Distilled spirits

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

All:

Picture a small batch, craft distilled spirits storage and distribution 
facility with 23,500 sq. ft. of fixturized storage.   Single and double row 
pallet racks and also a fixture that is double row, with three levels of tilted 
roller racking down near the floor.40-55% alcohol in glass bottles by the 
case; not sure if they have 1.75L sizes or if its 1L and 750ml exclusively.
A.5.6 says these are a flammable liquid and NOT specifically addressed in the 
standard.

By flash and boiling points, 80-proof distilled spirits are a Class 1A 
flammable liquid, but I have read that the packaging in glass bottles and small 
container size radically reduce the effective hazard.   (I have read passionate 
arguments against this theory as well.)   I've seen tech reports that describe 
cased spirits as Class 4 commodity.   I've seen a tech report that required 
bottled goods to be protected with the same design criteria as if there were 
500 gallon vats of alcohol in the array.I'm looking for opinions and code 
citations - what is the appropriate commodity classification for distilled 
spirits in consumer packaging?


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





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

RE: [EXTERNAL] 8 inch sprinkler pipe fall from factory ceiling

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Fire sprinkler systems have historically been designed on what is called a 
"deferred submittal" basis, which means that the construction docs are already 
submitted or approved under a separate permit application.   When sprinklers 
are put out to bid, the work has historically included establishing/verifying 
the correct basis of design, preparing construction documents (shop drawings), 
acquiring approval of those documents, installing, testing and commissioning 
into service.  All of this is done pursuant to the overall design and as with 
any trade, it is incumbent on the owner's design team to adequately specify the 
scope of work and standard of care.   In the real world, this happens maybe 20% 
of the time, by the way. 

In order to determine what the designer was actually charged with under the 
terms of the contract, you will have to review the bid documents that were made 
available to them and also performance specifications that should have included 
engineering standards for the building.  I've worked my entire career in 
California, so it's SOP here that buildings are seismically engineered and the 
sprinkler designer is ALWAYS charged with protecting the system against 
earthquakes.   The designer can only design for what they know and one of the 
weaknesses of this "deferred-design-build" business model is that more often 
than not, critical basis-of-design criteria ISN'T communicated to the designer 
by the design team because it's not known to them or, they may not have been 
qualified to specify or serve as engineer of record for the work.   Boilerplate 
spec's, abbreviated and generic "bid documents", inaccurate or missing design 
criteria - these are the norm for most sprinkler contracts.

To the question of whether the beam clamps should have been redesigned, I would 
counter first with a couple questions:  1) If wind loading was part of the 
original structural basis of design, why wasn't this conveyed to the sprinkler 
system designer before they began their work?2) If it was discovered 
(presumably by the owner) after occupancy that the building was subject to 
extreme wind shear forces (to the point where it might suddenly shift with such 
force as to blow one or more mechanical joints), what did the owner or their 
agent do with this information?  Did they seek out design and building 
resources to investigate and remediate any potential deficiencies in the 
original designs?

I've been designated as an expert in about 40 cases over the course of my 
career.  Many of them are like this, a post-facto forensic investigation into a 
failure.   There are generally two kinds, product defect and construction 
defect.   (As will all things in civil law, there's always a third implied 
cause of failure, that being an act of God.)   You may also have negligence on 
the part of the sprinkler designer or the specifier of the FP work, or the 
structural engineer or the architect and potentially, the owner based on what 
they knew and when they knew it.   You've asked our community some questions 
that I'll call anecdotal, i.e. "Has anyone experienced this or have ideas about 
what happened here?"   But from my experience, I would offer to you that there 
will either be a substantiated cause established scientifically OR, nobody ever 
establishes for sure how/why this happened and the lawyers will then have to 
mud-wrestle over whether this is a "Sh*t Happens" case or an Act of Go
 d.  (They call it "subrogation").   In order to help them figure out who sues 
who and who counter claims and sues who else for subrogation (seems like there 
are quite a few potential pockets in this matter) you'll need to:

1)  Analyze the clamps and compare how many threads were buried, comparing how 
thick was the steel flange and how much pressure is estimated to have been 
applied (did the installer tighten them properly?).
2)  Analyze the grooved fitting(s) that failed.   Where the rubbers intact or 
damaged?   Any way of determining how they got pushed off?  Were the closure 
bolts tightened properly?
3)  Analyze the rolled grooves and piping.   Are the grooves per spec' for 
depth?  Scratch marks or distortions on the pipe that may explain how the 
coupling(s) moved off?
4)  Compare pipe and fittings from one or more of the 8 intervening elbows that 
didn't fail to the one(s) that did. 
5)  Review specifications and bid documents - were they accurate and did they 
direct the designer to a reasonable standard of care?  Was wind loading 
mentioned?
6)  Review the provisions in the spec's and approved plans for hangers, 
anchorage, etc.   This may entail review of both FP and also structural specs - 
did the SEOR include details for anchorage?
7)  Did the (fire department) approved sprinkler plans get sent to any of the 
design team stakeholders for review, to assure conformance to both published 
codes and standards, but also the contract documents?
8)  Have any other buildings in the immediate 

RE: swimming pool

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

What use or fire load is to be found  "underneath"?   I mean, if it's concrete 
or water...

Seems to me that protecting the resinous slides and structures is the objective 
here.

Steve L.


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2022 12:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tony Silva 
Subject: swimming pool

A sprinklered swimming pool having water slides, stairs and platforms.
Wouldn't those over 4 feet wide be obstructions requiring additional sprinklers 
underneath? What is the general opinion?
Tony
___
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: Airing of Grievances

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Kevin, Bob and Forumites:



I get the pricing thing and I teased Bob last night about how much longer it 
took him to respond than I thought it would, if in fact I had crossed a line.   
But to be clear - I only posted because I thought it was a valid topic and I 
guess enumerating values is where the line is drawn.In hindsight, would I 
have better served the forum (and dodged the decorum cops) if I had simply 
benchmarked in percentages?If I said that another fee was 1/6 of ours, is 
that acceptable for contextual purposes?   Because the issue of pricing and 
business practices is a legitimate topic for conversation and AFSA could 
actually help to inform our industry family with regard to basic business 
management skills because that will be EXTREMELY helpful on a larger scale.
Our industry's overall value is being dragged down by companies that go low, 
flame out and disappear and thus, they leave us with the after-effects of their 
failures, i.e. customers that hate FP contractors and downward pressure on 
pricing.   I don't claim to be a great businessman but I know what I know and 
more importantly, I also know what I don't know.   I'd love to have an MBA 
right about now, but the bottom line is that I don't, and most business owners 
don't either.

Bob - you were the person who most informed me most many years ago about 
overhead and how you have to track the impact of your indirect costs based on 
volume.You can't make it very long just putting "25-and-10" on your cost 
estimate, right?And you can't buy high-quality goods and services if you're 
not willing to pay for them, but there's a robust market for 2nd and 3rd tier 
versions of most things these days, and they all come at lower price points.  
Back to what I said yesterday, you don't get to complain if you're not pricing 
the service fairly and if you're not a part of the solution then you're part of 
the problem.

Several years ago, our firm lost a project another local contractor who had 
only been in business a couple years, mostly doing tilt-up barns and retail 
shells.We put a big number on a full city-block residential project in 
downtown San Diego that entailed 6 standpipes, a butt-load of sprinklers, miles 
of plastic pipe, etc., etc.   We were 2nd low, with about a 3% gap between us 
and 3rd place, which we could attribute to the fact that we were the 2nd or 
3rd-largest consumer of CPVC in SoCal at that time and we were getting really 
good numbers from the supplier.But the low bid was just stupid, like 2/3 of 
our number so I called the owner of that firm and when he picked up my call, 
before I had a chance to say a word he said, "I know it's you Steve and before 
you go off maybe you should consider that our guys are just that much more 
efficient than yours."   So I thought about that for a hot second and came back 
with, "Maybe.   But here's the thing:  let's say you're THAT much smarter than 
me and everyone else in town and your guys are THAT much better than the entire 
rest of the trade.   That means that you can have every single project you want 
and the rest of us will just have to avoid  you because we can't compete.   But 
if that's really the case, you're dumber than I thought because let's say you 
CAN do this project for the bid price.   You work through it and in a couple 
years, after you get final inspection, the owner of the project calls you down 
to the site and offers you a bag with $200,000 in it.   By your way of 
thinking, you're going to turn him down and walk away and that's not the mark 
of a smart businessman."

The point is that we are all in this together to some extent and we should all 
put a high value on what we know, what we do, how what we do it.   I'm not 
naïve enough to think that the trunk slammers will go away, but we don't have 
to follow them down the rabbit hole either. 

Steve
(Don't Taze me Bro)


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 6:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kevin Hall 
Subject: Re: Airing of Grievances

Regardless of your legal opinions on the matter, please refrain from pricing 
discussions as Bob stated earlier.

As a reminder this forum has a specific set of rules that you agreed to when 
you signed up. Failure to adhere to the following will result of a loss in 
posting privileges.


   1. *Never, ever discuss pricing issues.* Doing so can be construed as a
   violation of anti-trust laws and can endanger the continuation of the
   SprinklerForum and the tax-exempt status of AFSA. Due to the sensitivity of
   these issues, those who violate this rule will not be allowed to post
   messages in the future. Note there is a difference in pricing and costs. It
   is OK to say the AHJ charges a certain fee for inspections. It is NOT OK
   for you to say you price your fees at $XXX per inspection. Any time someone
   can compare 

RE: Airing of Grievances

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

As long as I'm on a roll, I submitted a proposal last week on a site fire main 
project that's off  the grid in the desert east of San Diego.   The proposal 
request came from the Civil Engineer who's already signed up and on board, but 
they recently realized that the FP infrastructure is beyond their capabilities. 
  It's a battery farm for the regional utility corporate parent, with 
approximately 2 million SF of lithium battery stacks in 100,000 sq. ft. modular 
buildings.Water supply will be tapped from an adjacent canal, stored in 3 
large tanks, then pumped into 3.5 miles of 8" or 10" pipe to supply 43 hydrants 
and an unknown number of building systems, since service laterals to the 
buildings weren't shown on the concept site utilities plan.   Probably because 
the basis of design for suppression systems hasn't been conceived yet.  Number 
of, size and configuration of pumps unknown, whether the utility is 
self-insured or not, has existing loss prevention standards or not, how they 
intend to use the 20 accessory buildings shown on the plans in addition to the 
battery housing, all still not known.   

We estimate a 9-12 month design schedule with a meeting a week, and included 12 
trips to the site during construction at 2 hours each way from San Diego to the 
site.   So we guessed at a design fee of 2.5% of an ROM cost for the work and 
they literally came back with, "What can we get for $35-50,000?"

I dunno, a late-model used car?

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 12:16 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Re: Airing of Grievances

  
  

  Steve, that stuff happens on the other coast, too. A few years ago I had 
someone come in at half the design price I quoted. I told the client I can’t 
come near that, so the other guy got it. A few months later, the low bidder 
called to hire me to get the plan through review. I told him I know what he 
took the job for and he can’t afford me.   
  

  
We have another guy out here, who may or may not be NICET certified, who bids 
on the spec jobs at shop drawing prices. He has a McDonalds PE (buy him 
breakfast at McDonalds and he will stamp your drawings) that will stamp them 
and everyone thinks they are getting PE specified plans. It has effectively 
killed making money in any small/medium sized spec jobs. The big stuff goes to 
the big name firms so guys like me are SOL.
  
  
  
 Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
  
860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Dec 28, 2021 at 2:45 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>  Since it's Festivus season, I thought I'd share this with the group. Our 
> firm is scaled and resourced as a consulting engineering business model and 
> not a "free-lance" drafting/design service. As such, we have direct and 
> overhead costs that push our fees to the limits of what contractors typically 
> budget for design, so the majority of our work is for architects and 
> developers. But there's a market for what we're doing and I know that our 
> fees are fair for the service we provide. Still, we have tried to sharpen the 
> pencil the past couple years because we've partnered with contractors on a 
> few design/build projects and I know that there's huge opportunity for us as 
> 3rd party designers working under the FP sub. So I was intrigued by a 
> proposal request that we got last week for a mixed use podium project in Los 
> Angeles where the contractor reached out and dangled this and another 
> project, the other one being a 20-story high-rise. To set the table, the 
> building is 6-stories over  two basement levels and about 165,000 GSF. It 
> will utilize steel pipe throughout as it's poured in place concrete with 
> cloud ceilings and no ceilings in the dwelling units. Three standpipe risers, 
> one of which is partial height so multiple SP and sprinkler calc's. It will 
> also require booster pump for which no designated room or space is shown on 
> the plans and one side of the building requires water curtains at balcony 
> openings that I assume are too close to the adjacent building or property 
> line, so another calc there plus the additional drafting and coordination. 
> And no two floors are typical to one another. Although it's still not rocket 
> science, there's some thinking involved and for those not familiar with 
> SoCal, wages in LA are probably in the top 5 nationwide and City of LA is a 
> wicked AHJ. So I'm guessing that the FP contract is probably worth between 
> $650-$700K. Oh, and of course they need this absolutely, positively ASAP. We 
> looked at every task, optimized the hours for repetitions in the floor plans 
> where we could, and crunched the numbers. Our proposed fee was 

Airing of Grievances

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Since it's Festivus season, I thought I'd share this with the group.   Our firm 
is scaled and resourced as a consulting engineering business model and not a 
"free-lance" drafting/design service.   As such, we have direct and overhead 
costs that push our fees to the limits of what contractors typically budget for 
design, so the majority of our work is for architects and developers.  But 
there's a market for what we're doing and I know that our fees are fair for the 
service we provide.   Still, we have tried to sharpen the pencil the past 
couple years because we've partnered with contractors on a few design/build 
projects and I know that there's huge opportunity for us as 3rd party designers 
working under the FP sub.   So I was intrigued by a proposal request that we 
got last week for a mixed use podium project in Los Angeles where the 
contractor reached out and dangled this and another project, the other one 
being a 20-story high-rise.

To set the table, the building is 6-stories over two basement levels and about 
165,000 GSF.  It will utilize steel pipe throughout as it's poured in place 
concrete with cloud ceilings and no ceilings in the dwelling units.  Three 
standpipe risers, one of which is partial height so multiple SP and sprinkler 
calc's.   It will also require booster pump for which no designated room or 
space is shown on the plans and one side of the building requires water 
curtains at balcony openings that I assume are too close to the adjacent 
building or property line, so another calc there plus the additional drafting 
and coordination.   And no two floors are typical to one another.   Although 
it's still not rocket science, there's some thinking involved and for those not 
familiar with SoCal, wages in LA are probably in the top 5 nationwide and City 
of LA is a wicked AHJ.   So I'm guessing that the FP contract is probably worth 
between $650-$700K.Oh, and of course they need this absolutely, positively 
ASAP.

We looked at every task, optimized the hours for repetitions in the floor plans 
where we could, and crunched the numbers.   Our proposed fee was 18¢/SF and I 
thought that was fair.   The client came back and said that he's got another 
proposal for $5,000.  Five. Thousand.  Dollars. Now some of you may 
think I'm the one with the wrong perspective but here's the thing:  our 
industry continues to basically give away its collective expertise and drag the 
value of its own work down.   No right-minded person would take this project at 
that fee in this market and this contractor is going to get their ass handed to 
them in both plan review and inspection, guaranteed.   When I mentioned the 
water curtains, the guy even said that there weren't any that he saw and he 
didn't include any "extras".  He doesn't have a flow test yet, doesn't have 
the CAD backgrounds ready to send and isn't even familiar with the complete set 
of work.   On top of that, he's inclined to accept the $5K proposal but 
wondered if I could cut my fee in half because he, "...would rather deal with a 
firm like (ours)..." than a moonlighter.He actually seems like a pretty 
nice guy, albeit one who's now stuck in a mud bog up to his waist and wearing 
sunglasses at night.

My primary hope for 2022 is that our country stops fighting with itself.   My 
second one is that Covid somehow gets out of the way.   But my third hope is 
that our industry wakes up to the fact that what we do takes a certain amount 
of time and energy to learn what we know and that underselling (or in some 
cases giving away) our intellectual property is foolish and simply perpetuates 
the downward pressure on our market that's applied by developers, contractors 
and architects who know that if they kick far enough down the alley, they'll 
find someone who's willing to go CHEAP on fire protection for most projects.
 Contractors who take on design/build projects have all the liability and risk, 
and navigating the plan review and inspection processes is harder than ever and 
will only get more rigorous.Every year we hear the same complaints:   "We 
can't find enough designers";  "The quality of design work is bad industry 
wide"; "We're turning town work because we can't get it designed."   If you're 
putting 10-15¢ per SF on the sheet for design, that's your prerogative, but you 
don't get to complain about the lack or quality of resources if you do.   Fire 
protection design is a professional service, so paying a fair wage and 
providing benefits and furnishing the hardware/software resources to design 
technicians is essential to raising the standard of care and that all costs 
money.   If our industry isn't willing to pay itself fairly for professional 
caliber design, then why should the owners of the built environment?

Happy New Year to y'all and thanks to AFSA for continuing to foster this 
terrific venue for the exchange of ideas.

Steve
___

RE: UFGS spec section 21 13 00.00 40 vs 21 13 13

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

As a long-time specifier, I have always subscribed to K.I.S.S. to the greatest 
extent possible.   If CSI had their way, you would have to publish 4 or 5 
different sections for the building system and at least two or three for the 
underground for even the simplest OH2 retail shell.We have a section for 
private fire mains that includes both hydrants and fire service laterals, which 
would be two separate sections per the CSI standard form template.We 
combine sprinklers and standpipes in midrise buildings but do a separate 
standpipe and water supply section for high-rises that includes the tank.   So 
right there we could have 7 different sections for a high-rise and we have two 
or three.   What's most important is to have lucid, current and correct 
information regarding best practices, product technologies, basis of design and 
jurisdictional authorities, particularly if there is 3rd party insurance or 
risk management.

So if it's "just" a sprinkler system we'll go 21.13.00 but if there are 
sprinklers and standpipes that we specify separately it might be 21.13.13 and 
21.13.14.For private fire mains we use 21.11.19, but for the life of me I 
can't remember where we got that.   We include it in 21 because it's fire 
protection and not general utilities.


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of David Williams via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:41 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: David Williams 
Subject: UFGS spec section 21 13 00.00 40 vs 21 13 13

Am I right in thinking that one should edit 21 13 00.00 40 for the piping 
leading into the fire riser room and delete the references to the sprinkler 
system (and any other unused interior piping)  and specify the sprinkler system 
from the riser into the occupied space(s)  using 21 13 13?


David Toshio Williams, PE*, FPE - Lead MEP/FP Engineer (*Registered in MN, WI, 
MI, IL, IN, ND, VT)
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802 Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 
218.310.2446 LHBcorp.com

LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

___
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: Shoe store complications

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Thanks Bob, it does help by reinforcing where I'm going with this.  These are 
taller and made of wood or particle board so we'll likely be using 20.3.4

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight 
Subject: RE: Shoe store complications

Steve,
What I've done on other projects such as Dick's Sporting Goods is Class I-IV 
commodities, unexpended, cartooned or exposed Group A plastics.  This was with 
a maximum storage height of 8'.  It required a .425/2000 & .5/4 most demanding 
sprinklers.  This was based on their spec and NFPA 13 (16 ed.) 20.3.3, hope it 
helps a little bit.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton
Subject: RE: Shoe store complications

Whatever the fire official wants.

SL

-Original Message-
From: Kyle.Montgomery 
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 12:50 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson ; Steve Leyton 

Subject: RE: Shoe store complications

I would assume that there are tons of these that exist with OH2 sprinkler 
designs. Are there any examples of fires in any of those and information about 
whether the fire was controlled or overwhelmed the sprinklers? If the theory 
says it should be protected like Group A plastics, but the history shows that 
OH2 has proven sufficient, then what do you do?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Spencer Tomlinson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:04 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson ; Steve Leyton 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Shoe store complications

I have worked with a very large insurer of mall properties that treats the 
commodity class of any shoe store as storage of Group A unexpanded plastics, at 
whatever height, etc., that applies.

Spencer Tomlinson, PE
Owner, Fire Protection Engineer


Ph:  316-202-6412
Fax: 316-202-2346
Cell: 620-955-7293

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Shoe store complications

Has anyone got any experience with design or classification of a discount
shoe store that displays shoes in 8' shelving units?   These are particle
board, storage to 10', with shoes on attachments to the front of  the shelving 
units and densely packed boxes with stock in the shelving.
Today's shoes can be made of textile or leather uppers, but more and more the 
inventory is characterized by synthetic materials, often nylon and
polyester materials.   Except for traditional dress shoes that may still
have wood or leather soles, most shoes have various densities of foam layers 
for inner and middle soles, with rubber outer soles.

Classifying the mix is challenging because of fast inventory turn-over,
especially the discount chains.   Not all are using the taller fixtures, but
many do and we've got fire officials asking for protection of stored plastics.  
I can't really impeach that finding since the stores aren't able
to state equivocally what shoes will be in stock at any time.   We're
assessing a format that's moving into a retail shell that was a Walgreen's 
store and will now be discount shoes with the aforementioned 10' of storage and 
a 25' deck height (an existing mezzanine is being demolished so roof is
high  for a standalone retail pad).Seems to me that Chapter 20 is the
way to go and I'd value feedback or additional info it anyone's got something 
to offer.

Thanks,

Steve Leyton, President
Protection Design and Consulting
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectiondesign.com
=DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJw
Qd9A=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB=UC
RVIIqu4Op0eXLcV4o2_0u-dFnahjOclK5zGCvxS0w=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectiondesign.co
m_=DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OB
JwQd9A=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB=
4aJnC4OJpc1QrHQX2HNNcig86dGV5INX7yYj7HDAJCU= >
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire 
Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_
listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ
0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nL

RE: Shoe store complications

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Whatever the fire official wants.

SL

-Original Message-
From: Kyle.Montgomery  
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 12:50 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson ; Steve Leyton 

Subject: RE: Shoe store complications

I would assume that there are tons of these that exist with OH2 sprinkler 
designs. Are there any examples of fires in any of those and information about 
whether the fire was controlled or overwhelmed the sprinklers? If the theory 
says it should be protected like Group A plastics, but the history shows that 
OH2 has proven sufficient, then what do you do?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Spencer Tomlinson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:04 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson ; Steve Leyton 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Shoe store complications

I have worked with a very large insurer of mall properties that treats the 
commodity class of any shoe store as storage of Group A unexpanded plastics, at 
whatever height, etc., that applies.

