodity class than
adjacent areas,
Matt,
In looking at similar issues out here in California, I've run across a
couple of circumstances where an AHJ brought my attention to the figures
in chapter 17, such as 17.2.1.2.1(a) and (b), for storage of plastics in
racks. The figures, particularly the elevation views, suggest that
Same here, Brian. Of course I'm so old that when I took it with me it
was only one volume, not two.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.nete-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com
Ben,
I don't know that we've missed that reference to SSU/SSP in 8.6.2.1.2.
I would hope that most of those who'd answered had reviewed the
information that generated the question in the first place, which is in
11.3.1.3, item (2). That clearly suggests that the allowance for the
discharge
Looking at a set of plans from a fire protection consultant today,
responding to an earlier comment of mine which was:
The sprinklers protecting the skylight area should be flowing in the
hydraulic calculations for area X, as there is no physical separation
which would allow them to be
This one in an assisted living facility.
http://www.standard.net/topics/fire/2010/10/20/assisted-living-center-evacuated-after-fire
Thinking about the one my late father lived in, and the safety I felt
knowing it was fully sprinklered.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181
Jay,
I don't know about the '02 edition of ASCE7. I do know that in the '05
edition there no requirements of any kind for seismic protection of
automatic sprinkler systems when the seismic design category was A or
B. It didn't say that such protection could be omitted, the document
simply
You really have to hand it to the LSU newspaper. Their writers are
getting a good start on being as absolutely clueless as their
professional peers when it comes to fire protection.
http://www.lsureveille.com/sprinkler-explodes-in-new-union-theater-1.2367651
Sounds to me like that sprinkler
Jay,
It seems to me that you would have to provide sprinklers in the space
above the gypsum board in the wood truss area, as it can't be excluded
from needing protection under any of the 17 conditions in 8.15.1.2.
The area between the gypsum board and the ACT appears to be one where
you
Thomas,
Figure A.9.1.1 in the '10 edition of -13 clearly shows a split ring
hanger as a type of an acceptable hanger, so my first thought is that
if the rings themselves were listed, as they were required to be, you
met the criteria established by the standard.
A quick look at two
Brian,
Looking in the 2006 IFC, section 903.4 requires that the control valves
for any sprinkler system with 20 or more sprinklers must be electrically
supervised. I don't know how you could accomplish that without an FACP.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
Brian,
Call him up and ask him the following question:
I have submitted calculations to show that a flow of X gpm delivered to
the the suction flange of the pump by the supply will be present at Y
psi. The pump will boost this pressure by Z psi at that flow, per the
manufacturer's
Sharon,
ASCE7-05 does indeed reference NFPA-13, 2002. In providing for seismic
protection for automatic sprinkler systems, ASCE7 establishes that for
seismic design category C, all that is necessary is comply with NFPA-13,
2002. It also references NFPA-13, 2002 in the requirements for
Brad,
I'd be very skeptical about any Ss value that low in St Louis. If you
look at the seismic map from the IBC it shows some portions of the area
from St. Louis to Memphis as having an Ss value of 3.00. You can get
the exact Ss for a specific site by either talking with the site
Ron,
Don't tell him that, the guy doing the seismic seminar in Providence is
a real jerk.
One of the biggest problems I've had in dealing with seismic protection
of sprinkler systems is that we frequently run into a structural
engineer who decides to reinvent the entire process. Two
Art,
Here's another one along those same lines.
