[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant
Referring to the 2013 edition, wouldn’t an Annex note to 23.4.2.1.1 be exactly the thing that’s needed? Still time to propose for next edition I think. Get all this out into the open where the PhD wordsmiths can wrestle it to the ground. Bill Brooks (memberr) William N. Brooks P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 410 544 3620 o 412-400-6528 c From: Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:40 PM To: Brad Casterline ; BRUCE VERHEI ; Byron Weisz ; Michael de Gabriele ; Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant While I appreciate your insatiable curiosity and enthusiasm for what most consider the minutia of hydraulics, I caution that references to unsubstantiated preferences isn’t a particularly precise way of presenting technical content, especially when it’s this nuanced. When I’m modeling a sprinkler system or private fire main system (two things I’ve very experienced with and that my firm does on a multiple-times-per-day basis), the only things I need to feel good about are: conformance with basis of design criteria and applicable standards for the work in question; safety factor; cost-impact analysis of our proposed design. Suggesting that 12 FPS is a feel-good criterion isn’t based on any particular scientific method that I can tell, so let’s leave that out of it. As Byron astutely noted last week, fire protection demands are not continuous flows. In fact, “Continuous Flow” is a defined term in AWWA standards, as is “Intermittent Flow”. Since continuous flow is 24/7/365, we are an intermittent flow, as are fire hydrant flows, tank fills, pump tests and every other aspect of below-ground and overhead water-based systems. The only reason that water districts care about velocity is that public main systems are more likely to experience surges and hammer phenomena at higher flow speeds. But we’re not a continuously flowing demand, we’re a closed system that sits static for 99.6735% of its lifetime and when called upon to activate (and with open nozzles, sprinklers, hydrant ports) we are highly unlikely to experience the rebounding pressure spikes of a hammer except potentially when that demand is shut off.Hammer in sprinkler systems has historically been caused by surges imposed on systems from outside sources. (Also and by the way, regarding the continuous/intermittent thing, the fact that residential systems are a 7-10 minute event by rule, the restricting of meters to the limits of their continuous flow rating is BS.) If the water gets to the emitter and the hydraulics of the design work within the parameters of the basis of design and good/best practices, then as Bruce might say, I don’t give a ___ about velocity because its NOT a codified metric and allowing any measure of subjectivity into the exercises – ESPECIALLY when it leaks into the enforcement side of the exercise – is not a good practice and should be disregarded. Steve Leyton, President Protection Design and Consulting T | 619.255.8964 x 102 | www.protectiondesign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.protectiondesign.com_=DwMGaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=iih4NVEkD89x14qk7m6LbFsl49j-eQ0kuCE55fl2VOI=axXgb8Run8Bdi8a6Oo1kuX0MIWmMUJg2kXBS8i3EFq8=EMYV-FWb9iPpplNapuyc_mqMAPGkWod0SXQ0DBzeuyI=> 2851 Camino Del Rio South | Suite 210 | San Diego, CA 92108 Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training From: Brad Casterline mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:11 AM To: BRUCE VERHEI mailto:bver...@comcast.net>>; Byron Weisz mailto:by...@cen-calfire.com>>; Michael de Gabriele mailto:mpdegabri...@gmail.com>>; Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo mailto:prodesigngr...@msn.com>> Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Velocity - Rant Michael, I would like to recommend NFPA 750 (Water Mist) for excellent information for your questioning. Like Bob alluded to, H-W is not necessarily less accurate at high velocities. The variation from D-W comes from holding the C-Factor constant for all pipe size. This results in there being a particular velocity where D-W Pf starts to exceed H-W pf. Since we are tied to H-W and constant C-Factor, technically this could be cause for concern regarding max velocity. What is that particular velocity? For 1” S40, H-W C=120, compared to D-W weight density= 62.34 lb/ft^3, dynamic viscosity= 1.1 centipoise, and absolute roughness= .002 inch, it is 40 ft/s. Since the particular velocity is higher (and different!) for larger pipe size, I would like to recommend 12 m/s as a self-imposed Speed Limit
Intumescent Steel Protection (Not Sprinkler Question)
I apologize in advance for this question, and I invite off-line responses. I also admit to not being 100% up-to-date on construction trends. However, if there is a group who would be able to answer this it would be you. I’m participating in a design for a 2 story office building with absolutely no special features, with the exception that the construction type is Type IIA. I suggested using a gypsumboard membrane protection approach but the owner is steering the project to use of intumescent coating for steel structure, including bar joists – coatings shop-applied and touched up in the field after making connections. I’ve been told this technique is becoming more prevalent. Any feedback is welcome. Bill Brooks bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Request for support