Spencer Tomlinson, PE
Owner, Fire Protection Engineer


Ph:  316-202-6412
Fax: 316-202-2346
Cell: 620-955-7293

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Shoe store complications

Has anyone got any experience with design or classification of a discount shoe 
store that displays shoes in 8' shelving units?   These are particle board, 
storage to 10', with shoes on attachments to the front of  the shelving units 
and densely packed boxes with stock in the shelving.   Today's shoes can be 
made of textile or leather uppers, but more and more the inventory is 
characterized by synthetic materials, often nylon and polyester materials.   
Except for traditional dress shoes that may still have wood or leather soles, 
most shoes have various densities of foam layers for inner and middle soles, 
with rubber outer soles.

Classifying the mix is challenging because of fast inventory turn-over, 
especially the discount chains.   Not all are using the taller fixtures, but 
many do and we've got fire officials asking for protection of stored plastics.  
I can't really impeach that finding since the stores aren't able to state 
equivocally what shoes will be in stock at any time.   We're assessing a format 
that's moving into a retail shell that was a Walgreen's store and will now be 
discount shoes with the aforementioned 10' of storage and a 25' deck height (an 
existing mezzanine is being demolished so roof is high  for a standalone retail 
pad).Seems to me that Chapter 20 is the way to go and I'd value feedback or 
additional info it anyone's got something to offer.

Thanks,

Steve Leyton, President
Protection Design and Consulting
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectiondesign.com=DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB=UCRVIIqu4Op0eXLcV4o2_0u-dFnahjOclK5zGCvxS0w=
 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectiondesign.com_=DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB=4aJnC4OJpc1QrHQX2HNNcig86dGV5INX7yYj7HDAJCU=
 >
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire 
Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB=Uph4KkSswfWfRZn_CTml0WdAGdoOAhI1M1WR_kudugI=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=cKGNzEOqtLu9spkm42kD9eVGA5WtFI8oARrHH0m-SyCbn0kCX7pIFhAk_zydkGeB=Uph4KkSswfWfRZn_CTml0WdAGdoOAhI1M1WR_kudugI=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Shoe store complications

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Has anyone got any experience with design or classification of a discount shoe 
store that displays shoes in 8' shelving units?   These are particle board, 
storage to 10', with shoes on attachments to the front of  the shelving units 
and densely packed boxes with stock in the shelving.   Today's shoes can be 
made of textile or leather uppers, but more and more the inventory is 
characterized by synthetic materials, often nylon and polyester materials.   
Except for traditional dress shoes that may still have wood or leather soles, 
most shoes have various densities of foam layers for inner and middle soles, 
with rubber outer soles.

Classifying the mix is challenging because of fast inventory turn-over, 
especially the discount chains.   Not all are using the taller fixtures, but 
many do and we've got fire officials asking for protection of stored plastics.  
I can't really impeach that finding since the stores aren't able to state 
equivocally what shoes will be in stock at any time.   We're assessing a format 
that's moving into a retail shell that was a Walgreen's store and will now be 
discount shoes with the aforementioned 10' of storage and a 25' deck height (an 
existing mezzanine is being demolished so roof is high  for a standalone retail 
pad).Seems to me that Chapter 20 is the way to go and I'd value feedback or 
additional info it anyone's got something to offer.

Thanks,

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



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

RE: 13R Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential Occupancies

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Good call Sal; as I said in my response, it's up to the Building Official to 
clarify whether that separation has to be two or three hours.   But a solid 
concrete slab makes that a fairly easy exercise and the only upgrades would be 
the ratings of fire stops because shafts for utilities and stairs will be what 
they will be based on the construction type and FR rating.  


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Salvatore Izzo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2021 1:29 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Salvatore Izzo 
Subject: Re: 13R Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential 
Occupancies

Hope all is well with everyone.

Building codes are typically very clear on what characterizes a building to be 
separate and distinct. Either build a building by itself, build multiple 
buildings and separate by fire separation distance is specified by the code, 
build two buildings right smack up against each other and separate by an 
approved or listed firewall assembly, or use the special provision in the IBC 
that applies typically to what we call podium-style buildings.

Section 510.2 of the 2018 IBC requires a horizontal assembly having a fire 
resistance rating of not less than three hours for a single building to be 
considered as separate and distinct buildings. A 2-hour fire separation 
assembly effectively serves to separate fire areas, but, in my opinion, it 
would not qualify a single structure to be considered as separate and distinct 
buildings recognized by the building code.  Rather, it would be categorized as 
a mixed occupancy, requiring NFPA 13 sprinkler protection throughout.

Am I missing something?


On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:55 PM tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Steve,
> That is exactly what the Architect that I am working for told me. The 
> two hour Horizontal separation between the floors make this 2 separate 
> buildings.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Regards,
> G. Tim Stone
>
> G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC
> NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler 
> Design and Consulting Services
>
>117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 
> 
> CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968
>  tston...@comcast.net
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Leyton 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 3:51 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: tston...@comcast.net
> Subject: RE: 13R Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise 
> Residential Occupancies
>
> Assuming the building code that's applicable to this project 
> classifies this as two separate buildings (a four-story Type 3 on a 
> single-story Type 1 podium), NFPA 13R can be used as a basis of design 
> in many (most?)
> jurisdictions.   It is up to the building official to clarify whether a
> two-
> or three-hour separation is required between the podium and upper 
> floors, but this is commonly viewed as two separate buildings.
>
> I have served as member of the NFPA Technical Committee for 
> Residential Sprinklers, but this is MY opinion only.
>
>
> Steve Leyton, President
> Protection Design and Consulting
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  www.protectiondesign.com
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire 
> Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2021 12:42 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: tston...@comcast.net
> Subject: 13R Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential 
> Occupancies
>
> Am I reading the Scope of 13R correctly?
>
>
>
> I am designing a Sprinkler system for a building which is five stories 
> in height. Each floor is about 5,500 SF. The Ground floor is a parking 
> garage of concrete & steel (Type 1a construction) with 4 stories of 
> Residential above which constructed of wood (Type 3B Construction). 
> The parking garage shall be protected by a Dry Pipe System designed in 
> accordance with NFPA 13.
> There is a 2 hour Occupancy Separation between Garage & The Second Floor.
> The Second thru Fifth levels are to be protected by a NFPA 13R 
> Sprinkler System. The overall building height measures less than 60' above 
> grade.
>
>
>
> NFPA 13R Scope:  states this standard shall cover  "residential 
> occupancies up to and including four stories in height in buildings 
> not exceeding 60 ft. in height above grade plane."
>
>
>
> Due to the phrase "in Buildings" am I interpreting this correctly?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> 

RE: 13R Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential Occupancies

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Assuming the building code that's applicable to this project classifies this as 
two separate buildings (a four-story Type 3 on a single-story Type 1 podium), 
NFPA 13R can be used as a basis of design in many (most?) jurisdictions.   It 
is up to the building official to clarify whether a two- or three-hour 
separation is required between the podium and upper floors, but this is 
commonly viewed as two separate buildings.

I have served as member of the NFPA Technical Committee for Residential 
Sprinklers, but this is MY opinion only.


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2021 12:42 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: tston...@comcast.net
Subject: 13R Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential 
Occupancies

Am I reading the Scope of 13R correctly?

 

I am designing a Sprinkler system for a building which is five stories in 
height. Each floor is about 5,500 SF. The Ground floor is a parking garage of 
concrete & steel (Type 1a construction) with 4 stories of Residential above 
which constructed of wood (Type 3B Construction). The parking garage shall be 
protected by a Dry Pipe System designed in accordance with NFPA 13.
There is a 2 hour Occupancy Separation between Garage & The Second Floor.
The Second thru Fifth levels are to be protected by a NFPA 13R Sprinkler 
System. The overall building height measures less than 60' above grade.

 

NFPA 13R Scope:  states this standard shall cover  "residential occupancies 
up to and including four stories in height in buildings not exceeding 60 ft. in 
height above grade plane."

 

Due to the phrase "in Buildings" am I interpreting this correctly?

 

Regards,

G. Tim Stone

 

G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services

 

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

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

   tston...@comcast.net

 

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

RE: Best Common Practices

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Its not codified.  You might explain to the architect that if you run lines 
parallel to primary and secondary structure that you're left with having to 
connect either to the deck or substructure, or else trapezing most of your line 
hangers.  Suggest to him or her that a meeting be held with the structural 
engineer to sort out the potential impacts of doing it the way that they have 
requested.  If this is a design-build submittal, then unless it was specified 
that way you are entitled to the most efficient means and methods available t 
perform the work so long as it is per applicable codes.  If, after all is said 
and done they still want the lines running parallel to structure, then hit them 
with an appropriate additional services change request and work it out with the 
structural engineer.



Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 11/8/21 7:21 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Best Common Practices

I know it's common practice to run Mains parallel with the structure and 
Branchlines perpendicular to it but is that written anywhere? I actually have 
an architect that would like to see it in writing...

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

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

Display vs. storage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Here's a discussion topic:   Today's Retail Environment

As "stores" morph into "boxes", we are seeing more and more "industrial" 
displays, with unadorned shelving and in some cases rack fixtures (I'm thinking 
PetSmart among others) where merchandise is displayed for sale within reach of 
customers on the floor, but also where backstock is kept above those levels, 
sometimes driving up the interpreted "height of storage" to the point where the 
question arises as to whether this is still OH2 mercantile use or if we've 
pushed into Chapters 14-17.PetSmart uses racking, Bed Bath & Beyond is one 
of many who use wide gondolas, Party City is just a box full o' plastic...  
there are seemingly endless permutations of "retail" and of course we now have 
§20.3 as an option where it applies.  But what about stores on the lower end of 
the occupancy hazard class where it may or may not be so cut and dried?  
Discount shoe stores, loaded with synthetics for sure, but if they display 
shoes in boxes on shelves to 8'-0" or 10'-0" in only part of the store, does 
this retail store (that doesn't have a stockroom and keeps all its merch on the 
sales floor) really represent a "storage" use?

What triggers the post is a Burlington store in SoCal where the fire authority 
has requested a technical report to justify keeping an older OH 2 or 3 system 
in place in lieu of upgrading to protect "storage of plastics to 8'-0" AFF".   
There are just a few shelving fixtures in this 40,000+ sq. ft. store that hold 
merch up to that level and not all of it will be synthetics.   It begs the 
question:  When does retail display become storage when it's not exclusively 
representative of the use?  Does a row of comforters at 7'-0" in the bedding 
section require specific address?   Or the closeout wall in the shoe 
department?   It's much easier when the entire store is typically fixturized 
(back to PetSmart) to say, "storage" but what if it's mostly on floor and low 
fixtures?   For new builds it's easier because we can use EC-25 options, higher 
densities, whatever but the impact to existing stores is potentially 
significant and intrusive.  I'm not saying we should look the other way because 
of concerns over cost or convenience but these are often last-minute catches on 
inspection and schedules can get vaporized in an instant.

I've proposed a double-density approach in the past for uses like self-storage 
and §20.3 suggests that's a sound approach, but what in retail stores that may 
only have a handful of locations where this is even an issue?   I'm curious as 
to whether there are regional best practices that have been undertaken or 
whether there's been any additional work done by consultants or industry to 
help establish a lucid benchmark for when a "store" crosses the line with 
regard to occupancy hazard class.


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



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

RE: Supervised Air Manual Dry Standpipe

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Since the intended purpose of the supervisory air is to alert ownership or a 
service contractor of leaks or damage, and doesn't factor in functionality of 
the system the way it would if the system was equipped with a dry-pipe valve, I 
don't see where it would be required.   Not a bad practice, but no necessarily 
required. I'm pretty sure we've never discussed this in committee, so the 
standard says what it says and an AMD isn't currently in that conversation. 
If any other TC members have a different recollection, please chime in. 

The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

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





 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 1:51 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: Supervised Air Manual Dry Standpipe


Having an interesting discussion with a senior field man.

He is concerned that some of the compressors pump to 125 +/-, and was asking 
about an AMD.

I have searched, and also from a hands-on standpoint, do not believe one is 
required.

It certainly is if we introduce a dry valve or deluge into the standpipe 
system, but then it gets a different name.

NFPA 72 only mentions a 10 psi differential for supervisory circuits with air.

Is an AMD required on this type standpipe?

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis
Design Manager / Code Compliance
1530 Samco Road, Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342 /Direct-605.593.5063/Cell-605.391.2733  



___
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: Seismic joint detail

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Thank you Tom!   Helpful in that these show the rotational capability of the 
coupled ells, but the assembly doesn’t really jump up and down vertically as I 
hoped it might because the tests appear to have been based on applying only 
horizontal forces.

SML

From: Tom Wellen 
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Re: Seismic joint detail

Here are some Victaulic video links of the shake, rattle and roll.

https://youtu.be/tPaRcqt4qPI
https://youtu.be/xsG8_Nz-ym4
https://youtu.be/5ro8SnECHQU


On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:54 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
I appreciate the overview and wagering strategy but the SEOR is a friendly on 
this one and  there's nothing conventional about this application.  It's a 
tunnel, 40' below the street that communicates from one building to another 
across two public streets  and an intervening block in DT San Diego.   And 
crosses a fault, so a high likelihood of short waveform movement if there's 
ever an event.   So we have the fault zone, the two building basement crossings 
and some other flexure points that we're trying to resolve.On top of all 
that,  it's highly secure and there's limited space  above detention-grade 
ceilings, so the required clearances for movement apparently can't be fully 
realized.   The contractor has expressed a preference for the multiple 90s on 
this one because of space constraints and since this is a very sensitive 
project and everyone is earnestly working to get it right, I've been tasked 
with establishing what range of vertical movement the detail in the NFPA figure 
is capable of.  Also trying to verify if it's been field tested (it has, 
apparently) and whether it's been lab tested or whether there is any particular 
requirement for vertical movement specifically.   The language of 9.3.3.2 is 
confusing, with reference made to open and closing of the joint and also to, 
"...movement relative to the separation in the other two dimensions..."What 
"other two dimensions", time and space?

SML

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:02 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP mailto:aksei...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: Seismic joint detail

 If we are referring to the six flexible coupling seismic separation assembly 
that every contractor finds an alternative, make a sizable wager with the 
structural engineer that the assembly provides vertical movement. Make sure the 
winnings cover the cost of six ½” pvc fittings and a four foot stick of ½” pvc 
pipe. Make the thing up and fool with it for some time before you present your 
case so that you can move it around to show it off like you know what you are 
doing, because at first it might look awkward enough that the engineer will cry 
foul. By the way, the details for this six coupling assembly show vertical 
accommodation in the elevation detail.
 You might obfuscate the demonstration by asking how much differential seismic 
movement this engineer is really expecting. Differential seismic lateral motion 
is due to how easy it is for one structural building section to be different in 
lateral flexibility than the next building section, i.e. across the seismic 
separation joint. Each building section will wiggle differently than the next. 
The difference shows up at the joint. Vertical differential flexibility, in 
other words “pogoing” differently than the next structural section is not 
happening very much, if any. Buildings are relatively much more vertically 
stiff than they are horizontally stiff. I might bet the structural engineer has 
not tried to calculate this. What might be the case, like this building is in 
Houston Texas which I believe has more seismic faults going on than any other 
US city, is that the structural engineer knows the building project has to span 
a known fault and so the structure is actually anticipating differential 
vertical movement at the joint.
Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Oct 19, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
> mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
>  wrote:
>
> A question was raised by a project structural engineer about the NFPA 13 
> seismic joint detail shown in Fig. A.9.3.3(a), 2016 edition for reference.
> Does anyone know if this configuration has ever been tested/measured?   Has 
> it been verified as an acceptable OMNI-DIRECTIONAL solution?The engineer 
> in question is looking at the detail and in his judgement, it's only a 2D 
> solution.   There are lateral and longitudinal movements shown, but not a 
> vertical one.If there are installation or hanger/bracing

RE: Seismic joint detail

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I appreciate the overview and wagering strategy but the SEOR is a friendly on 
this one and  there's nothing conventional about this application.  It's a 
tunnel, 40' below the street that communicates from one building to another 
across two public streets  and an intervening block in DT San Diego.   And 
crosses a fault, so a high likelihood of short waveform movement if there's 
ever an event.   So we have the fault zone, the two building basement crossings 
and some other flexure points that we're trying to resolve.On top of all 
that,  it's highly secure and there's limited space  above detention-grade 
ceilings, so the required clearances for movement apparently can't be fully 
realized.   The contractor has expressed a preference for the multiple 90s on 
this one because of space constraints and since this is a very sensitive 
project and everyone is earnestly working to get it right, I've been tasked 
with establishing what range of vertical movement the detail in the NFPA figure 
is capable of.  Also trying to verify if it's been field tested (it has, 
apparently) and whether it's been lab tested or whether there is any particular 
requirement for vertical movement specifically.   The language of 9.3.3.2 is 
confusing, with reference made to open and closing of the joint and also to, 
"...movement relative to the separation in the other two dimensions..."What 
"other two dimensions", time and space?  

SML

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:02 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
Subject: Re: Seismic joint detail

 If we are referring to the six flexible coupling seismic separation assembly 
that every contractor finds an alternative, make a sizable wager with the 
structural engineer that the assembly provides vertical movement. Make sure the 
winnings cover the cost of six ½” pvc fittings and a four foot stick of ½” pvc 
pipe. Make the thing up and fool with it for some time before you present your 
case so that you can move it around to show it off like you know what you are 
doing, because at first it might look awkward enough that the engineer will cry 
foul. By the way, the details for this six coupling assembly show vertical 
accommodation in the elevation detail.
 You might obfuscate the demonstration by asking how much differential seismic 
movement this engineer is really expecting. Differential seismic lateral motion 
is due to how easy it is for one structural building section to be different in 
lateral flexibility than the next building section, i.e. across the seismic 
separation joint. Each building section will wiggle differently than the next. 
The difference shows up at the joint. Vertical differential flexibility, in 
other words “pogoing” differently than the next structural section is not 
happening very much, if any. Buildings are relatively much more vertically 
stiff than they are horizontally stiff. I might bet the structural engineer has 
not tried to calculate this. What might be the case, like this building is in 
Houston Texas which I believe has more seismic faults going on than any other 
US city, is that the structural engineer knows the building project has to span 
a known fault and so the structure is actually anticipating differential 
vertical movement at the joint.
Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO  

> On Oct 19, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> A question was raised by a project structural engineer about the NFPA 13 
> seismic joint detail shown in Fig. A.9.3.3(a), 2016 edition for reference.
> Does anyone know if this configuration has ever been tested/measured?   Has 
> it been verified as an acceptable OMNI-DIRECTIONAL solution?The engineer 
> in question is looking at the detail and in his judgement, it's only a 2D 
> solution.   There are lateral and longitudinal movements shown, but not a 
> vertical one.If there are installation or hanger/bracing committee people 
> who can chime in, I'm wondering if this figure has been vetted and that's why 
> it's still in the standard.   Bottom line:  Is Fig. A.9.3.3(a) equivalent to 
> a listed seismic loop?
> 
> 
> Steve Leyton, President
> Protection Design and Consulting
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
> www.protectiondesign.com<http://www.protectiondesign.com/>
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire 
> Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
> 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprin

Seismic joint detail

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

A question was raised by a project structural engineer about the NFPA 13 
seismic joint detail shown in Fig. A.9.3.3(a), 2016 edition for reference.
Does anyone know if this configuration has ever been tested/measured?   Has it 
been verified as an acceptable OMNI-DIRECTIONAL solution?The engineer in 
question is looking at the detail and in his judgement, it's only a 2D 
solution.   There are lateral and longitudinal movements shown, but not a 
vertical one.If there are installation or hanger/bracing committee people 
who can chime in, I'm wondering if this figure has been vetted and that's why 
it's still in the standard.   Bottom line:  Is Fig. A.9.3.3(a) equivalent to a 
listed seismic loop?


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


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

Transport to Marriott

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Is there anyone who has already arrived at the convention who can inform me of 
how they got there? Are there van shuttles at the airport? Does anyone know how 
much a taxi or in Uber cost?


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



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

RE: Back Up Fire Pump

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

By my reckoning, you need about 300 PSI at the ground level to pump 100 PSI to 
the roof of what I'll call a 385' tall standpipe system (35x11).   Bottom line: 
 Can the responding FD pump 750 or 1,000 GPM at 300 psi?   Most muni 
departments can, but that might be at the limit of what they can deliver as 
most engines are equipped with 300 PSI pumps.   Can they series pump?  Or do 
they have a high-rise engine with series pumps on board?


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:56 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin 
Subject: Back Up Fire Pump


Starting design on a 35 story residential tower. Engineers plans show two 
identical fire pumps. Client wants to know if we need two fire pumps. I want to 
answer him with the code reference below, but experience has taught me that it 
may not be as simple as this ... Am I missing something or is it this cut and 
dry?


NFPA 20, 2016: 5.6.2 Fire Pump Backup. Fire pumps serving zones that are 
partially or wholly beyond the pumping capability of the fire department 
apparatus shall be provided with one of the following:

(1) A fully independent and automatic backup fire pump unit(s) arranged so that 
all zones can be maintained in full service with any one pump out of service.

(2) An auxiliary means that is capable of providing the full fire protection 
demand and that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.




John Irwin

___
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] Transfer Switches

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

All true of course, but in this case the electric pump was approved and 
installed with the primary power supply apparently considered "reliable".   
NFPA 20 criteria are admittedly generous and of course you're right about Texas 
and NOLA, but what we don't ever want is for a particular situation or design 
challenge to fall into the vortex of over-consideration or open-ended "What 
if?" thinking.   I understood the context of the original question to be that 
the power is reliable and the gen-set is NOT required to be connected.   
Getting an EOR involved who may be more interested in covering their ass than 
considering the owner's interests isn't necessarily prudent or necessary.   I 
still recall one of our friends telling me about a state capitol building 
project where the EOR specified a 2,000 GPM diesel pump for a mostly Light 
Hazard building... 

Yes, a diesel pump is always an option but they require much more intensive 
testing and maintenance, have a higher first cost, are noisy and stinky, and in 
states like CA there are costly environment regs (we're NOT the only one) that 
pile on even more.And surprisingly, diesel pumps are NOT more likely to 
fire up as required - FM found several years ago that the failure rate of 
installed pumps was roughly equal comparing diesel to electric drives.