In the ongoing discussion regarding NFPA-25 compliant inspections
possibly doing an analysis of the system beyond the scope of that
document, a contractor client of mine insisted to me that as sprinkler
people we had the same responsibility as
Ed,
Measure on the slope. See Figures 8.6.4.1.3.1(a) and (b) in the '10
edition, and note the S dimension in the section. It could be the L
dimension if your branch lines are running perp to the slope.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
Tom,
I have a building which has a 260 sqft area which requires 0.5 gpm/sqft
over 2,500 sqft due to storage commodity and height. The unrated walls
separating the storage area from the sales area extend a foot above the
11'-0 ceiling in the sales area, while the storage area is open to the
it. But the remainder of your space is sales which is
mercantile, ORD GP II - .2 density
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:24 PM, ParsleyConsulting
parsleyconsult...@cox.net wrote:
Tom,
I have a building which has a 260 sqft area which requires 0.5 gpm/sqft
over 2,500 sqft due to storage
David,
Some of us geriatrics remember that event quite well, perhaps because of
the spectacle the subsequent trial turned into. If my senility hasn't
hit quite completely, my memory is that Chet Schirmer testified at some
length that fire sprinklers would not have made any difference, and he
Andy,
No, the problems are not evidenced by just one type of anti-freeze, or
pipe. The testing done at UL to support the inquiry from NFPA was using
steel pipe, and tested both Glycerin (at concentrations of 70/30, and
50/50), and Propylene Glycol (at concentrations of 60/40). There were
Damien,
If you look carefully at 9.3.1, NFPA-13 is giving you guidance that
there is no need to follow the requirements of section 9.3 unless the
system is required to be protected from damage from earthquakes. Such a
determination, as was discussed last week, is gained either from section
It's also relevant to note that if a seismic separation assembly is
installed, a four-way brace within 6'-0 of either side of that assembly
will be required according to 9.3.3 of -13.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net
Dewayne,
You're absolutely correct. From the new FM 8-9, 2010 edition:
2.3.3.6.4 Do not mix sprinklers having different orientations (i.e.,
pendent and upright) on the same ceiling-level sprinkler system within
the same protected area unless indicated otherwise by this data sheet.
If you
Scott,
I've had some experience with failures of C900 out here for similar
reasons, and there have been some failures when I was a UG pipe salesman
of ductile that had been impacted by fairly large rocks, and over time
had failed.
Another question though, and I'm willing to admit ignorance
Now, I'm a little confused, but I'm sure there's an explanation.
Did the pipe burst or did the residential sprinkler(s?) activate due
to heat?
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jun/22/collegedale-condos-businesses-flooded-sprinkler-sy/
Interesting comment from Chief Thomason.
Were the
Travis,
I don't exactly know how the idea got around that -13 ever had limits on
velocities. I suppose it's a carryover from the FM limits of a few
years ago. A local contractor who retired last year gave me all of
NFPA-13's back to the '65 edition, and there is no mention of velocity
of
George,
Mike's answer reminded me greatly of the first discussion I had with
someone on the cost of a listed expansion chamber, which I thought was
off the scale for what it actually consisted of.
The client on that project still glares at me when we meet, because he
thought I was padding the
Dewayne,
Yes, the site class is one of the first steps in a process to determine
the seismic design category, based on the procedure in ASCE7-05.
If you end up in seismic design category A or B, ASCE7-05 has no
information on requirement for seismic bracing.
If you end up in seismic design
Dan,
I agree with almost all of that, with a couple of minor exceptions.
-NFPA uses the Design Category for how to apply its rules (none, '02, or
'07/'10) including if b-line restraint gets factored in along with sway
brace.
NFPA-13 makes no distinction as to *when* seismic protection is
Another fire official who gets it wrong.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15314825?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com
According to the Chief, none of his fire hoses did any damage at all,
it's those nasty sprinklers that kept flowing while the Keystone Firemen
went looking
Dave,
Back when I sold DI, valves, and fittings for UG, we only carried DI in
18'-0 lengths, save for some 2'-0 spool pieces (plain x plain, bell x
bell). I'd imagine this was not DI, but rather cast steel.
I'd also see if the pipe were wrapped and coated as -24/-13 require.
--
PARSLEY
Once again, we've done more harm than good.
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-fire-at-deaf-school-060310,0,3872297.story
Not one newshole bothered to ask the school administrator how much
more damage dead kids stacked up like cordwood was when compared to some
wet floors and walls.
And yet, we
George,
Section 22.3.3, item 10.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
parsleyconsult...@cox.net mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com website
George Medina Jr wrote:
Where in NFPA-13 2007ed.
Tom,
I don't know for sure but I would believe that such an installation
would be outside of the listing of the rings, and I would imagine the
manufacturer's would not stand behind such an installation. You might
give one of them a call on Tuesday and ask if that's something they can
Ron,
We talked about this in the Hanging and Bracing committee. We came up
with the following new section in NFPA-13,
9.2.1.3.3.4* Where flexible sprinkler hose fittings are used to connect
sprinklers to branch lines in suspended ceilings, a label limiting
relocation of the sprinkler shall
One of the biggest problems I've seen with flexible drops here in
California is that they may be installed perfectly within the listing,
in terms of hydraulic calculations, number of bends, radii, and so
forth. Then, the other trades are making changes to them, inducing
tighter radii, or more
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