Rachid, Use this link to access a worldwide network of Fire Protection Engineers. They will be able to help you with your study and installation questions. http://www.sfpe.org/?page=Chapters Bill Brooks From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rachid Saadaoui Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 5:42 PM To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Request for support Hello This is my first time working on the study and installation of a sprinkler system in a technical vacuum or there were cable tracks. The dimensions of the technical voids are: L = 66.5m l = 7m and h = 4m. Thank you to send me a free tool to do my hydraulic calculations, as well as determining number of head sprinkler Best Regards ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Ammunition Manufacturer
Instead of something being or not being your fight, why not say “I’ve never done anything like this before and I am not able to provide sprinkler design information for this specialized facility. However, I am very capable of providing a sprinkler system layout for you when your registered design professional provides approved construction documents.” In my opinion, this is one of the longstanding problems (challenges) with NFPA 13. It totally mixes work that should be performed by the design professional with the work performed by the sprinkler contractor. It’s a recurring theme of many posts where the sprinkler contractor/designer is “solving” problems caused by failure to shift the design responsibility to a design professional. Maybe it would be a good idea to add this concept to Chapter 1. A design professional determines design criteria, a sprinkler contractor does system layout and calculations. It’s probably too late for the 2022 edition and probably too radical an idea for the committee to consider. Back to my resting mode. Bill Brooks From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Paulsen Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Ammunition Manufacturer They are disputing the F-1 Use Group. They contend that exception applies to big box stores like Dick’s Sporting Goods, not manufacturing. That’s not my fight, (I’m in over my head far enough as it is) I’m just trying to give the owner and whatever sprinkler contractor that I get involved, the right design criteria. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Vining Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Ammunition Manufacturer And have the State Plan Review people accepted the code review? If the owner uses 200 pounds of propellant per day for a five day week, and if the code review limits are met, the owner is going to need two shipments per week. I'm sure the owner will feel this is burdensome. Guess what! On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:50 PM, John Paulsen <j...@crwnfire.com <mailto:j...@crwnfire.com> > wrote: Uhh..no, it hasn’t worked that way in this case. It is a “rural” jurisdiction and the locals have been deferring to the State Plan Review people. (And I think rightfully so in this case.) From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> ] On Behalf Of Ed Vining Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Ammunition Manufacturer Has the AHJ bought into the code review? On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:31 PM, John Paulsen <j...@crwnfire.com <mailto:j...@crwnfire.com> > wrote: The plant machines need to have 200,000 primers and 200 lbs of powder available a day for manufacture. The verbiage below comes from the code review and has been agreed to by the owner. Small Arms Primers Quantities not exceeding 750,000 shall be permitted to be stored in a building where not more than 100,000 are stored in any one pile and where piles are at least 15 ft apart. Small arms primers not stored in accordance with 14.5.6(1) through 14.5.6(2) shall be stored in a magazine meeting the requirements of Chapter 9. Smokeless Propellants Quantities exceeding 100 Lbs, but not exceeding 800 Lbs, shall be stored in non-portable storage cabinets having walls of at least 1” thickness. But again, in your all’s opinion, is this an Ex Haz Grp I or II, or something else? Just trying to figure out if I’m looking at the project the right way. Thanks, John Paulsen – SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P – 614-782-2438 <tel:(614)%20782-2438> F – 614-782-2374 <tel:(614)%20782-2374> C – 614-348-8206 <tel:(614)%20348-8206> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> ] On Behalf Of Charles Bamford Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Ammunition Manufacturer Paging Scott Mitchell.. On Friday, January 20, 2017 11:27 AM, "Hinson, Ryan" <rhin...@burnsmcd.com <mailto:rhin...@burnsmcd.com> > wrote: How much DOT Class Division 1.1 (primer) and 1.3 (gunpowder)explosives will be located inside the building at any one time…and where? What blast resistance requirements are required between said explosives and the rest of the building? Where are explosives stored? Have