Okay, Monday morning caffeine shot expended - carry on.

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 7:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Transfer Switches

Slightly off topic - the determination of "reliable" normal power can change 
with time.  Look at the Texas area after last winter.  Look at New Orleans 
after the last 24 hours.  Just because an area was served by reliable power in 
the psat, things do change.  Have the engineer of record determine if standby 
power is required.  As Craig stated, many factors can influence the decision.

On a personal note, I have specified, designed, installed, tested, and 
maintained thousands of diesel driven fire pumps systems.  Thet do make a good 
option where normal and or standby power is an issue.

Thanks,
John

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

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



   

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

*Get in the (Fitter) Zone!*


AFSA's "Fitter Zone" features live webinars designed specifically for fire 
sprinkler fitters. These live presentations are held on Saturdays whenever 
possible, so you don't have to take your fitters out of the field during the 
workweek. If you cannot attend live sessions, these webinars will be recorded 
and can be purchased for on-demand access.  Learn more *here* 
.




On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:58 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> No. Just because a generator is present doesn't automatically require 
> it to be connected to the fire pump.
>
> The requirement of secondary or backup power for an electric fire pump 
> is directly related to the reliability of the primary power source and 
> other factors, some which may be code driven, some based on the 
> function of the building and other reasons may be related to the 
> contents of the building (hazardous materials).  There are specific 
> guidelines that typically are addressed or queried as part of the 
> electrical power supply analysis by the project electrical 
> engineer/contractor.  (well, hopefully).
>
> NFPA 20, 2019 9.3.2 speaks about non-reliable power sources and 
> additional criteria is defined within the appendix.  Now, while this 
> particular section is addressing High-Rises, the same application can 
> apply to any building with contents or other conditions that 
> absolutely must have an operational fire pump.
>
> So in the case of this building which has refrigerated consumables, 
> whether or not the fire pump HAS to be operational in a power outage 
> to protect the building and product is more of an owner/insurer preference.
> If the ice cream melts, it will be a mess but it will not endanger the 
> public.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:04 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: Transfer Switches

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

It's ice cream; depending on local health code requirements, a "save" might 
still be a profound or total loss.

After a long time in this racket, I find myself falling back more and more on 
Chapter 1 of all the standards wherein we find the intent statement, which is 
to provide a "reasonable" level of protection against fire.If they 
want/need a generator to keep ice cream from melting in this fully sprinklered 
building, then plug one in.   But it's also fair to undertake a cost/benefit 
analysis if backing up the pump means doubling the cost of the gen set and if 
the owner doesn't see the value, so be it.  Keeping in mind that at no point in 
this discussion has there been any allusion to the power supply not meeting the 
reliability requirements of NFPA 20.

SL


From: Mark Phillips [mailto:philli...@pyebarkerfire.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 3:48 AM
To: Richard Mote ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Richard Mote ; Steve Leyton 
Subject: Re: Transfer Switches

Not a code requirement but less expensive that complete product loss.



Sent from my mobile device
Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.

Mark Phillips
Branch Manager
Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections
Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections

832-101 Purser Drive
Raleigh NC 27603
Phone: 919-779-4010
Fax : 919-779-4014
Cell : 919-268-7587
Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com<mailto:philli...@pyebarkerfire.com>
Web : www.pyebarkerfire.com<http://www.pyebarkerfire.com>


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:24:16 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Richard Mote mailto:spri...@aol.com>>; 
st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Subject: Re: Transfer Switches

[EXTERNAL]

This is a building within a building a 60,000 sq.ft. steel building with a 
27,700 sq.ft. freezer. The emergence generator is to protect several tons of 
ice cream from having a melt down. If they size the generator to handle the 
fire 150 hp fire pump load it will double the price he says.


-Original Message-
From: Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
To: Richard Mote mailto:spri...@aol.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Sent: Thu, Aug 26, 2021 8:15 pm
Subject: RE: Transfer Switches

To paraphrase, you're asking if it's required to connect a gen set that is 
installed in a building that isn't a high-rise building or some other essential 
facility where there is a code requirement for emergency power, correct?  In 
other words, a voluntary generator with regard to the code set.

Assuming that's the case and there isn't a formal interpretation from the AHJ 
regarding the reliability of the power supply, I would say no.  The code will 
require an emergency power supply or not.  If one is required, then the FLS 
systems have to be on that, but if the secondary isn't required by code then 
it's up to the owner (and let's face it, that's certainly a good idea if the 
generator is sized for the fire pump).So there MAY be something in the code 
that requires this, but only if it's a mandatory generator.


Steve Leyton

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:04 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Richard Mote mailto:spri...@aol.com>>
Subject: Transfer Switches

Got a email from a customer with the following question. I'm on the road with 
no access to my books.If an emergency generator is installed on a building, is 
there anything in the codes that would require it to be connected to the fire 
pump.
RichardL. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services,LLC

PO Box 36
Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL rimrock.designservi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.designservi...@gmail.com>


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

RE: Transfer Switches

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

To paraphrase, you're asking if it's required to connect a gen set that is 
installed in a building that isn't a high-rise building or some other essential 
facility where there is a code requirement for emergency power, correct?   In 
other words, a voluntary generator with regard to the code set.

Assuming that's the case and there isn't a formal interpretation from the AHJ 
regarding the reliability of the power supply, I would say no.   The code will 
require an emergency power supply or not.   If one is required, then the FLS 
systems have to be on that, but if the secondary isn't required by code then 
it's up to the owner (and let's face it, that's certainly a good idea if the 
generator is sized for the fire pump). So there MAY be something in the 
code that requires this, but only if it's a mandatory generator.


Steve Leyton

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:04 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Richard Mote 
Subject: Transfer Switches

Got a email from a customer with the following question. I'm on the road with 
no access to my books.If an emergency generator is installed on a building, is 
there anything in the codes that would require it to be connected to the fire 
pump.
RichardL. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services,LLC

PO Box 36
Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL rimrock.designservi...@gmail.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

Sidewalls for storage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Besides the RASCO Metal Building Sprinkler, are there any other CMDA sidewalls 
for storage occupancies?


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


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

RE: Automated Rack picking system

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

No, that's a completely different format and technology. 

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 10:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jerry Van Kolken 
Subject: RE: Automated Rack picking system

Would that apply to Automated garages?

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

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Taylor Schumacher via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Taylor Schumacher 
Subject: RE: Automated Rack picking system

I believe Matt meant to type FM 8-34.


Taylor Schumacher



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 6:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Matt Grise 
Subject: RE: Automated Rack picking system

What Matt said.   NFPA still mute, but FM did extensive testing to come up with 
criteria for "open" vs. "closed" arrays and to measure permeability of these 
things.


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: RE: Automated Rack picking system

I don't think NFPA does, but FM does: 8-24.

Matt


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: Automated Rack picking system

Does NFPA have a standard that covers protection for automated storage and 
retrieval systems?

Thank You

James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone 604-888-0318
Cel: 604-790-0938
Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca<mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca>
Web: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phaserfire.ca=E,1,sOZa8rUpfaqnl0WKJB08ZyMcvL2iEQNxA7lO7C1kQ8BDhhwHjG2Gj9_UM-UjcoSkTzBhEPUFGMsHRPKZ3_CqutUxYNskFniO5VSFnJOyNZ2yjA,,=1<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.phaserfire.ca=E,1,e8jQ7Nnbx8HRP-r4rIu_yZ1oCAU3RS3kybde_MsBmQ-fWLa7VheajXVPgWyzDSwpuhIAXchN4SB6R3YDOLb963e_40xtQLmMQkU9YUcoirNZmQ,,=1>

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,y1Ge1N19oxD-DmVBYRfPXFZhFSdgIaSyQJKcg0Lg9jKhQY0t8flt2fd1dlO59eXWzCJUMf8KSCz9edTwB4zLPtc5CKSu49y6spx4CmvFNcqAdiyE=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of 
the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or 
legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited.
___
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: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Right, which is why I was only allowing a PSI or so as an allowance for the 
"credit" back from hard piped drops.Apples to apples, you'll have the same 
Pe for both a hard piped or flexible drop. 

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 3:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

One thought to your point -

A 20 foot hard pipe drop has the advantage of also dropping 20 feet. You will 
gain a substantial amount of pressure from the elevation change that should 
more than overcome the flow demand of a light hazard pipe schedule standard 
coverage pendant.

A 20 foot equivalent drop does not have the same hydraulic advantage.

It seems like you should be able to use flex drops on a pipe schedule system. 
The ones that I have surveyed and calculated always come up with plenty of 
safety. That does not mean I would be ok making substantial changes to the 
hydraulics without a close examination at a minimum. 

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 5:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: Re: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

I'll be devil's advocate. Pipe scheduled systems don't have limits on drop 
lengths and I've seen a few scheduled warehouse systems with 30 to 40 ft.
roof decks with sections of office spacing below at 10 ft. with pendents 
feeding them. So if you can do it per the pipe scheduled method you should be 
able to do it with a shorter 6 ft. flex hose with the same equivalent feet that 
you might find in a hard piped system.

JH

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:07 AM Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Can flexible hose head connectors (I.E. - "Flexheads") be used on a 
> pipe scheduled system ? Since calculations were not performed due to 
> it being a scheduled system, the friction loss would be superfluous, 
> correct ? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Sean Lockyer
> AIT Life Safety
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,yJy0FkmWv
> 8kAJnTMsneav8pMYCXQyB51SLZNS6LoNvcWkygfvZGinfj8b8hSd1vKMMaxWK8DPJRtJW1
> RinlHD5v5CnYW6HpqRbi2sK9qGsnk8r1tgA,,=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,qqPjQ536SLPWlZ6fljifsKteUsfO-D3vceU1ulLIpavUOfR6x8WCalfKvRdFsgup6SEESABKWeFtBmXyhbjWSbAsnn0BdIMROrZQszUa3x0G5kcfQEhYLKe6Nw,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Copy that - probably prudent on a calculated project depending on safety factor.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Tyson Sutherland [mailto:tyson.sutherl...@comunale.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 2:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Matthew J Willis 

Cc: Steve Leyton ; Ron Greenman 

Subject: RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

Maybe I'm confusing my experiences with revamping pipe schedule systems versus 
hydraulically designed systems, but I've had several jobs where the AHJ or 
reviewer ask us to hydraulically prove flex hose assemblies on small relocate 
jobs. 



TYSON SUTHERLAND, CET
NICET Level III Design Technician
Ohio ASSD #8495

2900 Newpark Drive
Barberton, OH 44203

888-857-2817 x317
330-600-0697 Cell
tyson.sutherl...@comunale.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 5:25 PM
To: Matthew J Willis ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Ron Greenman 

Subject: RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

That fits into what I was saying.   A quick review of the actual performance 
criteria on any project will render a reasonable pad that could be added as I 
suggested.   Whether it's 2 or 5 PSI, I'm still sleeping well by this method.   

Question for Tyson:  What do you mean, "If the AHJ catches on...?"   Most 
wouldn't even be aware of this (it's pretty nuanced) and making that allowance 
is a completely valid approach.   

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Matthew J Willis [mailto:ma...@rapidfireinc.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 2:17 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Ron Greenman 

Subject: RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

20-30 seems a bit more than I have seen.

We include around that range as part of safety build in without affecting pipe 
sizing.

14-17 gets you 2 bends on most jobs (Read not FM), which according to multiple 
field discussions is the most you will ever see.

If you consider the fact that a typical return bend is 9 feet equivalent based 
on the hydraulics table, you are not adding very much more demand to the system.

Many jurisdiction though are requiring calcs because as stated, that is outside 
pipe schedule.

R/
Matt



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 3:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Ron Greenman 

Subject: RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

I'm with Obi Ron on this one.   I agree that calc's never hurt anything but 
they can add a fat layer to the work scope if you have to reconstruct as-built 
conditions to create piping plan for calc's.  And it's more complicated that 
necessary because we can boil it down to the issue of the flex drops simply 
lowering the net K-factor, which will raise the required starting pressure but 
will render a similar or lower gross demand in GPM.   

If a flex drop adds 20-30' of equivalent length, a simple allowance can be made 
for that in the water supply evaluation criteria found in Chapter 11.   Using 
the more conservative OH values found in Table 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://11.2.2.1__;!!FaxH778!NWq_JPeF_TW_mTYtDzy_S2N8jxI9r0OE1EB74sNHTlmago5FNurCBHQyTsCdZZIpKAKDha4$
 , we already have to affirm that there will be 850 GPM at 20 PSI available for 
a supervised system.   If we use 25 GPM as a flow rate, and .2 psi/ft. as for 
Pf, then a flex drop will impart 4-6 PSI of additional loss from a sprinkler 
connected directly to the branch.   If we allow for some loss in a hard-piped 
drop and credit that against 4-6 PSI, we can comfortably land on 5 PSI, so I 
would proffer that affirming 850 GPM at 25 PSI at the riser base meets the 
intent of 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://11.2.2.1__;!!FaxH778!NWq_JPeF_TW_mTYtDzy_S2N8jxI9r0OE1EB74sNHTlmago5FNurCBHQyTsCdZZIpKAKDha4$
 .

JUST my opinion, but likely worth more than you're paying for it...


Steve Leyton, President
Protection Design and Consulting
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.protectiondesign.com__;!!FaxH778!NWq_JPeF_TW_mTYtDzy_S2N8jxI9r0OE1EB74sNHTlmago5FNurCBHQyTsCdZZIpttBHefE$
 
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire 
Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 1:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

Tyson,

While I tend to agree with you and can think of many pipe scheduling rules 
going back half a century or more that would suggest that flex he

RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

That fits into what I was saying.   A quick review of the actual performance 
criteria on any project will render a reasonable pad that could be added as I 
suggested.   Whether it's 2 or 5 PSI, I'm still sleeping well by this method.   

Question for Tyson:  What do you mean, "If the AHJ catches on...?"   Most 
wouldn't even be aware of this (it's pretty nuanced) and making that allowance 
is a completely valid approach.   

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Matthew J Willis [mailto:ma...@rapidfireinc.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 2:17 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Ron Greenman 

Subject: RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

20-30 seems a bit more than I have seen.

We include around that range as part of safety build in without affecting pipe 
sizing.

14-17 gets you 2 bends on most jobs (Read not FM), which according to multiple 
field discussions is the most you will ever see.

If you consider the fact that a typical return bend is 9 feet equivalent based 
on the hydraulics table, you are not adding very much more demand to the system.

Many jurisdiction though are requiring calcs because as stated, that is outside 
pipe schedule.

R/
Matt



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 3:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Ron Greenman 

Subject: RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

I'm with Obi Ron on this one.   I agree that calc's never hurt anything but 
they can add a fat layer to the work scope if you have to reconstruct as-built 
conditions to create piping plan for calc's.  And it's more complicated that 
necessary because we can boil it down to the issue of the flex drops simply 
lowering the net K-factor, which will raise the required starting pressure but 
will render a similar or lower gross demand in GPM.   

If a flex drop adds 20-30' of equivalent length, a simple allowance can be made 
for that in the water supply evaluation criteria found in Chapter 11.   Using 
the more conservative OH values found in Table 11.2.2.1, we already have to 
affirm that there will be 850 GPM at 20 PSI available for a supervised system.  
 If we use 25 GPM as a flow rate, and .2 psi/ft. as for Pf, then a flex drop 
will impart 4-6 PSI of additional loss from a sprinkler connected directly to 
the branch.   If we allow for some loss in a hard-piped drop and credit that 
against 4-6 PSI, we can comfortably land on 5 PSI, so I would proffer that 
affirming 850 GPM at 25 PSI at the riser base meets the intent of 11.2.2.1.

JUST my opinion, but likely worth more than you're paying for it...


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 1:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

Tyson,

While I tend to agree with you and can think of many pipe scheduling rules 
going back half a century or more that would suggest that flex heads are ad 
were outside of the scope of a pipe scheduled system I'm curious as to what 
criteria you're basing your opinion on. At face value, it would seem that they 
would be fine as long as no more than two were attached to one-inch pipe in 
light and ordinary hazard situations, or only one per length of one-inch pipe 
in extra hazard (extra hazard pope schedule systems having been allowable in 
times past).

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:32 AM Tyson Sutherland via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Sean,
>
> Because the friction loss of most flex hose assemblies are equivalent 
> to
> 20-30 feet of 1" schedule 40 pipe, in my opinion hydraulic 
> calculations would be required.
>
>
> TYSON SUTHERLAND, CET
> NICET Level III Design Technician
> Ohio ASSD #8495
>
> 2900 Newpark Drive
> Barberton, OH 44203
>
> 888-857-2817 x317
> 330-600-0697 Cell
> tyson.sutherl...@comunale.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 2:08 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Sean Lockyer 
> Subject: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system
>
>
> BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.
>
>
> Can flexible hose head connectors (I.E. - "Flexheads") be used on a 
> pipe scheduled system ? Since calculations were not performed due to 
> it being a sc

RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I'm with Obi Ron on this one.   I agree that calc's never hurt anything but 
they can add a fat layer to the work scope if you have to reconstruct as-built 
conditions to create piping plan for calc's.  And it's more complicated that 
necessary because we can boil it down to the issue of the flex drops simply 
lowering the net K-factor, which will raise the required starting pressure but 
will render a similar or lower gross demand in GPM.   

If a flex drop adds 20-30' of equivalent length, a simple allowance can be made 
for that in the water supply evaluation criteria found in Chapter 11.   Using 
the more conservative OH values found in Table 11.2.2.1, we already have to 
affirm that there will be 850 GPM at 20 PSI available for a supervised system.  
 If we use 25 GPM as a flow rate, and .2 psi/ft. as for Pf, then a flex drop 
will impart 4-6 PSI of additional loss from a sprinkler connected directly to 
the branch.   If we allow for some loss in a hard-piped drop and credit that 
against 4-6 PSI, we can comfortably land on 5 PSI, so I would proffer that 
affirming 850 GPM at 25 PSI at the riser base meets the intent of 11.2.2.1.

JUST my opinion, but likely worth more than you're paying for it...


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 1:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

Tyson,

While I tend to agree with you and can think of many pipe scheduling rules 
going back half a century or more that would suggest that flex heads are ad 
were outside of the scope of a pipe scheduled system I'm curious as to what 
criteria you're basing your opinion on. At face value, it would seem that they 
would be fine as long as no more than two were attached to one-inch pipe in 
light and ordinary hazard situations, or only one per length of one-inch pipe 
in extra hazard (extra hazard pope schedule systems having been allowable in 
times past).

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:32 AM Tyson Sutherland via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Sean,
>
> Because the friction loss of most flex hose assemblies are equivalent 
> to
> 20-30 feet of 1" schedule 40 pipe, in my opinion hydraulic 
> calculations would be required.
>
>
> TYSON SUTHERLAND, CET
> NICET Level III Design Technician
> Ohio ASSD #8495
>
> 2900 Newpark Drive
> Barberton, OH 44203
>
> 888-857-2817 x317
> 330-600-0697 Cell
> tyson.sutherl...@comunale.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 2:08 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Sean Lockyer 
> Subject: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system
>
>
> BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.
>
>
> Can flexible hose head connectors (I.E. - "Flexheads") be used on a 
> pipe scheduled system ? Since calculations were not performed due to 
> it being a scheduled system, the friction loss would be superfluous, 
> correct ? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Sean Lockyer
> AIT Life Safety
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cg
> i/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!IbjdgPzNvfRo_9I3w-4Lvk3
> gveGdIerQzFD2VZCAmlHnz67IR63DiQoMZo-O_grDDQEnLDg$
>
> 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, 
> disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you 
> are not the intended recipient.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Automated Rack picking system

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

What Matt said.   NFPA still mute, but FM did extensive testing to come up with 
criteria for "open" vs. "closed" arrays and to measure permeability of these 
things.


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: RE: Automated Rack picking system

I don't think NFPA does, but FM does: 8-24.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: Automated Rack picking system

Does NFPA have a standard that covers protection for automated storage and 
retrieval systems?

Thank You

James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone 604-888-0318
Cel: 604-790-0938
Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
Web: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phaserfire.ca=E,1,sOZa8rUpfaqnl0WKJB08ZyMcvL2iEQNxA7lO7C1kQ8BDhhwHjG2Gj9_UM-UjcoSkTzBhEPUFGMsHRPKZ3_CqutUxYNskFniO5VSFnJOyNZ2yjA,,=1

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,y1Ge1N19oxD-DmVBYRfPXFZhFSdgIaSyQJKcg0Lg9jKhQY0t8flt2fd1dlO59eXWzCJUMf8KSCz9edTwB4zLPtc5CKSu49y6spx4CmvFNcqAdiyE=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

FW: Stub-up Material

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I inadvertently sent this reply to Jerry directly but want to post to Forum for 
archiving:

 
CA amends NFPA 24 §10.4.3.1.1 to include the following 2nd sentence,

"The pipe under the building or building foundation shall not contain 
mechanical joints."

This has been widely interpreted and enforced statewide to be a defacto 
requirement that a one-piece riser sweep is required and we've gone that way 
ever since this amendment was first added to the CA code set.   Another issue 
to consider is that if the spigot piece is plastic, did they also run under the 
footing and, if yes, is it sleeved or encased in concrete?   The standard 
requires a min. 12" of clearance between top of pipe and footings, but best 
practices have always assumed that the piping under the footings is ferrous and 
not subject to deflection from the compression loads of footings and I know 
from experience that C900 IS subject to deflection when cover is less than 18". 
   

Not sure why they had to reinvent best practices on your project, but good luck.

SL

-Original Message-
From: Jerry Van Kolken [mailto:jvankol...@mfpc.us] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 10:47 AM
To: Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Stub-up Material

Yes, is for a Water District who is also acting as the AHJ. Which I also find 
weird.

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

-Original Message-
From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 10:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jerry Van Kolken 
Subject: RE: Stub-up Material

Is this in CA?

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 10:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jerry Van Kolken 
Subject: Stub-up Material

I have a project where the UG contractor stub-up with PVC pipe with a Mega-lug 
cap. I've reviewed NFPA 13 / 24 and didn't see anything to indicate this was 
not legit. What / Where can I reference the correctness of this installation?


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

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of 
the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or 
legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of 
the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or 
legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Stub-up Material

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Is this in CA?

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 10:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jerry Van Kolken 
Subject: Stub-up Material

I have a project where the UG contractor stub-up with PVC pipe with a Mega-lug 
cap. I've reviewed NFPA 13 / 24 and didn't see anything to indicate this was 
not legit. What / Where can I reference the correctness of this installation?


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

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of 
the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or 
legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited.
___
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

SCOTUS Ruling on Union Organizing in CA

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

To the extent that it may affect merit shop businesses nationwide, today's 
Supreme Court ruling on union efforts to organize farmworkers at their 
workplaces may be of interest to many in this group, especially if your company 
has been the target of union salting and seeding efforts.   The Court ruled 
that a California regulation allowing union organizers access to private 
property amounted to allowing seizure of that property without just 
compensation.   This allowance has been exploited countless times over the past 
10-15 years by picketers and organizers who demonstrated at contractor offices 
and jobsites, and many AFSA member shops have been targeted by such efforts 
(not to mention nuisance lawsuits).A long overdue reversal of an unfair and 
poorly crafted regulation here in the land of poorly crafted regulations...


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


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

RE: Hollow Core Concrete Seismic Braces

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

If an epoxy-set anchor hasn't been investigated or listed for this application 
(i.e. evaluated for its shear load capacity), I don't think it would meet the 
intent of NFPA 13 (certainly not the amended CA building code) for seismic 
anchorage in concrete.   

I first designed a system for a "Spancrete" structure in the early 80's, before 
NFPA 13 radically updated the seismic anchorage provisions and also before the 
IBC predecessor codes incorporated stringent seismic engineering provisions.
We used toggles where anchors penetrated into the hollow cells for hangers and 
through-bolts that had a nut and fender washer on top of the plank that were 
set from the top down before topping was poured.   Both of those arrangements 
were also nutted tight to the bottom surface of the planks.  I don't know if 
either of those would meet current code, but they could be evaluated by the 
SEOR on any given project.

The post-installed anchorage is the obvious choice because we already have a 
pool of listings and best practices on hand.   The challenge of course is that 
you have to know where the cells are in the plank before drilling, but that can 
be closely coordinated with SEOR and manufacturer of the planks.  Regardless of 
weapon of choice, this installations should be reviewed by those two parties 
and approved in writing before finalizing design and submitting for approval. 


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 6:11 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tom Duross 
Subject: RE: Hollow Core Concrete Seismic Braces

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

Go Red Sox!

TD

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

Subject: Re: Hollow Core Concrete Seismic Braces

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

Alternate Outlook ...on life!

From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 8:15:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

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


-Skyler


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

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

RE: Fire Flow Test for SFR

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Owen:

What exactly do you object to if the fire official is trying to verify the 
delivery of adequate fire flow?   What water company or muni-utilities 
department is providing the water?   Have they exercised any hydrants in the 
subject neighborhood in the past... I dunno, TEN years?Can you, sitting at 
your keyboard, verify that the required fire flow is available and there are no 
closed sectional valves in the neighborhood?That the ancient 6" that was 
installed right after WW2 isn't bleeding residual pressure during a fire flow 
event?We have at least 6 water companies just in San Diego County that have 
utterly failed to maintain and improve their systems as development adds 
density to their service areas so now they use velocity limits as a 
hair-trigger benchmark and they require developers to put in sometimes hundreds 
of feet of new 8" to replace their aging infrastructure so they don't have to 
put it in next year's budget.What do you think is worse, a $500 flow model 
or a $500,000 section of new main?

Instead of just sniping at a non-problem, trying called the FPO who's made this 
ruling and ask them if they're aware of issues with that water company or 
perhaps that zone of the water company's system.Advise your clients on 
future projects that this charge might be imposed.   Proactively call the water 
company to find out if they have archival flow tests or models that might 
satisfy the fire official.Yes, it's $500 and will apparently take two weeks 
(that's a separate issue and BS IMHO).   
And yes perhaps it's unusual to see this request on an SFR, but we have to 
prove fire flow on every project, so maybe-just-maybe this fire official knows 
something about the water system in question. 


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Owen Evans via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 6:54 AM
To: Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Owen Evans 
Subject: Fire Flow Test for SFR

Has anyone had an AHJ require a fire flow test for a single family residence 
situated in a metropolitan area? Not for the purpose of calculations but to 
ensure the municipal water delivery system could handle  the 500 gpm required 
(1000 gpm per California Residential Fire Code minus a 500 gpm credit for 
having fire sprinklers). This is a waste of time and money. It takes 
approximately four weeks to get done by water company, at a cost of $500. Has 
anyone argued against such a requirement, and how? I tried but was met with 
“because I wear a badge and I say so”. The general didn’t want to argue with 
AHJ, he decided to pay to avoid any further delay. 

Owen Evans



Sent from the all new Aol app for iOS
___
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: Manual Dry Standpipe

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Agreed.  Four separate FDC's - in a building with no sprinklers and likely 
without any annunciation of where in the building a fire is working - would be 
extremely challenging for the first responding company.   The intent is for 
each FDC, including multiple FDCs that pump into a single standpipe system, to 
energize any and all standpipe hose connections.   


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

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







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Henry Fontana via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2021 12:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Henry Fontana ; Brian Harris 

Subject: RE: Manual Dry Standpipe

I would just say if they were not interconnected then it would be very 
confusing when the fire department showed up on where to pump the water 

Henry Fontana
Operations Manager (NYC)
Johnson Controls Fire Protection
100 Lighting Way Secaucus, NJ 07094

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 3:25 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Manual Dry Standpipe

A parking garage is being supplied by a Manual Dry Standpipe in each exit 
stairwell, 4 total. Per NFPA-14 (2013) 7.5 would these need to be 
interconnected? There are no sprinklers in the garage, only standpipes in the 
stairwells.

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

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7CHenry.Fontana%40jci.com%7Cc23f4d268f7b4ba12aa908d90f325e2d%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C1%7C637557531272517508%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=Wb4uFHWTFvGJbmhsNsbeT9LdMiVEYYoyb%2Fcfyy3jnm8%3Dreserved=0
___
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: Hydrant barrel loss

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Yes.  Very helpful and put my concerns to rest.  Thanks!



Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: "Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum" 

Date: 4/27/21 9:56 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" 
Subject: RE: Hydrant barrel loss

Steve, did you get my email with hydrant info attached?


Craig Prahl--

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:46 PM
To: BRUCE VERHEI ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Bob Caputo 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hydrant barrel loss

We have a water supply that is not capable of even delivering 1,500 at 20 psi 
on site.   The required fire flow is actually 3,000 but we are working up an 
alternative means and methods proposal that will include my client paying the 
water district to upgrade about 600' of 6" AC to 8" C900.   We've calculated 
the pressure gain (to the pound) and are running on-site demand calculations to 
compare what we have to what we need and what is projected to be available at 
the source node with the upgrades.   The owner will be upgrading the fire 
sprinkler system and adding standpipes as part of the AMMR.  On top of all of 
this, he's buying the parcel from the city in which it's located, so he's 
asking them to discount the purchase price to help amortize some of this cost.  
 There are a LOT of fingers in this pie and we've estimated that there will be 
enough pressure gained to make the fire flow model work with... maybe 5 PSI to 
spare.With over a million bucks on the line, we want to be absolutely, 
positively, unequivocally, undoubtedly, unimpeachably certain that what we're 
proposing will work before anybody starts signing stuff.

SL

-Original Message-
From: BRUCE VERHEI [mailto:bver...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Bob Caputo 

Subject: RE: Hydrant barrel loss

In Puget Sound area it’s rare to find a dry hydrant with individually gated 
ports that isn’t as old as me.

I’m curious to hear why it is necessary to calculate friction loss through the 
hydrant.

Best.

Bruce V.
> On 04/26/2021 6:00 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
>
>
> Wet barrel hydrants have a messy valve assembly at each port.  Dry barrels 
> are simple - water floods the barrel and exits any open port(s).   I'm just 
> trying to be sure of whether there is any unusually high loss in the barrel 
> when flowing and while I'm at it, would like to verify the difference between 
> one port flowing and two or three.We need 20 PSI at the discharge side of 
> the port, so would like to include a fixed loss or just start the model at 23 
> or 24 psi or whatever is required to address the loss in the hydrant.
>
> SL
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:48 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bob Caputo 
> Subject: Re: Hydrant barrel loss
>
> Sincerely you’re measuring the flow and pressure at the hydrant in the first 
> place, why would you need to know that?  Just curious...
>
> Reverse engineering the water supply in the water main below?
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:57 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any tech data or knowledge of the pressure loss
> > within a wet-barrel hydrant?  I've tried to reach Mueller/Jones but
> > their customer service isn't answering.
> >
> >
> > Protection Design and Consulting
> > Steve Leyton, President
> > T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.protectiondesign.com__;!!B5ci
> > xuoO7ltTeg!QHuQa0bE7UxefCjCqAEOIZGbIT3qY1kDNkL4Zw0tFK21tUbckgklAkbdp
> > -DB-WDh1A$ <
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.protectiondesign.com/__;!!B5c
> > ixuoO7ltTeg!QHuQa0bE7UxefCjCqAEOIZGbIT3qY1kDNkL4Zw0tFK21tUbckgklAkbd
> > p-CnumA_-w$ >
> > 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
> > Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.
> > cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!QHuQa0bE7UxefCjCqAEO
> > IZGbIT3qY1kDNkL4Zw0tFK21tUbckgklAkbdp-BzkiW10A$
> > kl
> > er.org
> >
> __

RE: Hydrant barrel loss

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

We have a water supply that is not capable of even delivering 1,500 at 20 psi 
on site.   The required fire flow is actually 3,000 but we are working up an 
alternative means and methods proposal that will include my client paying the 
water district to upgrade about 600' of 6" AC to 8" C900.   We've calculated 
the pressure gain (to the pound) and are running on-site demand calculations to 
compare what we have to what we need and what is projected to be available at 
the source node with the upgrades.   The owner will be upgrading the fire 
sprinkler system and adding standpipes as part of the AMMR.  On top of all of 
this, he's buying the parcel from the city in which it's located, so he's 
asking them to discount the purchase price to help amortize some of this cost.  
 There are a LOT of fingers in this pie and we've estimated that there will be 
enough pressure gained to make the fire flow model work with... maybe 5 PSI to 
spare.With over a million bucks on the line, we want to be absolutely, 
positively, unequivocally, undoubtedly, unimpeachably certain that what we're 
proposing will work before anybody starts signing stuff.

SL

-Original Message-
From: BRUCE VERHEI [mailto:bver...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Bob Caputo 

Subject: RE: Hydrant barrel loss

In Puget Sound area it’s rare to find a dry hydrant with individually gated 
ports that isn’t as old as me. 

I’m curious to hear why it is necessary to calculate friction loss through the 
hydrant.

Best.

Bruce V.
> On 04/26/2021 6:00 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> Wet barrel hydrants have a messy valve assembly at each port.  Dry barrels 
> are simple - water floods the barrel and exits any open port(s).   I'm just 
> trying to be sure of whether there is any unusually high loss in the barrel 
> when flowing and while I'm at it, would like to verify the difference between 
> one port flowing and two or three.We need 20 PSI at the discharge side of 
> the port, so would like to include a fixed loss or just start the model at 23 
> or 24 psi or whatever is required to address the loss in the hydrant.   
> 
> SL
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:48 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bob Caputo 
> Subject: Re: Hydrant barrel loss
> 
> Sincerely you’re measuring the flow and pressure at the hydrant in the first 
> place, why would you need to know that?  Just curious...
> 
> Reverse engineering the water supply in the water main below?
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:57 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone have any tech data or knowledge of the pressure loss 
> > within a wet-barrel hydrant?  I've tried to reach Mueller/Jones but 
> > their customer service isn't answering.
> >
> >
> > Protection Design and Consulting
> > Steve Leyton, President
> > T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  www.protectiondesign.com< 
> > http://www.protectiondesign.com/>
> > 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 
> > Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >
> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin
> > kl
> > 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

RE: Hydrant barrel loss

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Wet barrel hydrants have a messy valve assembly at each port.  Dry barrels are 
simple - water floods the barrel and exits any open port(s).   I'm just trying 
to be sure of whether there is any unusually high loss in the barrel when 
flowing and while I'm at it, would like to verify the difference between one 
port flowing and two or three.We need 20 PSI at the discharge side of the 
port, so would like to include a fixed loss or just start the model at 23 or 24 
psi or whatever is required to address the loss in the hydrant.   

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Caputo 
Subject: Re: Hydrant barrel loss

Sincerely you’re measuring the flow and pressure at the hydrant in the first 
place, why would you need to know that?  Just curious...

Reverse engineering the water supply in the water main below?


On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:57 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Does anyone have any tech data or knowledge of the pressure loss 
> within a wet-barrel hydrant?  I've tried to reach Mueller/Jones but 
> their customer service isn't answering.
>
>
> Protection Design and Consulting
> Steve Leyton, President
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  www.protectiondesign.com< 
> http://www.protectiondesign.com/>
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire 
> Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
>
>
> ___
> 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

Hydrant barrel loss

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Does anyone have any tech data or knowledge of the pressure loss within a 
wet-barrel hydrant?  I've tried to reach Mueller/Jones but their customer 
service isn't answering.


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


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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I've got a picture in my head of the fire service lateral entering the pump 
room, supplying the pump suction and also bypassing the pump, then conjoining 
and exiting the pump room and connecting to both hydrants and the building 
system(s) downstream.   Here's a what if:  What if the fire main bypassed the 
pump room entirely and continued downstream independently because the city 
water is adequate to supply the hydrants?  There would be no question that the 
pump can be sized to serve sprinklers only because the city water is the 
primary supply for hydrants.   And if hydrants were flowing concurrently with 
the fire pump, the suction supply would be reduced as you describe any way; 
that doesn't change whether the hydrant supply is completely independent our 
routed through a bypass.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

First of all to answer the question about what happens when a pump upstream of 
the operating fire pump system is also drawing water and the fire pump system 
has an open and flowing bypass system one just needs to go back to basic 
hydraulics. Where the fire pump discharge piping joins back to the bypass 
piping the pressures in the fire pump discharge and bypass discharge have to be 
equal in both pipes, period. That pressure is whatever the municipal supply can 
provide for the total flow to that point. In other words the fire pump cannot 
be operating on its curve at a discharge pressure higher than the municipal 
supply because if it were then the bypass check would be closed to prevent the 
fire pump from pumping in a circle through the bypass.
Start with the flow condition of the fire pump operating with water flowing 
somewhere but not at a site hydrant. The fire pump is sitting on its pump curve 
somewhere at a discharge pressure higher than the municipal supply, and so its 
bypass check is being held closed. It can only be sitting on its curve since 
that is what a centrifugal pump does. A site hydrant is now opened with water 
flow. Flowing more water the fire pump rides its curve according to the total 
flow. Its discharge pressure goes down and will keeping going down as more 
water is drawn from the site hydrant, which as we should now understand can 
only flow as the municipal supply flows when the fire pump rides its curve down 
to where the municipal pressure equals the fire pump discharge pressure. Note 
that the water pressure in the system at this time would be less than what the 
building sprinkler system design pressure is supposed to be because the 
municipal system is flowing more water than the demand for which the fire pump 
was selected. The water pressure at the hydrant is at whatever it is and may or 
may not be being boosted by a fire department pump, but that pump has no 
bearing to this system hydraulics, so forget about it.
We already know, from being told, that the site hydrants are perfectly fine by 
themselves. Now you can see that the situation is not hydraulically different 
from the more typical setup where a building fire pump system draws from a site 
hydrant system. That fire pump system would have been selected based upon the 
sprinkler demand and some external hose allowance affecting the supply 
pressure. The sprinkler system would be affected by increasing site hydrant 
beyond that of the external hose allowance and we would be thinking nothing 
wrong about it. The fire pump setup here does add additional ways to interrupt 
the site hydrant situation via valves in the pump bypass and the general need 
for system maintenance that could shut off water during times of an extreme 
maintenance procedure.
AKS   

> On Apr 23, 2021, at 11:06 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Let's change the context to a similar demand scenario where a wet-manual 
> combined standpipe/sprinkler system requires a pump to meet the sprinkler 
> demand.  In that case, the pump can be sized for sprinklers only as the 
> primary water supply for the standpipe demand is pumped to the FDC.In 
> this case, you said that there is a bypass from city water around the pump: 
> does the city water supply meet the hydrant demand in this configuration?  If 
> yes, then you do NOT have to size the pump for hydrant flow because the pump 
> isn't the primary water supply for the hydrants.   They will over-perform if 
> the pressure in the discharge main drops during a hydrant flow scenario and 
> the pump kicks in because it will pressurize the line to its rating - this is 
> a good thing.  But you do not have to size the pump for the hydrants if the 
> primary (city) water supply can meet the demand. 
> 
> 
> Th

RE: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

/competition>

> On Apr 21, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I've had at least one Official state (opinion) that the "Fire Flow"  @ 20 
> PSI" was never intended to be "provided to the site hydrants". It is simply a 
> recommendation for the benefit of Fire Fighters using their pumpers and hoes 
> to "preserve" 20 psi in the city water main for all the obvious reasons. Ive 
> also has fire fighters tell me that if they know its only a structure fire, 
> (no occupants) they will not pull their suction pressure down below 20 psi. 
> However, if there are known lives at stake, they will go negative on the 
> suction pressure if they feel its necessary. 
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of 
> Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 9:12 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: Ron Greenman  <mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
> 
> Consider that if the building was not there and you could meet the required 
> CFC fireflow for the site you'd be done, just as you would for any land 
> development project, municipal or private. No pump necessary. Then you 
> reference 13 as the place with the sticky wicket paragraph about everything 
> after the pump. Remember that 13 addresses sprinkler systems and associated 
> hose allowances and if your site system could handle both of those without a 
> pump you'd also be done. Since you apparently need a pump to meet 13 
> requirements I'd say your pump needs to be sized for the sprinkler and 
> associated hose stream allowance from 13 only. But then who the hell am I?
> As Craig said, check with the approving authority. And as a bit of learned 
> advice, didn't ask for a solution but rather give that person your read of 
> the rules and how you got there, and then ask if that's how they see it.
> Your job is to come up with the solution and theirs is to yay or nay it.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:40 AM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> 
>> You do not have to prove building system demand and site fire flow 
>> concurrently. Hard stop.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steve Leyton
>> 
>> (Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text
>> corruptions.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Original message 
>> From: Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum < 
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> Date: 4/21/21 7:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
>> To: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" , 
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
>> Subject: RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
>> 
>> Yes.  But our is CFC Section 507.  What I am trying to understand is 
>> NFPA
>> 13 2016 Edition 11.1.5.3 & A.11.1.5.3 "Where pumps serve some 
>> combination of sprinklers, inside hose stations or outside hose 
>> stations, the pump needs to be capable of providing the flow of the 
>> equipment that is fed from the pump."  The fire pump would be size 
>> for the fire sprinkler and any NFPA
>> 13 inside and/or outside hose demands, but does it also have to be 
>> size for the 2000 gpm fire flow demand since 11.1.5.3 & A.11.1.5.3 
>> states pump needs to be capable of providing flow that is fed from the pump?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Gregg Fontes
>> Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
>> 209-334-9119
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 7:09 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
>> Subject: RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
>> 
>> Are site Fire Flow requirements (IFC Section 507) what you're 
>> referring to as "hydrant demand"?
>> 
>> At minimum, the pump should be capable of flowing the sprinkler and 
>> related hose stream allowance flow rate combined.
>> 
>> BUT, when there have been no municipal hydrants to be used for the 
>> actual firefighting effort, we've had to be capable of providing the 
>> Fire Flow rate to area hydrants plus sprinkler demand via the site fire pump.
>> 
>> I've also had AHJs say to only provide the sprinkler flow plus the 
>> hose stream allowance via the site pump.  So it really depends on the 
>> AHJ as the Fire Flow requirement is stated in the code as being "by 
>> an approved

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Every fire official I've ever spoken with that has incident command experience 
has affirmed that if the sh*t hits the fan they will continue pumping until 
they get a low suction pressure alarm or see the gauge at zero.   If there are 
firefighters on the tip, they will pump until they have completely tapped the 
water supply.  

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 9:51 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

I've had at least one Official state (opinion) that the "Fire Flow"  @ 20 PSI" 
was never intended to be "provided to the site hydrants". It is simply a 
recommendation for the benefit of Fire Fighters using their pumpers and hoes to 
"preserve" 20 psi in the city water main for all the obvious reasons. Ive also 
has fire fighters tell me that if they know its only a structure fire, (no 
occupants) they will not pull their suction pressure down below 20 psi. 
However, if there are known lives at stake, they will go negative on the 
suction pressure if they feel its necessary. 
Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 9:12 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

Consider that if the building was not there and you could meet the required CFC 
fireflow for the site you'd be done, just as you would for any land development 
project, municipal or private. No pump necessary. Then you reference 13 as the 
place with the sticky wicket paragraph about everything after the pump. 
Remember that 13 addresses sprinkler systems and associated hose allowances and 
if your site system could handle both of those without a pump you'd also be 
done. Since you apparently need a pump to meet 13 requirements I'd say your 
pump needs to be sized for the sprinkler and associated hose stream allowance 
from 13 only. But then who the hell am I?
As Craig said, check with the approving authority. And as a bit of learned 
advice, didn't ask for a solution but rather give that person your read of the 
rules and how you got there, and then ask if that's how they see it.
Your job is to come up with the solution and theirs is to yay or nay it.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:40 AM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> You do not have to prove building system demand and site fire flow 
> concurrently. Hard stop.
>
>
>
> Steve Leyton
>
> (Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text
> corruptions.)
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date: 4/21/21 7:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" , 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
> Subject: RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
>
> Yes.  But our is CFC Section 507.  What I am trying to understand is 
> NFPA
> 13 2016 Edition 11.1.5.3 & A.11.1.5.3 "Where pumps serve some 
> combination of sprinklers, inside hose stations or outside hose 
> stations, the pump needs to be capable of providing the flow of the 
> equipment that is fed from the pump."  The fire pump would be size for 
> the fire sprinkler and any NFPA
> 13 inside and/or outside hose demands, but does it also have to be 
> size for the 2000 gpm fire flow demand since 11.1.5.3 & A.11.1.5.3 
> states pump needs to be capable of providing flow that is fed from the pump?
>
> Thanks,
> Gregg Fontes
> Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
> 209-334-9119
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 7:09 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
> Subject: RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
>
> Are site Fire Flow requirements (IFC Section 507) what you're 
> referring to as "hydrant demand"?
>
> At minimum, the pump should be capable of flowing the sprinkler and 
> related hose stream allowance flow rate combined.
>
> BUT, when there have been no municipal hydrants to be used for the 
> actual firefighting effort, we've had to be capable of providing the 
> Fire Flow rate to area hydrants plus sprinkler demand via the site fire pump.
>
> I've also had AHJs say to only provide the sprinkler flow plus the 
> hose stream allowance via the site pump.  So it really depends on the 
> AHJ as the Fire Flow requirement is stated in the code as being "by an 
> approved met

RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

You do not have to prove building system demand and site fire flow 
concurrently. Hard stop.



Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 4/21/21 7:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" , 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Gregg Fontes 
Subject: RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

Yes.  But our is CFC Section 507.  What I am trying to understand is NFPA 13 
2016 Edition 11.1.5.3 & A.11.1.5.3 "Where pumps serve some combination of 
sprinklers, inside hose stations or outside hose stations, the pump needs to be 
capable of providing the flow of the equipment that is fed from the pump."  The 
fire pump would be size for the fire sprinkler and any NFPA 13 inside and/or 
outside hose demands, but does it also have to be size for the 2000 gpm fire 
flow demand since 11.1.5.3 & A.11.1.5.3 states pump needs to be capable of 
providing flow that is fed from the pump?

Thanks,
Gregg Fontes
Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
209-334-9119

-Original Message-
From: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 7:09 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Gregg Fontes 
Subject: RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

Are site Fire Flow requirements (IFC Section 507) what you're referring to as 
"hydrant demand"?

At minimum, the pump should be capable of flowing the sprinkler and related 
hose stream allowance flow rate combined.

BUT, when there have been no municipal hydrants to be used for the actual 
firefighting effort, we've had to be capable of providing the Fire Flow rate to 
area hydrants plus sprinkler demand via the site fire pump.

I've also had AHJs say to only provide the sprinkler flow plus the hose stream 
allowance via the site pump.  So it really depends on the AHJ as the Fire Flow 
requirement is stated in the code as being "by an approved method" i.e., per 
the AHJ.

Have you discussed this with the local fire code official yet?

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 9:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Gregg Fontes 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

If a fire pump supplies both the fire sprinkler system and the site fire 
hydrants, does the fire pump gpm need to be capable of suppling both?  (Fire 
sprinkler demand 900 gpm and site fire hydrant demand 2000 gpm for a total of 
2,900.  Can the fire pump be size at 750 for the fire sprinkler/hose demand or 
does it have to be a 2000 gpm so it can supply both the sprinkler and site fire 
hydrant flows of 2900 gpm?)  The supply is city water and there is a bypass on 
the fire pump.  The city supply comes into the fire pump house and goes out to 
single loop that supplies both the fire sprinkler systems and the site fire 
hydrants.  (The city flow and psi is adequate to meet the site fire flow at 
20-psi.)

Thanks,
Gregg Fontes

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!XLuydu_C5h5U5xoYfFkjhto75Yz1NndsYBhU_-ghPrj9wf496LJOQnnfdGty1B3DAw$



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: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

If you do not need the pump to meet the fire flow requirements of the fire 
code, than you can size it for the sprinkler demand only.

In evaluating any water supply, you do not have to add the outside fire flow to 
the building system demand in any case. In your scenario, it would not be a 
2900 gpm demand it would be a system capable of delivering 2000 GPM at 20 PSI, 
or 900 GPM at whatever residual is required for the building system.


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 4/21/21 6:57 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Gregg Fontes 
Subject: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

If a fire pump supplies both the fire sprinkler system and the site fire 
hydrants, does the fire pump gpm need to be capable of suppling both?  (Fire 
sprinkler demand 900 gpm and site fire hydrant demand 2000 gpm for a total of 
2,900.  Can the fire pump be size at 750 for the fire sprinkler/hose demand or 
does it have to be a 2000 gpm so it can supply both the sprinkler and site fire 
hydrant flows of 2900 gpm?)  The supply is city water and there is a bypass on 
the fire pump.  The city supply comes into the fire pump house and goes out to 
single loop that supplies both the fire sprinkler systems and the site fire 
hydrants.  (The city flow and psi is adequate to meet the site fire flow at 
20-psi.)

Thanks,
Gregg Fontes

___
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: Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Agreed.  Have worked with several of the breweries here in SD and they keep 
LOTS of malted barley and wheat on hand, nearly all of it in similar large 
sacks.   

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



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Larry Keeping via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Larry Keeping ; Jamie Seidl 
Subject: RE: Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage

>From NFPA 13-2016, Table A.5.6.3:

Food Products - Non-Frozen

Dry foods (such as baked goods, candy, cereals, cheese, chocolate, 
cocoa, coffee, grains, granular sugar,  nuts, etc.); bagged  or cartoned
Class III

Larry Keeping

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum
Sent: April 7, 2021 3:38 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Jamie Seidl 
Subject: Soybean, corn, oat, & wheat storage

Warning! This email came from outside your company.

I am looking at a project that is storing soybean, corn, oat and wheat seeds in 
large polypropylene  bags (think large sand / rock bags) . The client has 
indicated that these are to be stored on floor, two high for a total storage 
height of less than 12'.  I know NFPA 13 does not address this, and FM seems to 
be silent also.
Based on the storage height, and free flowing nature of the product I am 
leaning towards an ordinary group 2 classification, but wanted to run it by the 
forumites to see if anyone has run across this in the past.
Any Takers?

Thanks,
Jamie Seidl
___
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: Grooved joints in pump suction main

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Yeah, a sucked rubber was front and center on my worry list.

-Original Message-
From: Kyle.Montgomery [mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2021 2:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise ; Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

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

-Kyle M

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

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

Matt 

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

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

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

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CNnQzlWnaYQG-5F1baqspRog4lZipjuu1qC-2DvaxML0zbRemLsolrdJFec-2DBaDtdud3LEqPl4vB4cPX1BnecsWRo2SV6VuCOY0YZdoos-5FgO38Aa3vxYvQiV-5FrUsl-2Dt5x-26typo-3D1=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=TAQfZmxpLkl8CBa3e20VY8cLmSgn5hFqHpYI_MvWSgA=cYRxJJv80S71XfnU8UEmldZnkm132CKnTGHqQAbneW0=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=TAQfZmxpLkl8CBa3e20VY8cLmSgn5hFqHpYI_MvWSgA=GS65IGQx-_dNIu1nxThV1C0g_zMjjs8OLZqNIThPhhQ=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

We'll stop the D.I. at 6-7" AFF and go to a steel F x G spool with a flexibly 
coupling to a grooved ell.   Probably cut Sch. 40 but not ductile.   

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2021 2:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tom Duross 
Subject: RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

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

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

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

-Kyle M

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

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

Matt 

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

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

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

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA

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

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

Grooved joints in pump suction main

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

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

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

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA

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

RE: Best Pressure Loss RPDA

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

5-6 PSI in an RPDA may be pushing  your dreams a bit too much, but the C500 4" 
is 7-8 psi in H and N configurations between 150-300 gpm.   

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of 321 via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 2:57 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: 321 ; Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Re: Best Pressure Loss RPDA

Yes...they specify OS Valves. They also go with the RPDA because believe it 
or not...there is no place in the Florida Keys that is greater than 1700 feet 
from Salt Water. They a rightfully concerned about Saltwater Intrusion into the 
water system.
ALL of the potable water in the Keys originate from Navy Wells just South of 
Florida City on the end of the Florida Peninsula and pumped all the way to Key 
West.
The downside for low flow requirements of residential systems (13D/13R) on a 
multi building site is that we usually have one central RPDA that feeds 
Hydrants and buildings. They are low loss at flows beyond 500~600 GPM but 
"Kill" Hydraulics around 100~300 GPM. I usually end up plugging in a 12 PSI 
loss for RPDAand when I have 45~50 PSI to work with in a 4 Story Building 
it costs me a pipe size as opposed to a DDCA.
I was hoping to find something that flows around 200 GPM in that size with no 
more than a 5~6 psi loss.

John W. Farabee
561-707-5150
 

On Thursday, April 1, 2021, 05:37:25 PM EDT, Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:  
 
     
 

  OS valves
 
 
 
 Todd G Williams, PE 
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
 
860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054)    (fax)
 
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Apr 1, 2021 at 5:29 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  M400 or c400 Sent from my mobile device Please excuse spelling, grammar, and 
>auto correction. Mark Phillips Branch Manager Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, 
>Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections  832-101 Purser Drive 
>Raleigh NC 27603 (x-apple-data-detectors://6/0)  Phone:  919-779-4010 
>(tel:919-779-4010)  Fax :  919-779-4014 (tel:919-779-4014)  Cell :  
>919-268-7587 (tel:919-268-7587)  Email :  philli...@pyebarkerfire.com 
>(mailto:philli...@pyebarkerfire.com)  Web :  www.pyebarkerfire.com 
>(http://www.pyebarkerfire.com)   From: 
>Sprinklerforum  (mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  on behalf of  321 
>via Sprinklerforum (x-apple-data-detectors://8)  
>(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Sent: Thursday, April 1, 
>2021 5:26:26 PM To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Cc: 321  
mailto:tcf...@bellsouth.net)>  Subject: Fw: Best 
Pressure Loss RPDA [EXTERNAL] - Forwarded Message - From: 321  
mailto:tcf...@bellsouth.net)>To: Sprinklerforum  
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>Sent: Thursday, April 
1, 2021, 04:57:40 PM EDTSubject: Best Pressure Loss RPDA What is the lowest PSI 
loss RPDA Backflow that anyone has found in 6" and 4". I'm doing several jobs 
here in the Keys that I need to feed residential buildings and Ordinary GP 1 
situations. Per Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, all Backflows must be RPDAs 
and have Os Gates. I like and have used the Derringer but they are almost up 
to 12 PSI loss at residential flow levels. Thanks in advance, John Farabee | 
Certified Lower Keys Plumbing and Fire | C:  561-707-5150 (tel:561-707-5150)  | 
F:  305-294-
2462 (tel:305-294-2462)  ___ 
Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org  
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list  
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org  
>
>  
 
 
    
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
  
___
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: Lowest PSI RPDA Backflow

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Try the Ames C500.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of 321 via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 2:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: 321 
Subject: Lowest PSI RPDA Backflow

What is the lowest PSI loss RPDA Backflow that anyone has found in 6" and 4". 
I'm doing several jobs here in the Keys that I need to feed residential 
buildings and Ordinary GP 1 situations. Per Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 
all Backflows must be RPDAs and have Os Gates. I like and have used the 
Derringer but they are almost up to 12 PSI loss at residential flow levels.
Thanks in advance,
John Farabee | Certified Lower Keys Plumbing and Fire | C: 561-707-5150 | F: 
305-294-2462 






___
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: Head or Not?

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Thank you Cary - that's a big emotional load off my shoulders.   Our staff will 
be specifying Viking and Globe going forward...

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 1:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Cary Webber 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

No one 'perceives' you as a grumpy old guy Steve...we all know you're one...



Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., 
Inc.
1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC  29657
Tel: 864-843-5161 



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 4:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


At the risk of being perceived as a grumpy old guy, I must nonetheless point 
out that per the NFPA Manual of Style and definitions found in NFPA 13, there 
is no such thing as a Sprinkler Head.   They are "sprinklers".   The term head 
is only officially used in the context of measuring pressure and its definition 
(with permutations) can be found in NFPA 20 but it's not in the 13s.   The 
correct subject heading for this thread should be "Sprinkler or Not?"

Yeah, yeah, I know...  going back under my rock now but GC is giving me a high 
five.

SML

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 6:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

If the soffit is 3' wide then none of the obstructions against the wall 
allowances apply, you would have to either meet the requirements of table 
8.6.5.1.2 or add a head under it.  The counter top either has floor under it, 
or has cabinets under it, in the case of cabinets while you don't protect 
inside them, you still have to have coverage to the wall behind per 8.5.3.2.3.

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



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?


BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


I could have been clearer. The reason I asked is the soffit is 3'-0" wide but 
is over a counter top and I was wondering if that makes a difference whether a 
head is needed as I was taught years ago that "we protect floor space"

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__http%3A%2F%2Fbvssytemsinc.com__%3B!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjiffOP-rA%24data=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7C80400c02cef848f3984c08d8f54d02a2%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637529058404414297%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=iZO2h9rCAAsSkbuKT3SO3sz32z5JE5QWtXnGSBNHr3o%3Dreserved=0

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 9:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Cary Webber 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

In the absence of language about what that obstruction is, and what might be 
below it, it seems clear the intent is to allow omission of protection below.



Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., 
Inc.
1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC  29657
Tel: 864-843-5161



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Head or Not?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


NFPA-13 (2013) Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c) Would a head be required under the soffit if 
the soffit is over a counter? Floor space is protected from heads at the deck.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__http%3A%2F%2Fbvssystemsinc.com__%3B!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjiWRc95kZ%24data=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler

RE: Head or Not?

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

At the risk of being perceived as a grumpy old guy, I must nonetheless point 
out that per the NFPA Manual of Style and definitions found in NFPA 13, there 
is no such thing as a Sprinkler Head.   They are "sprinklers".   The term head 
is only officially used in the context of measuring pressure and its definition 
(with permutations) can be found in NFPA 20 but it's not in the 13s.   The 
correct subject heading for this thread should be "Sprinkler or Not?"

Yeah, yeah, I know...  going back under my rock now but GC is giving me a high 
five.

SML

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 6:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

If the soffit is 3' wide then none of the obstructions against the wall 
allowances apply, you would have to either meet the requirements of table 
8.6.5.1.2 or add a head under it.  The counter top either has floor under it, 
or has cabinets under it, in the case of cabinets while you don't protect 
inside them, you still have to have coverage to the wall behind per 8.5.3.2.3.

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



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I could have been clearer. The reason I asked is the soffit is 3'-0" wide but 
is over a counter top and I was wondering if that makes a difference whether a 
head is needed as I was taught years ago that "we protect floor space"

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssytemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjiffOP-rA$
 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 9:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Cary Webber 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

In the absence of language about what that obstruction is, and what might be 
below it, it seems clear the intent is to allow omission of protection below.



Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., 
Inc.
1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC  29657
Tel: 864-843-5161 



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Head or Not?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


NFPA-13 (2013) Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c) Would a head be required under the soffit if 
the soffit is over a counter? Floor space is protected from heads at the deck.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjiWRc95kZ$
 

Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesprinkler.org*2Flistinfo.cgi*2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04*7C01*7Ccwebber*40reliablesprinkler.com*7C4716126876ba4cb5f4d708d8f510edd6*7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244*7C0*7C0*7C637528800662323066*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000sdata=*2BhasYOpQ*2BZeU9mFCAmWoT4JOa6zK0*2FNbCzKP8a3XyKU*3Dreserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjiT3bEUPZ$
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjibbSw2eI$

RE: High rise protection question

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Over the (now long) course of my career, I've done designs and design/builds 
for "central plant" water supplies.  There is nothing in the standards that 
says the water supply has to be exclusive to a particular system.   However, 
you have to consider all demands including hydrants and whether you should add 
hose stream allowances to the demand flow x duration equation when you are 
calculating the required capacity of a tank that is proposed to supply multiple 
demands.

My opinion only,
Steve Leyton



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Gipson, Russell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:38 PM
To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Gipson, Russell 
Subject: High rise protection question


I have a question in regards to water supply for sprinkler protection in high 
rise buildings..

The island where I work has several high rise projects starting.
Local code here requires an on-site supply of water as well as a secondary 
source due to seismic area.

I now have a high rise that is part of a large project with multiple buildings. 
A banquet hall and a separate event hall both requiring sprinklers due to size 
across the street, but, part of the same development.

The questioncan the water sources for the high rise be used for all 
buildings or just for high rise?
Any input would be appreciated.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

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

Steve L. 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?

I would as well.

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

A check valve is a valve.. Right?

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: Check Valve After Flow switch?

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

Thanks,
John

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

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



   

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


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




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

> Hello all.
>
> This is not a code change. Both manufacturers (one of them I work for) 
> state that this is the best way for installation and will not cause a 
> nuisance alarm. Ever since Globe came out with theirs I have 
> questioned why it’s designed this way.
>
> Henry Fontana
> Operations Manager (NYC)
> Johnson Controls Fire Protection
> 100 Lighting Way| St#402|Secaucus|NJ
> 07094
> Cell: 201-210-9873
> henry.font...@jci.com
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2021, at 5:01 PM, Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> I've just received a second product sheet from a different suppliers 
> for a pre-built riser where the check valve is located above/after the 
> flow switch. Is this arrangement a new change coming is the code?
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the 
> sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may 
> be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this 
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete 
> the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this 
> communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists
> .firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> mp;data=04%7C01%7CHenry.Fontana%40jci.com%7C26515cca58bc49e3d54708d8e7
> f57436%7Ca1f1e2147ded45b681a19e8ae3459641%7C0%7C1%7C637514388691689096
> %7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I
> k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=YJtrVeB3%2B0j7oRNOyglmknAuIy16Q
> %2FWqp4aW3J8goyQ%3Dreserved=0
> ___
> 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: standpipe protection

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I would offer that there is no exception in the NFPA 14 standard for protection 
of piping serving horizontal exits and as you noted, those are different from 
the intermediate ones.   The distinction exists in both the standard and the 
IBC, which also requires the protection of piping.   Additionally, many fire 
departments aren't interested in those intermediates because they train so 
rigidly on FF operations staged in stairwells and vestibules.   Being a 
CA-based company, we're used to restrictive code amendments and fire department 
ordinances that tweak the standards, so I've encountered more restrictive 
(i.e., yes the intermediates are required AND they must be wrapped in 
fire-rated construction) and more relaxed (intermediate standpipes aren't 
required at all) policies.   


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA 





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 2:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: standpipe protection

2016 edition of NFPA 14 section 6.1.2.2.4 says "where additional standpipes are 
needed to meet travel distance requirements in non-high-rise buildings, 
protection of piping is not required."

Is that intended to apply to standpipes near horizontal exits also? If they 
were closer to the stairs, they would not be needed. So technically they are 
there in order to meet travel distance requirements... so, no fire rated 
enclosure required?

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: [EXTERNAL] Activity

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I got to be with George one last time in the last few months of his life.  We 
met on the Forum right after it launched ('96?  '97?) when he signed off with a 
reference to the Grateful Dead and I picked up the phone to call him on it.   
The band Furthur, composed of the surviving members of the Dead, was doing an 
East Coast tour and I got tickets to shows in Philly and Columbia, MD.  George 
picked me up at the airport in the TR, and took me straight to the Simeone 
Foundation auto museum, then down to 4th Street for steak sammies.   We caught 
the show that night at the Mann, then went out to King of Prussia to spend the 
night with a lifelong friend of his, who has been my friend ever since.   We 
went GO KARTING the next day - he was still so competitive that our entire 
group got warned because we were bumping and bashing each other with such 
regularity.  George went up to the guy overseeing the track and offered to rent 
the whole place for the next couple hours if we could race with no rules.   He 
was playing it deadpan serious and this young guy was freaked out - we laughed 
HARD at that one but also gave the staff a helluva tip. 

Hopped in the TR after, got hit with rain on 95 outside of Wilmington and had 
to pull over to put the top up.   Arrived Columbia, checked into our hotel then 
made a beeline to Merriweather Pavilion because George knew that parking was a 
bitch and the place holds nearly 20,000 people.   Sure enough, we're routed to 
parking lot 5, which is almost in Baltimore it seems so far away.   We get out 
and see a security guy cruising in a golf cart and George starts running toward 
the guy and starts yelling, "Hey - wait up!  I've got cancer!!"   Imagine a two 
legged giraffe in a tie-dyed T-shirt on the move, arms and legs flailing.   
Either out of fear or sympathy, we get a ride and scam our way not just the 
main entrance, we also bypass this massive line waiting to get in, and the guy 
DRIVES us right through the special access gate.Now we're at least an hour 
EARLY to the festivities and we commence eating and drinking with gusto.   
George's comment was, "I knew f**king cancer would come in handy sooner or 
later."   

We drove back to Philly the next day, top down in brilliant sunshine and that 
was the last time I saw him.  We talked a lot by phone and I remember him 
telling me when he'd been informed that things had turned for the worse.   But 
he never lost his sense of humor or his love for the industry and he stayed 
emotionally connected to his family and his work right up to the end.   We 
talked more than once about the state of the industry and how low the standard 
of care has been in the fire sprinkler biz at times over the years.  Maybe it's 
corny, or maybe it's fodder for AFSA's marketing materials, but George really 
believed in the mission and he lived it.   Possibly the best George story of 
all is when the union organized a vote of his fitters about whether to compel 
collective bargaining.  George went to work like a demon and collected 
information about compensation, benefits, retirement investment options, etc., 
etc.   He called his crew together and made his fully researched and 
substantiated pitch that they would do better on his terms working for a 
benevolent and progressive owner than they would within a rigidly structured 
compensatory model.   He reminded them that they would no longer be "his" 
employees" and talked about how many people get lost in unions the same way 
they do in large corporations.   In the end, his field voted to remain an open 
shop and I like to think of it as they voted to stay with George.

Steve 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 8:46 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Activity

If you were to look up George in my contact list this is what you’d find. 

George L. Church
Rowe Sprinkler Systems Inc
Owners Husband

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

> On Feb 12, 2021, at 3:39 PM, Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Seems like there's been a resurgence in activity in the list recently.
> Makes me happy and I know it would have made George Church happy. So 
> in the spirit of George, or perhaps channeling George's spirit, if you 
> are an active participant or a lurker that finds value in this 
> exchange and you're a member, good on you for recognizing the wealth 
> of good AFSA does for you and for supporting the organization. If 
> you're not a member then good on you too for recognizing the value 
> offered here and wanting to enhance your knowledge and 
> professionalism. And if not a member please consider joining AFSA and also 
> your local chapter. Thank you George. You're missed.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

RE: When is a Remote FDC required

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I think it's totally up to the responding fire department.  If there are 
certain conditions at a particular site that make operational response more 
challenging for one reason or another, then it may be of strategic value to 
have the inlet at a particular location, or possibly more than one inlet.

The nuts and bolts answer to your question is that there isn't a prescriptive 
requirement for a remote FDC in NFPA 13 or 24.


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum 

Date: 2/11/21 4:39 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: When is a Remote FDC required

I'm doing a project for Cal State, and I'm trying find the code that would
dictate when an FDC needs to be  remotely located away from the building. I
seem to remember a requirement about needing to be 50' away from the
building, but I can't find this anywhere. Can someone point me in the right
direction.



Thanks



Jerry Van Kolken

Millennium Fire Protection Corp.

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730



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

RE: Fire Retardant Coating used in Combustible concealed spaces

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Does the treatment render the wood compliant with the flame spread ratings and 
other metrics that are used to determine whether or not a material is definable 
as "noncombustible"?


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 2/10/21 7:34 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: tston...@comcast.net
Subject: Fire Retardant Coating used in Combustible concealed spaces

Project is a 100 year old 6 story Steel & Concrete Hotel building. The roof
is steel framed with concrete above and the Sixth floor ceiling is Plaster
over metal lath. Over the years the building has been added onto with wood
framing above the Sixth floor ceilings.

As Part of a major renovation started in 2020, the installation of a
complete NFPA 13 sprinkler system and Standpipes is taking place.



A few substantial combustible concealed spaces have been discovered
throughout the building on other floors too. If nothing is done the
sprinkler design areas would need to be increased to 3,000 SF as outlined in
Chapter 11.2.3.1.5. The sprinkler contractor and I have suggested filling
these spaces with noncombustible Insulation.



The architect and builder are discussing Flame Retardant Coating to be
applied to the wood framing in order meet the Non-Combustible and Limited
Combustible concealed space definition. In reviewing Chapter 11.2.3.1.5.2 I
don't see where Flame Retardant Coating is an option in order to reduce the
design area.



I believe In order to reduce the Design areas these combustible spaces need
to be filled with noncombustible Insulation.



Would "Flame Retardant Coating" be considered an option as outlined in
A.8.15.1.2.11 (commentary text) the equivalency provisions in Section 1.5?



Thank you for your imput.



Regards,

G. Tim Stone



G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services



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

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

   tston...@comcast.net



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

RE: NFPA 13R & NFPA 14 - (flow rates)

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

A live/work nuclear reactor facility, perhaps...


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 2/6/21 1:30 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: Re: NFPA 13R & NFPA 14 - (flow rates)

But domestic demand is added at the split with domestic and fire. The domestic 
wouldn’t flow through standpipes.

It would have to be some crazy accessory use.


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

Engineering Manager

MFP Design

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471

travis.m...@mfpdesign.com

www.mfpdesign.com



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


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of David L. Miller, P.E. via Sprinklerforum 

Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 2:27:55 PM
To: 'Jose Anibal Castillo' ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
; st...@protectiondesign.com 
; sbi...@wenteplumbing.com 

Cc: d...@engfirepro.com 
Subject: RE: NFPA 13R & NFPA 14 - (flow rates)

I suspect that requirement is due more to the Domestic Demand in a very 
(extremely) large apartment building. Table A.9.6(b) (NFPA 13R, 2016 Edition) 
shows a Domestic Demand of 500 gpm for a building with 3500 Fixture Units.

Without a plumbing code handy I don't know where the domestic demand would get 
to 1000 gpm, but I would assume it to be in the 7000 - 8000 Fixture Unit range 
based on Table 9.6(b). How likely is it to have 7000 or 8000 Fixture Units in a 
four-story building?

It might be possibly to hit 1000 gpm domestic demand in a great big apartment 
building (250 gpm per floor) then add the 13R sprinkler demand to that to 
technically exceed the standpipe demand.


David L. Miller, P.E.
Engineered Fire Protection, LLC
11920 Richcroft Avenue
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70814
225-273-5040

>
>
>
> In practice, probably not. As I'm sitting here today, I can't honestly
> recall how/when that section came into being or when we may have last
> tweaked it, but it's a CYA for sure. Maybe if I had a building projected
> with 13R that had an accessory use like... I dunno, boat storage. A
> marina hotel or apartment/complex with boat storage - yeah, that's the
> ticket! The boat storage is solely for use by residents and guests, so
> 13R could be applied if allowed by the AHJ and that standard prescribes
> that design shall conform to 13 outside the dwelling units, so EH2 or some
> such. But that still doesn't account for the fact that it would have to
> be a high-rise building to require an automatic water supply for a Class 1
> system, but what about a Class 2 or 3 where water supply also has to be
> automatic?
>
> I dunno, I'm just trippin' but regardless of whether this makes sense or
> not, the preceding ramble is
> my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 Technical
> Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.
>
>
> Steve Leyton
> Protection Design & Consulting
> San Diego, CA
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jose Anibal
> Castillo via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 7:43 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Jose Anibal Castillo 
> Subject: NFPA 13R & NFPA 14
>
> In section 7.10.1.3.1.1 of the nfpa 14, 2019 states that in cases where
> 13R system demand is higher than the standpipe demand it is supposed to be
> chosen the higher demand.
>
> Is it even possible to have a residential sprinkler system with a higher
> demand than the standpipe?
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Jos? A. Castillo
>


___
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: NFPA 13R & NFPA 14

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

In practice, probably not.   As I'm sitting here today, I can't honestly recall 
how/when that section came into being or when we may have last tweaked it, but 
it's a CYA for sure.Maybe if I had a building projected with 13R that had 
an accessory use like... I dunno, boat storage.   A marina hotel or 
apartment/complex with boat storage - yeah, that's the ticket!   The boat 
storage is solely for use by residents and guests, so 13R could be applied if 
allowed by the AHJ and that standard prescribes that design shall conform to 13 
outside the dwelling units, so EH2 or some such.   But that still doesn't 
account for the fact that it would have to be a high-rise building to require 
an automatic water supply for a Class 1 system, but what about a Class 2 or 3 
where water supply also has to be automatic?   

I dunno, I'm just trippin' but regardless of whether this makes sense or not, 
the preceding ramble is 
my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 Technical Committee, 
nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.


Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA 





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jose Anibal Castillo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 7:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jose Anibal Castillo 
Subject: NFPA 13R & NFPA 14

In section 7.10.1.3.1.1 of the nfpa 14, 2019 states that in cases where 13R 
system demand is higher than the standpipe demand it is supposed to be chosen 
the higher demand.

Is it even possible to have a residential sprinkler system with a higher demand 
than the standpipe?


Regards



José A.  Castillo
___
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: Distilled Spirits

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Forumites:

To clarify, I sent this mail yesterday with an attachment titled "Recommended 
Fire Protection Practices" published by DISCUS, the Distilled Spirits Council 
of the United States.  I guess the Forum Firewall (correctly) identified my 
email address as high-risk because the attachment was apparently culled.   So 
my email reads like a snarky rhetorical question, which it wasn't.   This time.

Anyway, you can view it here:

https://www.distilledspirits.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020_DISCUS-Recommended-Fire-Protection-Practices-Foreword-and-Table-of-Contents.pdf


Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 10:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design 
Inc. 
Subject: RE: Distilled Spirits 

How about a best practices guide from the distilling industry?   

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 10:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
Subject: Distilled Spirits 

Can anyone direct me to design criteria for the manufacturing and storage of 
distilled spirits ( Rum)?

 

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you

 

Troy

___
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: Distilled Spirits

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

How about a best practices guide from the distilling industry?   

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 10:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
Subject: Distilled Spirits 

Can anyone direct me to design criteria for the manufacturing and storage of 
distilled spirits ( Rum)?

 

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you

 

Troy

___
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: Distilled Spirits

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I tried to post a mail this morning with an attachment that's awaiting admin 
approval - please ask if they can push it onto the Forum.  It's a best FP 
practices guide published by a distillery industry trade group.

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 2:40 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Caputo 
Subject: Re: Distilled Spirits

FM Global has a standard for this specifically.  I recommend downloading it 
from their website.  Great information that might provide guidance for you.




Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org   
    
   
   


“The enemy of change and leadership isn’t a ‘no,’ it’s a ‘not yet.’ ‘Not yet’ 
is the safest, easiest way to forestall change.” – Seth Godin
>> Be a Member, Get a Member
>> 
>> We’re growing and introducing many new programs to help meet your team’s 
>> growth and business needs. AFSA is offering a six-month trial membership for 
>> contractors and a 12-month trial membership for municipal AHJs. Let’s help 
>> potential members see what they’re missing! Current members who recruit a 
>> new contractor member will receive a $100 gift card and the new member gets 
>> a free webinar.  Let’s grow stronger together! Join AFSA 
>> .
>> 
>> 





> On Feb 3, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via 
> Sprinklerforum  wrote:
> 
> Can anyone direct me to design criteria for the manufacturing and 
> storage of distilled spirits ( Rum)?
> 
> 
> 
> Any info would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> Troy
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org

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

RE: Pan-Type Construction

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I'm professionally born and raised in Southern California, so have never 
referred to so called "waffle" forms as pan slabs.   By definition, a Pan slab 
can have beams going in both directions in I suppose there isn't really a fixed 
dimensional range regarding spacing of the beams, so it could (and apparently 
does) include both waffle and smooth decks.

In those markets where I have worked all of my career, pan slabs are smooth 
continuous bays and there are names for the other stuff such as "waffle" and 
"Double T"; I've only seen the latter as as pre-cast.   I assume it's because 
of seismic engineering requirements, but I have never seen a new waffle slab in 
my entire 40 year career. The buildings we have worked on with this type of 
construction were last cast in the seventies in Southern California.

If you look through a concrete construction guide or a glossary of terms, 
you'll find that a pan is a form supported by joists, so I assume that it could 
be for smooth slabs, monolithic beam-supported slabs, waffle slabs, etc.


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)


 Original message 
From: Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 2/2/21 4:48 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Michael Hill 
Subject: RE: Pan-Type Construction

My guess is Steve was thinking metal pan with concrete slab above. That is how 
I originally read the post.

Mike Hill

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of cliff--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: cl...@fire-design.com
Subject: RE: Pan-Type Construction

Steve,

I don't agree that Pan slabs are smooth ceilings.  If the pans are less than
300 sf, they are more than likely considered panel construction and would be 
obstructed.  Most of the 'Pan' that I have ever seen falls into that category.

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President

Fire Design, Inc.
600 W. Bypass Hwy. 19E
Suite 202
Burnsville, NC 28714
Ph: 828-284-4772



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 5:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Dennis Wilson 

Subject: RE: Pan-Type Construction

Do you mean Tee or Double-Tee construction?Pan slabs are PIP, with and
without metal decks, smooth ceiling by definition.

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Dennis Wilson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 1:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dennis Wilson 
Subject: Pan-Type Construction

Would anyone know what the maximum depth is allowed in concrete pan-type 
construction?
I have a job with exist. sprinklers installed along the bottom of the  stems 
with pendents.
The AHJ is questioning whether sprinklers are needed in each pocket.
Pockets are around 6' square w/ 8" wide stems both directions.

___
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


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
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: Pan-Type Construction

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Do you mean Tee or Double-Tee construction?Pan slabs are PIP, with and 
without metal decks, smooth ceiling by definition.

Steve L.   

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Dennis Wilson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 1:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dennis Wilson 
Subject: Pan-Type Construction

Would anyone know what the maximum depth is allowed in concrete pan-type 
construction?
I have a job with exist. sprinklers installed along the bottom of the  stems 
with pendents.
The AHJ is questioning whether sprinklers are needed in each pocket.
Pockets are around 6' square w/ 8" wide stems both directions.

___
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: listed pressure relief valve

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Or, you could just buy from Reliable...

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 9:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; m...@afpsprink.com; Michael 
Walters 
Subject: RE: listed pressure relief valve

I don't think (and the tech data sheet implies) that the higher pressures are 
listed, which was Matt's inquiry.  I've been through this with Cla-Valve on a 
couple of their products and I have a suggestion:   When a manufacturer has 
variants of a listed product that aren't listed, it's usually because they only 
sell a very few of the variants compared to the listed one, so it doesn't 
pencil out to pay for multiple listings that may not ever amortize.Assuming 
the higher pressure variants are designed and manufactured the same way and 
with the same quality of materials, you might be able to get AGF to write a 
letter that you can submit to the AHJ that states, "The high pressure versions 
of the Model 700 pressure relief valves are equivalent in design, 
manufacturing, assembly and function as the listed 175 PSI versions of this 
product and carry the same warranty for higher pressure service."

Steve Leyton

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Michael Walters via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 9:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Michael Walters ; m...@afpsprink.com
Subject: RE: listed pressure relief valve

I believe this might be what you're looking for.


http://www.testandrain.com/downloads/pdf/SellSheetM7000-7200.pdf


Michael Walters
Designer
Vulcan Fire Protection
2600 D State Route 568
Carey, Ohio 43316
419-396-3535 Office
419-396-7581 Fax
419-721-4202 Cell
micha...@vulcanfireprotection-oh.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 12:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: listed pressure relief valve

Does anyone know of a ½" listed pressure relief valve that comes set higher 
than 175? The brands we typically come across are available in other pressures, 
but not listed.

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

RE: listed pressure relief valve

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I don't think (and the tech data sheet implies) that the higher pressures are 
listed, which was Matt's inquiry.  I've been through this with Cla-Valve on a 
couple of their products and I have a suggestion:   When a manufacturer has 
variants of a listed product that aren't listed, it's usually because they only 
sell a very few of the variants compared to the listed one, so it doesn't 
pencil out to pay for multiple listings that may not ever amortize.Assuming 
the higher pressure variants are designed and manufactured the same way and 
with the same quality of materials, you might be able to get AGF to write a 
letter that you can submit to the AHJ that states, "The high pressure versions 
of the Model 700 pressure relief valves are equivalent in design, 
manufacturing, assembly and function as the listed 175 PSI versions of this 
product and carry the same warranty for higher pressure service."

Steve Leyton

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Michael Walters via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 9:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Michael Walters ; m...@afpsprink.com
Subject: RE: listed pressure relief valve

I believe this might be what you're looking for.


http://www.testandrain.com/downloads/pdf/SellSheetM7000-7200.pdf


Michael Walters
Designer
Vulcan Fire Protection
2600 D State Route 568
Carey, Ohio 43316
419-396-3535 Office
419-396-7581 Fax
419-721-4202 Cell
micha...@vulcanfireprotection-oh.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 12:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: listed pressure relief valve

Does anyone know of a ½" listed pressure relief valve that comes set higher 
than 175? The brands we typically come across are available in other pressures, 
but not listed.

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: Horizontal Combustible Concealed Space

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Or to put it another way, if an attic is constructed so that its configuration 
meets the conditions of 9.3.2, it MUST be protected with listed CC sprinklers.



Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 1/28/21 6:41 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Cary Webber 
Subject: RE: Horizontal Combustible Concealed Space

I think it's fair to say that an attic (agreeing with Taylor S) is at the top, 
however, an "attic" can be constructed that meets the definition of a CCS per 
9.3.2.



Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services
Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc.
1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC  29657
Tel: 864-843-5161



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 9:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: JD Gamble 
Subject: RE: Horizontal Combustible Concealed Space

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


So is the space NOT an attic if it has <2:12 pitched roof but meets the other 
criteria stated in Glossary of terms?

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 7:34 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Cary Webber 
Subject: RE: Horizontal Combustible Concealed Space

CCS style sprinklers are generally listed to a maximum 2:12 pitch so IMO this 
is the best indicator of the difference between an attic space and a 
combustible ceiling space requiring special sprinklers; and yes, by requiring 
special sprinklers in the horizontal CCS 9.3.2 by default prohibits standard 
spray sprinklers.



Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., 
Inc.
1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC  29657
Tel: 864-843-5161



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 9:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: JD Gamble 
Subject: Horizontal Combustible Concealed Space

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.


NFPA Glossary of Terms 2019 ed.

Attic:   The space located between the ceiling of a story and the roof directly 
above that habitable story.

Question:  When does an attic become a Horizontal CC Space?  And vice versa?

Question:  Do the rules of NFPA 13, 9.3.2 (2019 ed) specifically prohibit the 
use of standard spray sprinklers for Horizontal CC Spaces?

Thanks,

JD Gamble
LSS of Sheridan, Inc.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7C48539098839b434b1fad08d8c39a29ca%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637474414177209319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=6oExlTi6mbgvsm1Ni3SH%2BBrNPrTNASMSafWJMfOz8uA%3Dreserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7C48539098839b434b1fad08d8c39a29ca%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637474414177209319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=6oExlTi6mbgvsm1Ni3SH%2BBrNPrTNASMSafWJMfOz8uA%3Dreserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7C48539098839b434b1fad08d8c39a29ca%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637474414177209319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=6oExlTi6mbgvsm1Ni3SH%2BBrNPrTNASMSafWJMfOz8uA%3Dreserved=0
___
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: Townhome - Common Areas

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

If there are common areas then there's an HOA, right?   At least there would 
have to be in CA due to state Dept. of Real Estate reg's.Perhaps not in the 
sales contract, but possibly in the CC for the HOA?

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 1:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: Townhome - Common Areas

A clause in the sales contract that that owner of the adjacent unit is 
responsible, or that all owners that use that common area are equally 
responsible as in the maintenance assessments associated with HOAs. This is my 
opinion for a solution way out of the purview of the sprinkler contractor, and 
not being a lawyer I may be suggesting something that can't be done in a 
contract, but just a thought for legally assigning responsibility that could be 
explored.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:41 AM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I get it, but the "fee simple unit" extends beyond the fee simple unit 
> so...
>
> SL
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Irwin [mailto:jir...@quickresponsefl.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:33 AM
> To: Steve Leyton ; Kyle.Montgomery < 
> kmontgom...@aerofire.com>; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> And if some random person breaks a sprinkler inside the mail room, 
> who's responsible for the repair? This is my issue with having 
> sprinklers outside the fee simple unit.
>
> John Irwin
> Director of Construction
> Quick Response Fire Protection
> Cell: 727-282-9243
>
>
> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of 
> low price is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Leyton 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 1:31 PM
> To: Kyle.Montgomery ; 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Irwin 
> Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> Yes.  You have living space associated with a particular unit over the 
> subject utility occupancy, so I would protect it with the system from 
> that particular unit.
>
> Steve L.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kyle.Montgomery [mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:26 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin < 
> jir...@quickresponsefl.com>
> Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> Are you saying to just extend the system from the adjacent home into 
> that area to protect it? As opposed to providing another lead-in? Is 
> that an option?
>
> -Kyle M
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin < 
> jir...@quickresponsefl.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> That last part made it easy for me to firm a quick opinion. If you 
> have living space over a utility space like a garage or trash 
> enclosure, I would say that accessory structure becomes a part of the 
> dwelling unit associated
> with that terrace or patio space.   Protect the trash enclosure as you
> would a garage. If you are in a state or jurisdiction that doesn't 
> require protection of garages per the exception in13D, then protect as 
> for a garage in 13R.
>
>
> Steve Leyton
>
> (Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text
> corruptions.)
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: John Irwin via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date: 1/27/21 6:48 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Irwin 
> Subject: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> We're protecting (4) rows of townhomes per NFPA 13D. Between buildings 
> are small common areas such as trash storage (132sqft) and mail room 
> (260sqft).  Providing protection in these rooms would come at an 
> additional expense because the units being protected are fee simple 
> and each has it's own lead-in. Adding sprinklers to these small common 
> rooms would require additional lead ins, meters, light hazard and 
> combustible concealed protection. Do these rooms need to be protected?
>
> As an added twist, the townhomes that immediately abut these rooms 
> have exterior terraces on the ROOFs of these rooms. Is this a factor?
>
>
>
> John Irwin
> Quick Response Fire Protection
>
>
> "The bitterness of poor quality 

RE: Townhome - Common Areas

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I get it, but the "fee simple unit" extends beyond the fee simple unit so...

SL

-Original Message-
From: John Irwin [mailto:jir...@quickresponsefl.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:33 AM
To: Steve Leyton ; Kyle.Montgomery 
; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas

And if some random person breaks a sprinkler inside the mail room, who's 
responsible for the repair? This is my issue with having sprinklers outside the 
fee simple unit.

John Irwin
Director of Construction
Quick Response Fire Protection
Cell: 727-282-9243


"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin

-Original Message-
From: Steve Leyton  
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 1:31 PM
To: Kyle.Montgomery ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin 
Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas

Yes.  You have living space associated with a particular unit over the subject 
utility occupancy, so I would protect it with the system from that particular 
unit.

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Kyle.Montgomery [mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:26 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin 

Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas

Are you saying to just extend the system from the adjacent home into that area 
to protect it? As opposed to providing another lead-in? Is that an option?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Townhome - Common Areas

That last part made it easy for me to firm a quick opinion. If you have living 
space over a utility space like a garage or trash enclosure, I would say that 
accessory structure becomes a part of the dwelling unit associated with that 
terrace or patio space.   Protect the trash enclosure as you would a garage. If 
you are in a state or jurisdiction that doesn't require protection of garages 
per the exception in13D, then protect as for a garage in 13R.


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: John Irwin via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 1/27/21 6:48 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin 
Subject: Townhome - Common Areas

We're protecting (4) rows of townhomes per NFPA 13D. Between buildings are 
small common areas such as trash storage (132sqft) and mail room (260sqft).  
Providing protection in these rooms would come at an additional expense because 
the units being protected are fee simple and each has it's own lead-in. Adding 
sprinklers to these small common rooms would require additional lead ins, 
meters, light hazard and combustible concealed protection. Do these rooms need 
to be protected?

As an added twist, the townhomes that immediately abut these rooms have 
exterior terraces on the ROOFs of these rooms. Is this a factor?



John Irwin
Quick Response Fire Protection


"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=faLC6Gr2aXcLulFYub3ZQSbhFvUDwniBMdSL2deInFQ=HfI4Lqejjh6B80Gz6TCV8T5UsQAvWcPuFsupz6bJO14=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=faLC6Gr2aXcLulFYub3ZQSbhFvUDwniBMdSL2deInFQ=HfI4Lqejjh6B80Gz6TCV8T5UsQAvWcPuFsupz6bJO14=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Townhome - Common Areas

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Yes.  You have living space associated with a particular unit over the subject 
utility occupancy, so I would protect it with the system from that particular 
unit.

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Kyle.Montgomery [mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:26 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin 

Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas

Are you saying to just extend the system from the adjacent home into that area 
to protect it? As opposed to providing another lead-in? Is that an option?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Townhome - Common Areas

That last part made it easy for me to firm a quick opinion. If you have living 
space over a utility space like a garage or trash enclosure, I would say that 
accessory structure becomes a part of the dwelling unit associated with that 
terrace or patio space.   Protect the trash enclosure as you would a garage. If 
you are in a state or jurisdiction that doesn't require protection of garages 
per the exception in13D, then protect as for a garage in 13R.


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: John Irwin via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 1/27/21 6:48 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin 
Subject: Townhome - Common Areas

We're protecting (4) rows of townhomes per NFPA 13D. Between buildings are 
small common areas such as trash storage (132sqft) and mail room (260sqft).  
Providing protection in these rooms would come at an additional expense because 
the units being protected are fee simple and each has it's own lead-in. Adding 
sprinklers to these small common rooms would require additional lead ins, 
meters, light hazard and combustible concealed protection. Do these rooms need 
to be protected?

As an added twist, the townhomes that immediately abut these rooms have 
exterior terraces on the ROOFs of these rooms. Is this a factor?



John Irwin
Quick Response Fire Protection


"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=faLC6Gr2aXcLulFYub3ZQSbhFvUDwniBMdSL2deInFQ=HfI4Lqejjh6B80Gz6TCV8T5UsQAvWcPuFsupz6bJO14=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=faLC6Gr2aXcLulFYub3ZQSbhFvUDwniBMdSL2deInFQ=HfI4Lqejjh6B80Gz6TCV8T5UsQAvWcPuFsupz6bJO14=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Townhome - Common Areas

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

That last part made it easy for me to firm a quick opinion. If you have living 
space over a utility space like a garage or trash enclosure, I would say that 
accessory structure becomes a part of the dwelling unit associated with that 
terrace or patio space.   Protect the trash enclosure as you would a garage. If 
you are in a state or jurisdiction that doesn't require protection of garages 
per the exception in13D, then protect as for a garage in 13R.


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: John Irwin via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 1/27/21 6:48 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin 
Subject: Townhome - Common Areas

We're protecting (4) rows of townhomes per NFPA 13D. Between buildings are 
small common areas such as trash storage (132sqft) and mail room (260sqft).  
Providing protection in these rooms would come at an additional expense because 
the units being protected are fee simple and each has it's own lead-in. Adding 
sprinklers to these small common rooms would require additional lead ins, 
meters, light hazard and combustible concealed protection. Do these rooms need 
to be protected?

As an added twist, the townhomes that immediately abut these rooms have 
exterior terraces on the ROOFs of these rooms. Is this a factor?



John Irwin
Quick Response Fire Protection


"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin

___
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: Area Increases

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I assume this statement of intent was added because full-scale fire testing has 
only been undertaken in test cells that have flat ceilings (I would very much 
appreciate input from the manufacturing community in that regard).  But that 
doesn't mean that we don't have to fire protect storage under sloped roof 
assemblies because thousands of older buildings with saw-tooth and pitched 
roofs are used for S-group occupancies, and it would be VERY helpful if there 
was some guidance on how to apply storage sprinklers under those conditions.   
Whether it's in the standard (even annex material would be of value) or in the 
manufacturers' tech data sheets, we need SOMETHING, if only to substantiate so 
called "engineered" approaches to designs that will deliver adequate discharge 
to stored commodities below.Simplistically disclaiming that there's no 
consideration given to a particular condition in the standard doesn't mean that 
such a condition can't or doesn't exist. 

Definitely my opinion only,

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 8:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: Area Increases

As Travis stated, slope ceilings are not covered under the protection schemes 
of NFPA 13 for "Storage".  Thus, the increase does not apply to "Storage" 
unless miscellaneous or low-piled storage applies.

NFPA 13 - 2019:  20.6.1 Ceiling Slope. The sprinkler system criteria specified 
in Chapters 20 through 25 are intended to apply to buildings with ceiling 
slopes not exceeding 2 in 12 (16.7 percent) unless modified by a specific 
section in Chapters 20 through 25.


*The above is my personal opinion as a professional engineer.  It has not been 
processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations 
Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied 
upon, as the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees.*

Thanks,
John

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

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



   

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

*Expand your design department in 2021!* AFSA is taking its popular two-week 
Beginning Fire Sprinkler System Planning School on the road. From San Diego to 
Tampa Bay and stops in between, our technical experts will teach the basics of 
system layout based on the 2019 edition of NFPA 13. Space is limited. Enroll 
today at https://www.firesprinkler.org/schools.



On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:16 AM Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Slope >2:12 is not allowed for storage.  So, you don't apply because 
> it is not permitted.  Dry system increase - yes.
>
> If you are talking misc storage or low pile where you use the OH or EH 
> curve then yes, slope and dry increase.
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 9:13 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: JD Gamble 
> Subject: Area Increases
>
> I know this answer is obvious before I even ask the question but for 
> some reason I am befuddled in brain lock (must be Monday again today)
>
> Do you have to apply the area increase for dry systems and sloped 
> ceilings to the area of operation for storage applications?
>
>
> JD Gamble
> LSS of Sheridan, Inc.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> mailto: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

RE: schedule 7 pipe?

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Jeff:

As a 3rd party consultant, we've been offering remediation and claims 
management services as well as technical consulting to the legal, property 
ownership and property management communities on MIC-related issues for about 
15 years.   2 years ago, we spun off a subsidiary business to diagnose and 
treat MIC exclusively.  In all that time, which includes comprehensive 
diagnostic work (water sampling, internal video recording, metallurgy, etc.) we 
have never found piping that was damaged beyond repair that wasn't Schedule 7.  
 To be clear, we have never replaced, nor programmed for replacement, any Sch. 
10 or Sch. 40 due to its being damaged beyond the point where it can be treated 
in place.And we've overseen the removal of Schedule 7 that began pinhole 
leaking as early as 5 years after installation...

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Normand via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jeff Normand 
Subject: Re: schedule 7 pipe?

I have been designing with sch 7 pipe for over 25 years. Not sure about 
longevity. But you mentioned A53 unlisted pipe. Possibly getting listed?

I would really like to see comparisons of sch 7, 10 and 40 for corrosion and 
MIC. Specially treated pipe some manufacturers claim. Always heard that sch 40 
threads are just as bad as sch 10 grooved.

Jeff

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:45 PM Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Considering how much corrosion I've observed and documented in wet and 
> dry systems in schedule 10 in 8-15 years - not MIC - we only specify 
> schedule 40.
>
> Scott
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11:07 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton ; Matt Grise < 
> m...@afpsprink.com>
> Subject: RE: schedule 7 pipe?
>
> Considering how much "Sch. 7" we've seen perforated by MIC, and also 
> that our firm is heavily invested in the institutional and educations 
> sectors where clients want 50+ year buildings, we only spec' Sch. 10 and 40.
>
> Steve L.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt 
> Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:58 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: schedule 7 pipe?
>
> Has there been any push/interest in allowing unlisted (standard ASTM 
> A53) schedule 7 steel pipe to be allowed by code in place of the listed "flow"
> piping options?
>
> Matt
>
> ___
> 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-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: RV Storage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Then Bambi and a wave of animals run out of the conflagration in all 
directions...

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Michael Hill 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

It's a shame that full scale fire testing is cost prohibitive. I would really 
like to see what would actually happen with some of the worst case scenarios we 
bring up.

Shielded fire in RV launches a propane tank that hits the full fuel tank in the 
fiberglass boat parked two spaces away. The fire eventually engulfing the fully 
charged Tesla parked between them.


Mike Hill

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bobby Welch via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 11:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bobby Welch 
Subject: RV Storage

We have a customer who has an existing warehouse with an existing wet system. 
He is wanting to store RV's and boats in the high bays, and have caged storage 
lockers in lower areas.
We are trying to figure out the extent of system upgrades we have to make for 
the system to work. Storage height will not exceed 12'. We thought this would 
be close in line with a parking garage facility, but the storage aspect throws 
it into a gray area considering NFPA has no specific literature referring to 
this type of storage (besides storage lockers).
My question is, does anyone have experience designing systems for this type of 
storage, and if so what were your conclusions? Any advice would help.
Thanks.

Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457
bobby.we...@koorsen.com | 
www.koorsen.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
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: RV Storage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I'm familiar with that one too.   Unsprinklered building, cause was never 
determined but it was an older facility, I believe. I think they had to 
scrape 75 melted boats off the foundation to save it...

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:41 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Paulsen 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

Ok, look at the fire in Monroe County Michigan in December at the Toledo Beach 
MarinaThat's closer to this application. They WERE able to save most of the 
foundation.

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Mark.Phelps 

Subject: RE: RV Storage

A dockside fire event is NOT comparable to a sprinklered indoor RV and 
trailered boat storage facility.  This fire does underscore the insane amount 
of potential energy in boat hulls but trailered boats on trailers that are 
exposed to the ceiling complement are much better protected than boats burning 
unchecked.

I spoke with Scottsboro Fire Chief Necklaus after this fire and there were 
extraordinary mitigating circumstances at this event, not the least of which 
was their water supply consisted of a 2½" wharf head on a 4" dead-end main with 
about 40 PSI of residual pressure at the port.I was seeking his input for 
recommendations on marina standpipe standards, and what resources he didn't 
have that he could have used.   This fire was a total disaster from start to 
finish.

SL


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

https://www.gadsdentimes.com/news/20200415/scottsboro-dock-fire-that-killed-8-ruled-accidental

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Matthew J Willis 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RV Storage

I think there's a substantial hazard yes, but this use isn't the end of days. 

Cars have combustible upholstery and tanks of explosive flammable liquid, yet 
we park them side-by-side in 9'-0" wide spaces over 100' above fire department 
access in buildings WITHOUT sprinklers.   An RV or mobile home manufacturing 
facility is a prescriptive EH2 and there are countless sources of ignition, 
hazardous fuel loads and dust; parked RV's have liquid fuel, propane and 
shielded fire loads but distinctly lack discernible potential causes if they 
are run responsibly.Consumer propane tanks are extremely safe and designed 
to survive crashes and fires; a worst case scenario could be catastrophic for 
sure, but how many things have to go really wrong to realize that worst case?   
We've not been reading for years about the widespread rate of conflagrations in 
sprinklered (on-floor) RV and boat storage facilities.

A fire burning within an RV is probably the worst case scenario because it's 
shielded and has a change to grow.   But once it breaches the shell, it will 
cause the sprinkler system to operate, which should control the fire with 4-6 
sprinklers operating at a .80-1.0 gpm ADD.   

Steve L.



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 8:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

As someone who lives in a "travel trailer" full time, I would be nervous with 
EH II.

More than likely, all tanks will be drained. ALL of these tanks are made of, 
plastic.

The styrene nature of the furniture etc, also comes into play.

We must also remember, if they are storing the RV, chances are it has become a 
storage unit itself.
Who knows what piled to the ceiling in areas.

The propane really should be removed if storing. Just like gas tanks need to be 
empty or full for boats.
We all know the answer to that question...

Clear comms and documentation as always will be best practice for this.

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 3:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Paulsen 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

Guys,

If you don't own a boat or RV, it's hard to imagine the fire load these units 
can represent. Campers 

RE: RV Storage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

A dockside fire event is NOT comparable to a sprinklered indoor RV and 
trailered boat storage facility.  This fire does underscore the insane amount 
of potential energy in boat hulls but trailered boats on trailers that are 
exposed to the ceiling complement are much better protected than boats burning 
unchecked.

I spoke with Scottsboro Fire Chief Necklaus after this fire and there were 
extraordinary mitigating circumstances at this event, not the least of which 
was their water supply consisted of a 2½" wharf head on a 4" dead-end main with 
about 40 PSI of residual pressure at the port.I was seeking his input for 
recommendations on marina standpipe standards, and what resources he didn't 
have that he could have used.   This fire was a total disaster from start to 
finish.

SL


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

https://www.gadsdentimes.com/news/20200415/scottsboro-dock-fire-that-killed-8-ruled-accidental

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Matthew J Willis 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RV Storage

I think there's a substantial hazard yes, but this use isn't the end of days. 

Cars have combustible upholstery and tanks of explosive flammable liquid, yet 
we park them side-by-side in 9'-0" wide spaces over 100' above fire department 
access in buildings WITHOUT sprinklers.   An RV or mobile home manufacturing 
facility is a prescriptive EH2 and there are countless sources of ignition, 
hazardous fuel loads and dust; parked RV's have liquid fuel, propane and 
shielded fire loads but distinctly lack discernible potential causes if they 
are run responsibly.Consumer propane tanks are extremely safe and designed 
to survive crashes and fires; a worst case scenario could be catastrophic for 
sure, but how many things have to go really wrong to realize that worst case?   
We've not been reading for years about the widespread rate of conflagrations in 
sprinklered (on-floor) RV and boat storage facilities.

A fire burning within an RV is probably the worst case scenario because it's 
shielded and has a change to grow.   But once it breaches the shell, it will 
cause the sprinkler system to operate, which should control the fire with 4-6 
sprinklers operating at a .80-1.0 gpm ADD.   

Steve L.



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 8:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

As someone who lives in a "travel trailer" full time, I would be nervous with 
EH II.

More than likely, all tanks will be drained. ALL of these tanks are made of, 
plastic.

The styrene nature of the furniture etc, also comes into play.

We must also remember, if they are storing the RV, chances are it has become a 
storage unit itself.
Who knows what piled to the ceiling in areas.

The propane really should be removed if storing. Just like gas tanks need to be 
empty or full for boats.
We all know the answer to that question...

Clear comms and documentation as always will be best practice for this.

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 3:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Paulsen 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

Guys,

If you don't own a boat or RV, it's hard to imagine the fire load these units 
can represent. Campers especially pose the situation of an internal fire 
becoming well developed before it breaks through the roof and the sprinklers 
get a chance to attack it. Oh, and don't forget to add in the explosion hazard 
of the propane tanks most campers have. Runabouts, waverunners and cruisers all 
have the potential to have large amount of plastics, gasoline and lubricants on 
board. I've personally stored boats for the winter inside a building with 80 
gallons of 100 octane gas in the tank and there were 30 other boats of various 
sizes right next to mine with the same or greater fuel capacity. Some storage 
venues ask that you drain your tanks before you bring it in, but I have never 
seen anyone check for compliance. 

Some of the recent marina fires that have occurred in Alabama and Michigan show 
how devastating a fire can be in situations with multiple boats and RV's stored 
under the same roof. 

EH II at a minimum gives the best chance of saving at least part of the 
building and a high K factor CMHD or ESFR head would not be out of the 
question. 

MHO,

John Paulsen – SE

RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

No idea, but I'll ask.   Looking for wide-tooth comb here.   Are wet-chem 
systems the "usual" go-to or is it more nuanced than that?

SL

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: Re: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

What is the battery chemistry?



Matt Grise
Alliance Fire Protection
m 913 526 7443
o 913 888 0647
f 913 888 0618

Sent from mobile device


 Original message ----
From: Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 1/14/21 12:15 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" , 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

I can't tell you the exact dimensions for specifications because it's in 
pre-design.   It's right next to the building, but several hundred feet from 
the existing preaction areas and riser.

-Original Message-
From: Prahl, Craig/GVL [mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

Steve,

Can you provide a better description of this unit?  How far from the building 
will it be located?

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com<http://www.jacobs.com>
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stand-Alone UPS protection design

I'm engaged in a conversation with a project team where an Uninterrupted Power 
Supply is being added to a local small-scale broadcast facility (NPR 
affiliate).   The control rooms and studios are already protected by preaction 
and this battery stack is being added outside the building and a ways away from 
the existing preaction areas.   The two candidate designs are to extend the 
preaction or use a pre-engineered wet-chem system and I'd love for any and 
everyone who has experience with this type of hazard to chime in on whether 
there is a preferred or "best" practice.   My feeling is that a wet-chem system 
is the way to go and the most common practice - can anyone verify or do I have 
that wrong.

Fire away please...

Steve L.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.com%2fv3%2f__http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__%3b%21%21B5cixuoO7ltTeg%21RBqeKKjG60wNEVmjtlo8VtJ_60JAV9CUPjj0pGiQ2Zgf2T3xTnT90OKuOqUcJqL9Og%24=E,1,BShkYLUD1RLgiLgDZGfVDk05i6BwISef9l7ExjaBxbFy7ewEqpj8ib6K71px8n-sK6S7gUdeT6GDk8c14yvp5IoHcjSWkVv9opvRudfz_gA,=1



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
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,1rqBO1RPcsDBQA_1RsOtIDA7HU6n8bYXLlak9kAhj6-rYZ6SR1DJhaMaJIcjiMN_90Zer0oMKr5S7rwTWXfdqEEzeg7GgEUMA-uY0WvKVUPOs8w8=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I can't tell you the exact dimensions for specifications because it's in 
pre-design.   It's right next to the building, but several hundred feet from 
the existing preaction areas and riser.

-Original Message-
From: Prahl, Craig/GVL [mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

Steve,

Can you provide a better description of this unit?  How far from the building 
will it be located?

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stand-Alone UPS protection design

I'm engaged in a conversation with a project team where an Uninterrupted Power 
Supply is being added to a local small-scale broadcast facility (NPR 
affiliate).   The control rooms and studios are already protected by preaction 
and this battery stack is being added outside the building and a ways away from 
the existing preaction areas.   The two candidate designs are to extend the 
preaction or use a pre-engineered wet-chem system and I'd love for any and 
everyone who has experience with this type of hazard to chime in on whether 
there is a preferred or "best" practice.   My feeling is that a wet-chem system 
is the way to go and the most common practice - can anyone verify or do I have 
that wrong.

Fire away please...

Steve L.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!RBqeKKjG60wNEVmjtlo8VtJ_60JAV9CUPjj0pGiQ2Zgf2T3xTnT90OKuOqUcJqL9Og$



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

Stand-Alone UPS protection design

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I'm engaged in a conversation with a project team where an Uninterrupted Power 
Supply is being added to a local small-scale broadcast facility (NPR 
affiliate).   The control rooms and studios are already protected by preaction 
and this battery stack is being added outside the building and a ways away from 
the existing preaction areas.   The two candidate designs are to extend the 
preaction or use a pre-engineered wet-chem system and I'd love for any and 
everyone who has experience with this type of hazard to chime in on whether 
there is a preferred or "best" practice.   My feeling is that a wet-chem system 
is the way to go and the most common practice - can anyone verify or do I have 
that wrong.

Fire away please...

Steve L.


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

RE: RV Storage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

w.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>

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

*Love free stuff? *

Tell an industry friend why you are an AFSA member and when they join or 
re-join the AFSA family, you will receive a $100 Amazon gift card and they’ll 
receive one free AFSA on-demand webinar of their choice—including CEUs (a $250 
value)! It’s our way to say thank you and welcome. Offer valid through December 
31, 2020. Visit firesprinkler.org/join 
<https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Membership/Membership_Home_2.aspx?hkey=aaf9ae7c-5cf9-4981-b8f5-d852a5de39c5=3dff22a3-0306-479c-bccc-7aa1986c8ada>
.


On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 3:29 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Certainly EH 2 seems like it will get the job done. But for those of 
> you saying that, which commodity drives you to that? For example, if 
> they were three separate buildings:
>
> RV Storage Building
> Boat Storage Building (just parked, not on racks) Storage lockers with 
> height less than 12 feet
>
> Would you consider each of those EH 2 on their own? Or would one or 
> more of those be a lesser hazard?
>
> -Kyle M
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 9:27 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RV Storage
>
> Concur.  We have done a couple previously that were takeovers with 
> CMDA sprinklers and have one currently in progress that used to be a Lowe's
> store and is protected with ESFR.   EH2 by the book (IMHO), but we had one
> AHJ who insisted on .45/2000 (he had his reasons).
>
> Steve Leyton
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Byron 
> Weisz via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2021 8:16 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Byron Weisz 
> Subject: RE: RV Storage
>
> Multiple Projects - Extra Hazard Group II
>
>
> Byron Weisz
>
> Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
> P.O. Box 1284
> Lodi,  CA   95241
> Phone (209)  334-9119
> Fax  (209)  334-2923
> by...@cen-calfire.com
>
> This and any attached documents are for the use of the intended
> recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, 
> confidential, or work product that may be exempt from disclosure under 
> applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and any 
> attachments is strictly prohibited, and you are hereby requested to 
> delete this message and any attached documents, to destroy any printed 
> copies, and to telephone or otherwise contact the sender immediately about 
> the error.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of Bobby Welch via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2021 8:08 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bobby Welch 
> Subject: RV Storage
>
> We have a customer who has an existing warehouse with an existing wet 
> system. He is wanting to store RV's and boats in the high bays, and 
> have caged storage lockers in lower areas.
> We are trying to figure out the extent of system upgrades we have to 
> make for the system to work. Storage height will not exceed 12'. We 
> thought this would be close in line with a parking garage facility, 
> but the storage aspect throws it into a gray area considering NFPA has 
> no specific literature referring to this type of storage (besides storage 
> lockers).
> My question is, does anyone have experience designing systems for this 
> type of storage, and if so what were your conclusions? Any advice 
> would help.
> Thanks.
>
> Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
> 3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
> P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457 
> bobby.we...@koorsen.com<mailto:bobby.we...@koorsen.com> | 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.koorsen.com=
> DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8O
> BJwQd9A=Nn9EdX7szVASjuM_LZBJiRH_-PaIlhXIQ47pBKjBb24=XS6lHFHssW9xwu
> hS9ymqcP43hjmu-iIBQj6qIRJ6Stk=
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.koorsen.com=
> DwIFAw=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8O
> BJwQd9A=Nn9EdX7szVASjuM_LZBJiRH_-PaIlhXIQ47pBKjBb24=XS6lHFHssW9xwu
> hS9ymqcP43hjmu-iIBQj6qIRJ6Stk=
> >   .
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list

RE: RV Storage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Concur.  We have done a couple previously that were takeovers with CMDA 
sprinklers and have one currently in progress that used to be a Lowe's store 
and is protected with ESFR.   EH2 by the book (IMHO), but we had one AHJ who 
insisted on .45/2000 (he had his reasons).   

Steve Leyton

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Byron Weisz via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2021 8:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Byron Weisz 
Subject: RE: RV Storage

Multiple Projects - Extra Hazard Group II 


Byron Weisz

Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1284
Lodi,  CA   95241
Phone (209)  334-9119
Fax  (209)  334-2923
by...@cen-calfire.com
 
This and any attached documents are for the use of the intended recipient(s) 
only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or work 
product that may be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not 
the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
this communication and any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you are 
hereby requested to delete this message and any attached documents, to destroy 
any printed copies, and to telephone or otherwise contact the sender 
immediately about the error.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bobby Welch via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2021 8:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bobby Welch 
Subject: RV Storage

We have a customer who has an existing warehouse with an existing wet system. 
He is wanting to store RV's and boats in the high bays, and have caged storage 
lockers in lower areas.
We are trying to figure out the extent of system upgrades we have to make for 
the system to work. Storage height will not exceed 12'. We thought this would 
be close in line with a parking garage facility, but the storage aspect throws 
it into a gray area considering NFPA has no specific literature referring to 
this type of storage (besides storage lockers).
My question is, does anyone have experience designing systems for this type of 
storage, and if so what were your conclusions? Any advice would help.
Thanks.

Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457
bobby.we...@koorsen.com | 
www.koorsen.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
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: ICF Table 3208.3

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

If the building isn't furnished with sprinklers, then no flue spaces are 
required.   The point being that flues are to facilitate ceiling sprinkler 
penetration, so no point if no ceiling sprinklers. 

I think.


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




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2020 10:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: ICF Table 3208.3 

Is anyone online this morning willing to discuss the Noted Table in the fire 
code.
My question, on behalf of a building owner is...
" What is the application of the three boxes at the right hand side of the 
Table  labeled NON-SPRINKLERED Any Height NR (Not Required)"

I have to admit, it makes no sense to me either.

Mark at Aero


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

RE: Standpipe signage

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Yep.


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 11/25/20 8:59 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: RE: Standpipe signage

Yes, we always include the note about the required flow/pressure required at 
the FDC inlet.  I believe that requirement is straight from NFPA 14.

As to your other question, if you have 100 psi needed at the top, how can you 
have a demand of 63 psi at the supply?  Assuming this is a manual wet 
standpipe, then your supply is the FDC.  And yes, you would need 100 psi + 
elevation pressure + friction losses.  So you may need the 149 psi.  It is 
dependent on your calcs.


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
LinkedIn: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0

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

Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material quote?  
Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click 
https://www.ferguson.com/account-registration to register.*
**Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to 
your favorite ferguson.com features. 
http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12/external?email=true=6=2591775=517003
 or 
http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/n1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12/external?email=true=6=2591775=517003**

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 9:49 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: Standpipe signage

Just throwing this out there, how many designers add a note to the drawings 
indicating the signage required at the fire department connection indicating 
the pressure required to deliver the standpipe system demand as per NFPA #14 
section 6.4.5.2.2 (2016ed).

On a second note we have a building that is sprinklered and has a standpipe and 
as such the standpipe demand when calculated is 63psi @ 500gpm at the top most 
outlets, so the pressure required to deliver this is 112psi at the inlet of the 
Siamese connection, this was what we put on the sign. I have been advised that 
this is wrong and the pressure would be 149psi at the inlet as this would then 
deliver 100psi at the hose valve.

Comments?

Thank You

James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone 604-888-0318
Cel: 604-790-0938
Email mailto:jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
Web: http://www.phaserfire.ca

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

RE: Non combustible concealed space with gas furnace above ceiling

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I think your question puts the cart in front of the horse.

The root of your question is whether or not a sprinkler is required to protect 
this furnace in an unsprinklered building, is that correct?   NFPA  Standards 
do not establish requirements for when a fire protection system is required in 
a building. That information resides in the building code,  where Chapter 9 
establishes the requirements for sprinklers, standpipes in fire alarm systems 
in buildings.   The referenced standards prescribe how to design and build 
those systems when they are required by the building code.

Is this sprinkler being required, if so by whom, and what is the basis for the 
requirement?


Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: kevin mick via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 11/12/20 6:42 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: kevin mick 
Subject: Non combustible concealed space with gas furnace above ceiling

i have a non sprinklered building with hung ceiling in kitchen area
If a gas furnace is installed above the ceiling is localized protection ok
section 8.15.1.4 (nfpa13 2016) covers heat producing devices with composite
wd joist
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Clearance around all pump equipment

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I'm only aware of prescriptive clearance requirements in front of controller 
doors, which is per the NEC as Matthew cited.   We've NEVER programmed a 3' 
clearance around mechanical equipment.

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2020 1:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: Clearance around all pump equipment

Is there anything in any fire code or standard that requires a 3' clearance 
around ALL pump room equipment.  We are maintaining 3' clear of controllers.  
It is being brought up he wants 3' clear of everything.  We asked for a 
reference.  The response was "in the book."

Any help or guidance?


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

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

Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material quote?  
Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click here to 
register.* **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go 
access to your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android 
devices**

___
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: UL Test Standard for threaded FP fittings

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Thank you everyone who has responded.   I have a lot of good info.

Love the Forum...

SL

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Wilson [mailto:dwil...@blackhawksprinklers.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2020 10:05 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: UL Test Standard for threaded FP fittings

1. There are several manufacturers of DI fittings. We currently are using 
Smith-Cooper but they merged with Anvil late last year and have been trying to 
work out details since. Ward has been trying to bring out a line for years but 
as far as I know  it is not done yet. Tyco used to use Sprink Fitting when we 
first started using them but they had issues so we switched. There is a few 
other foreign companies but we have never messed with them.
2. SCI branded ductile iron threaded fittings are UL Listed and FM Approved at 
500 psi.
Rated to 300 WSP. Castings conform to ASTM A536. Fitting dimensions conform to 
ASME B16.3.
Bushings and plugs conform to ASME B16.14. NPT threads on all fittings conform 
to ASME B1.20.1.
3. I believe we started using them in the mid to late 80's but didn't become 
main stream with us until in the early 90's.
4. Cost wise they run about 20-25% less. Cast & malleable vary back and forth 
on which is cheaper depending on size and popularity. 
5. It all has to do with the amount of steel that is added to the cast iron 
base. Cast iron can crack or break fairly easily but it seals very well. 
Malleable iron with more steel doesn't break as easy but can be overtightened 
and cause leaks. Ductile iron with even more steel is almost impossible to 
break. It can stretch the most of all of them which can cause leaks but is the 
most forgiving and they generally have a much higher pressure rating.
6. We have been using the Ductile iron fittings for the majority of my 40 years 
with the company very successfully with very few leak issues. I have not seen 
anything better yet.

Lee Berryman - Vice President
Blackhawk Sprinklers, Inc
319-266-7721 Office
319-231-6614 Cell

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 10:05 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: UL Test Standard for threaded FP fittings

Forumites:

We've been asked to compare cast, malleable and ductile threaded fittings on a 
public project.   Malleable and cast have are tabled materials in Chapter 6 
(Chapter 7, 2019 ed.) of NFPA 13 and I'm aware of at least one manufacturer of 
listed ductile threaded fittings.  Who can answer the following:

1.  Besides Anvil, who else manufactures threaded ductile?
2.  What is the UL test standard # for threaded metallic fittings?
3.  When did the first listed ductile threaded fittings come on market?
4.  Where does ductile fall on the cost scale compared to cast and malleable?
5.  What are pros and cons (if any of ductile) compared to the longstanding 
cast and malleable standards?
6.  What's your preference between the three if any and why?

Thanks in advance,

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7Cdwilson%40blackhawksprinklers.com%7C1de99a3575464c47c49408d881a4a155%7C20b3eafa18334148b9c58e75b45c105a%7C1%7C0%7C637401891382992055%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=4Htb1Kmv4z%2Bo4ouBxlURv2txxDSoDy5hNb5SzQ4Zvcs%3Dreserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

UL Test Standard for threaded FP fittings

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Forumites:

We've been asked to compare cast, malleable and ductile threaded fittings on a 
public project.   Malleable and cast have are tabled materials in Chapter 6 
(Chapter 7, 2019 ed.) of NFPA 13 and I'm aware of at least one manufacturer of 
listed ductile threaded fittings.  Who can answer the following:

1.  Besides Anvil, who else manufactures threaded ductile?
2.  What is the UL test standard # for threaded metallic fittings?
3.  When did the first listed ductile threaded fittings come on market?
4.  Where does ductile fall on the cost scale compared to cast and malleable?
5.  What are pros and cons (if any of ductile) compared to the longstanding 
cast and malleable standards?
6.  What's your preference between the three if any and why?

Thanks in advance,

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: CSFM listings

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

They have to. Get the Tech data from victaulic.



Steve Leyton

(Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text corruptions.)



 Original message 
From: Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum 

Date: 11/4/20 4:49 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: CSFM listings

Do built-in tampers on controls valves get the CSFM listing? Such as
Victaulic 705 butterfly valve?



Jerry Van Kolken

Millennium Fire Protection Corp.

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730



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

RE: Wall post indicator valve

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

No.   That's one way of satisfying the requirement for an "outside indicating 
control valve" but not the only way by any means.   

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Luis Perea via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 4:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Luis Perea 
Subject: Wall post indicator valve

Does wall post indicator valves on risers are mandatory for NFPA?

Thanks!



___
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: Schedule 7 volume

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

We’ve got one (homemade); was just looking for values to enter for Sch. 7, 
which would be the most conservative volume calculation.   We’re formulating 
chemical concentrations based on actual system layouts and sizing…

From: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com [mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; derblitzkrie...@gmail.com
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Re: Schedule 7 volume

Or just use a great little spreadsheet that lets you get exact based on the 
pipe for the job. Ha ha.


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>
www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”
Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing? Build a material quote? Check 
availability ? Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click here to 
register.*
**Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to 
your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android devices**


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:11:19 PM
To: Ben Young mailto:derblitzkrie...@gmail.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Subject: RE: Schedule 7 volume

Thank you to everyone who replied on and off-Forum. The most interesting thing 
about the information received is that different manufacturers of so called 
“Sch. 7” all have proprietary products with slightly different IDs and volumes. 
Granted, the differences are 100ths of an inch or gallon, but no two are the 
same. I think I’ll average them…

Thanks again!

SL

From: Ben Young [mailto:derblitzkrie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:02 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Subject: Re: Schedule 7 volume

Steve,

Check out the Wheatland fire sprinkler pipe brochure on their website. There's 
a chart for megaflow.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 2:33 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org%3cmailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>>
 wrote:
Happy Hump Day Forumites:

Does anyone have a chart of the capacities of Schedule 7 per ft. in sizes 1½-4"?



Steve Leyton

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org%3cmailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
--

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

RE: Schedule 7 volume

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Thank you to everyone who replied on and off-Forum.   The most interesting 
thing about the information received is that different manufacturers of so 
called “Sch. 7” all have proprietary products with slightly different IDs and 
volumes.   Granted, the differences are 100ths of an inch or gallon, but no two 
are the same.I think I’ll average them…

Thanks again!

SL

From: Ben Young [mailto:derblitzkrie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:02 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Re: Schedule 7 volume

Steve,

Check out the Wheatland fire sprinkler pipe brochure on their website. There's 
a chart for megaflow.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 2:33 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Happy Hump Day Forumites:

Does anyone have a chart of the capacities of Schedule 7 per ft. in sizes 1½-4"?



Steve Leyton

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

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

Schedule 7 volume

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Happy Hump Day Forumites:

Does anyone have a chart of the capacities of Schedule 7 per ft. in sizes 1½-4"?



Steve Leyton

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

RE: 8.17.5 Hose Connections

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Hoses for fire department use are described as 2½" in 8.17.5.2, so never mind 
1½" for purposes of this discussion.Three conditions come to mind where 
Fire Department hose valves (you notice I didn't say Class I standpipe 
connections, because these are not exclusively considered standpipes) might be 
required and are specifically allowed to be supplied by the sprinkler system:

1.   Stages over 1,000 sq. ft. in area
2.   Exit passageways
3.   Covered mall buildings, at locations specified in the Building Code

In these cases, an inside hose stream allowance must be taken at the point 
where combined main piping supplies the most demanding hose connection.   Many 
AHJ agencies (at least the ones that are on the ball) require a calculation 
from the FDC to prove the required flow rate and may have ordinances or 
policies that specify the flow rate.   

The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA 





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 12:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Michael Hill 
Subject: RE: 8.17.5 Hose Connections

Would small hoses at a stage qualify?

Mike Hill

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 3:16 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' 

Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
Subject: 8.17.5 Hose Connections

So, I understand the "Small [1 ½ in. ] Hose Connections" that are discussed in 
8.17.5.1. You typically find these in rack storage warehouses.

But I'm confused by 8.17.5.2 Hose Connections for Fire Department Use. What 
hose connections would these be? Or, perhaps I should ask when these hose 
connections would be required. The description and the associated figures looks 
like it is referring to the hose valves you would find as part of a combined 
sprinkler/standpipe system. But the commentary in the handbook says 
specifically "These connections are not to be treated as standpipe hose 
connections".

-Kyle M
___
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: Can a Clerestory be considered Skylight?

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

IMHO, a clerestory light well is not a skylight.   It's a ceiling pocket, but 
not a skylight.

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 10:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: Can a Clerestory be considered Skylight?

I have a 12 x 36 x 58 tall pocket in they ceiling at a clerestory.

 

If this is consider a skylight per 13-8.5.7 (16ed) I would not have to provide 
protection at the top of the pocket.

 

But if is a pocket per 13-8.6.7 and since its over 36" tall I'm going have to 
provide protection at the top.

 

What is meant by a "similar pocket" in 13-8.6.7.3?.   

 

Jerry Van Kolken

Millennium Fire Protection Corp.

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730

 

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

RE: Seismic Special Inspection Requirements

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

I can't say that we've been sent a list with all these items together, but 
individually we've had to respond to similar comments.   I don't think "g 
force" is the correct reference in #1; the Ss value has always been accepted by 
AHJ's who do structural review to this level of detail.  #2 seems to be the 
applied force, which is the work product of the factored weight calculation.   
#3 would be the assigned load values per the manufacturer (I think).   #4 would 
entail proving the capability of the trapeze and its anchorage points to bear 
the applied load; we would likely throw to the SEOR to respond as we would for 
#5.   We would calculate the suspended load based on hanger spacing and weight 
of WFP, then confirm that the floor or roof assembly can bear that dead load.

Steve L
(Throwing darts with one eye covered)


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 2:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: Seismic Special Inspection Requirements

Anyone ever run into having to provide the following pieces of information for 
seismic bracing out in the field?

1. Specific seismic forces (g-force) the location was designed to resist.
2. Maximum brace reaction at connection to structure.
3. For single hung items, the maximum pipe/conduit size the brace location was 
designed to accommodate.
4. For trapeze supported items, the maximum weight (lbs/lf) the brace location 
was designed to accommodate.
5. For suspended equipment, the maximum unit operating weight (lbs) the brace 
location was designed to accommodate.

If so, what is #1 and #2 asking


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

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

Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material quote?  
Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click here to 
register.* **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go 
access to your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android 
devices**

___
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: Are sprinklers required

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

As Steven said, there are a couple "ifs" in the code analysis and the biggest 
one is whether the code official will allow the use of 13R.NFPA 13R doesn't 
give prescriptive guidance but informs in A.1.1 that there may be special rules 
that restrict the use of 13R in mixed occupancies and that the user of the 
standard should:

"Refer to the adopted building code to determine whether such restrictions are 
applicable."   This throws to the local building official.   My experience in 
just about every (California) jurisdiction has been that a two-headed design is 
only allowed if there is a BUILDING separation between R and B or M 
occupancies.  Some allow an occupancy separation between R and S-2 (parking) 
because if the principal use group is R, then parking is accessory to the R can 
be protected per 13 as specifically allowed in 13R.Podium buildings with R 
over other groups generally require a 3 hour horizontal assembly with all 
utilities and stairs shafted with 2-hour fire resistance to even consider the 
split design and in many jurisdictions you have to upgrade to 13 to get 
additional stories of Type 5 anyway.  And there are area limits per floor when 
using a 13R that may also restrict its use; you can't just count stories or 
weigh building separations.   The charging references are in the allowable hei
 ght and area tables of Chapter 5.


Steve Leyton



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steven Jenkins via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 7:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steven Jenkins 
Subject: RE: Are sprinklers required

As seen in the 2015 IFC Commentary to section 903.3.1.2

"... A common question is whether a mixed occupancy building which contains a 
Group R occupancy could still use NFPA 13R for the design. If one of the 
mixed-use occupancies would require a sprinkler system throughout the building 
in accordance with NFPA 13, then a 13R system would not be allowed. If, 
however, the only reason a sprinkler system is being installed is because there 
is a Group R fire area, then a NFPA 13R system would be an appropriate design 
choice.
The areas that are not classified as Group R would require protection in 
accordance with NFPA 13.
It must be noted that although the building would be considered sprinklered 
throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R, not all of the code sprinkler 
alternatives could be applied. Any alternative that requires the installation 
of an NFPA 13 system would not be applicable if a portion of the building 
utilizes an NFPA 13R system"

Hope this helps,

SJ

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Nick Maneen via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 12:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Nick Maneen ; Thomas Reinhardt 

Subject: Re: Are sprinklers required

*** SCDLLR NOTICE ***
  *   This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
  *   Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in 
e-mail text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.


This is supposed to be above our pay grade, but yeah.  Unless the owner wants 
to go through all the trouble of installing rated building separations that 
would allow a 13R structure to sit on a 13 structure, the entire building is 13.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:14 PM Thomas Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone .Thanks for taking my question. I have a old commercial 
> building in town with a store front only two stories. The owner would 
> like to convert the second floor to apartment(R-2). We currently use 
> the IFC where section 903.2.8 relates that yes sprinklers shall be 
> installed. My question is then doesn't the entire building including 
> the apartments shall have a NFPA 13 system instead of just a 13R system on 
> the second floor?
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,qT-YuUbO_
> l8UbGHbFmTFHwUYkwB-yQ0GKFqEUcMJeEpOKg5NKb6dXvrRFOXcWP7gmkxOEj1iKKcM5Ot
> -ENcUpxjcT8mkjM01v26ylD57QjKDMO5UTevb=1
>


--

Nick Maneen

Estimator

409 W Central Ave

Asheboro, NC 27203

P 336-625-2304

F 336-625-4649

C 704-791-7789
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,KcvmbQpA2WHkRp6q1fFc-t2e8aO3yibFmiIBkMs4p5O1kN5yrgMONJddlTtI_yEvxcbX_yGOAGp2VRK5JR4e8eiT2o7uuqjaykAoEw4BCmlZTXckjH_x=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing 

RE: 13 R in a single family home

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

We're working on a project right now in San Diego with four 4-story townhomes 
in a row and it's been code classified as R2; we're designing per NFPA 13 on 
that one.

Steve L.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home

San Francisco.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 8:06 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 13 R in a single family home

Out of curiosity, where are people building single family homes that 4+ 
stories? I don't think I've ever seen one.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 13 R in a single family home

Ahh. Excellent catch for us.


Other requirements had me as well on mine.

Thanks for the assist!

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steven Jenkins via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:49 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steven Jenkins 
Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home

Take a look at the scope of 2015 IRC.  
2015 IRC 101.2, "...not more than three stories above grade plane in height."

Then take a look at 2015 IBC Table 504.4

And of course local adoptions will differ, so definitely talk to the permitting 
AHJ.


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 8:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home

*** SCDLLR NOTICE ***
  *   This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
  *   Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in 
e-mail text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.


I am going with no.

IRC kicks to Plumbing code OR 13D.

13 D being a life safety system, does not care about height.

Local adoptions may differ.

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:35 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home

I am actually int the IRC right this minute looking for the same thing

I have seen nothing either.

Will keep you posted.


Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager /3-D Specialist
Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108





R/
Matt



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Zachary Siegrist via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:32 AM
To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Zachary Siegrist 
Subject: 13 R in a single family home

I am being informed the International Residential Code has a provision 
requiring a NFPA 13R system in a single family residence four stories or more 
in height.  Admittedly, this is the first time I've heard of this in my career. 
 I am scanning through the IRC and am not able to locate this provision.  Can 
anyone verify this is true, and if so, can you provide me a code section from 
the IRC?

Zach
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CAEF2wQIzyBW2qGTWKiYbMiACnMkAK2Oqqb3z4rfklBGwSPzvYInh0bEuu4fkRHPkoiy0CU-2D48D1RLzH0fYlNfSr8MgFbnNlgIK5c2UmbFgqNZA-2C-2C-26typo-3D1=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=KeP3-1OXc0JJYmv3QYq5PGbqh6vXE8iU26i7WRQR3Xo=arccq-luCcqNsc-ydyCFmiEkEimlT3o10E2d7BG0vOk=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CzzhKKk0GJW6EiBfd5xit3aIjHmPtw6qXga9X4DwOhIB6ELcWai3NWWH0Rfiy0Oomy6FG7CqAfntMB4gr0x7JOjvNHbwbjBCQItZ8QxjDDJoPkHkTL10o1qs-2C-26typo-3D1=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=KeP3-1OXc0JJYmv3QYq5PGbqh6vXE8iU26i7WRQR3Xo=2wgOG-67nxZDmgS7MhiES3NW-t5spuxLDbxhkozp2XA=
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list

RE: STANDPIPES NFPA 14

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

Cesar:

When a standpipe supplies two or more hose connections on a single level, it's 
defined as a horizontal standpipe.  USUALLY (but not always) there is a turn 
from vertical to horizontal when this happens, which helps to contrast 
horizontal from vertical standpipes.   There may be applications where several 
hose connections come off of a horizontal standpipe, such as a long exit 
passageway or offset stairs.  The intent of distinguishing horizontal from 
vertical is that higher flow rates are required for horizontal standpipes.A 
vertical standpipe serving one hose connection per floor that offsets 
horizontally and then returns to vertical, but still only supplies one hose 
connection on the offset floor, is NOT considered a horizontal standpipe.   
Likewise, horizontal bulk main piping that service standpipe risers is NOT 
considered a horizontal standpipe.  The critical metric is two or more hose 
connections per floor.

I have added a first draft agenda item to the 2023 cycle of NFPA 14, to discuss 
with the committee whether it would be acceptable to use a single riser to feed 
valves on both sides of a horizontal exit without triggering the higher demand 
required of a horizontal standpipe.   This is only a discussion item and will 
not see the light of day for a few years, if ever, but that would be the only 
possible exception and currently, such an arrangement is a horizontal standpipe 
by strict definition.


The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the standard.


Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA 





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Cesar Lira Rocha via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 2:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Cesar Lira Rocha 
Subject: STANDPIPES NFPA 14

Can someone explain me what is the difference between Standpipe and Horizontal 
Sandpipe according to NFPA14.

 

Regards.

Cesar Lira

 

___
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