RE: Use of Set Screw Type Restraint Fire Pump Suction and Discharge
I appreciate the comments. The body of my post describes the product (as presented on the cut sheet) as a wedge action restraint. Probably should not have used the set screw language in the subject line – that shows my unfamiliarity with these products. My concern is with the vibration associated with the diesel drive. Bill Brooks From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of scott.mitch...@cns.doe.gov Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Use of Set Screw Type Restraint Fire Pump Suction and Discharge Mr. Brooks appears to describe two differently designed products. In his subject like he uses the words “Set Screw Type”. But, in the body he describes a “wedge action restraint”. Some products use set screws to retain the pipe’s axial position in a flanged joint. Some products use set screws for this same purpose in mechanical joints. The set screws exerts compressional or clamping force cutting a small pocket on the outer surface of the pipe wall. The screw tips are in shear when thrust bears on the joint. This type of restraint can be successful at keeping the joint together when only exposed to internal pressure fluctuations. But, it is not suitable if the joint is exposed to vibrations such as is produced by a diesel engine driven fire pump. The “wedge action restraint” appears to describe the design of products like Ebaa Iron’s Megalug or Romac’s RomaGrip. The bolts are fitted with wedge teeth tips that penetrate the outer pipe wall. Under load the teeth form a buttress of cold formed pipe material. As the load increases, the buttress increases transferring the load longitudinally along the pipe without affecting the design thickness of the pipe. These have been tested under severe cyclic loads and the wedge impressions look the same as if a single non-cyclical test had been performed. If exposed to vibrations, it would appear that this design would perform better than the simple set screw; however, I don’t know if such testing has been conducted. J. Scott Mitchell, PE Senior Fire Protection Engineer Mission Engineering CNS Y-12 | 865-576-5258 CNS PTX | 806-477-5883 On Dec 16, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Bill Brooks <bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com <mailto:bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com> > wrote: A case came up today about the use of a “mechanical joint wedge action restraint” on the suction and discharge side of a diesel driven pump. Someone accepted a change and eliminated the rods, then put a MJWAC at the top of the ductile pipe on each side of the pump. A commissioning agent has refused to start the pump based on the concern the restraint will “wiggle” off the end of the ductile under repeated pump operation either during the acceptance test or sometime later. Is this a creative use of this type restraint, or is it a totally bad idea? By the way, the underground elbow is a restrained type mechanical joint. Thanks Bill Brooks Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Use of Set Screw Type Restraint Fire Pump Suction and Discharge
A case came up today about the use of a “mechanical joint wedge action restraint” on the suction and discharge side of a diesel driven pump. Someone accepted a change and eliminated the rods, then put a MJWAC at the top of the ductile pipe on each side of the pump. A commissioning agent has refused to start the pump based on the concern the restraint will “wiggle” off the end of the ductile under repeated pump operation either during the acceptance test or sometime later. Is this a creative use of this type restraint, or is it a totally bad idea? By the way, the underground elbow is a restrained type mechanical joint. Thanks Bill Brooks Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: One weird cross connected system
Does this sound familiar?? I remember this from my days at GSA in the late 1970's. It was presented by Mr. Meckler as a sprinkler system approach for the old post office building in D.C. (currently Trump's hotel). We rejected the idea for a number of reasons - we couldn't figure out how it would save money or work reliably. Lots of moving parts. Also incorporated into NFPA 13 at one point I think. 1985 edition, "Automatic sprinkler systems with nonfire protection connections". Bill Brooks Patent number: 4286667 Abstract: Flow control and fire detection and location apparatus is disclosed. The apparatus is used with a system which circulates heated or cooled water for use in connection with the heating and air conditioning system of a building and to sprinkler heads. The apparatus comprises a short length of tubing or pipe connected downstream of a sprinkler connection to provide a bypass for flow of heated or cooled water around a segment of the return line from heating or cooling apparatus to a standpipe through which the water is returned to an equipment room. There are check valves to prevent flow of water through the bypass toward the heating or cooling apparatus, and to prevent water flow in the bypassed segment from the heating or cooling apparatus toward the standpipe. There is also a flow sensor in the bypassed segment. In normal operation, water from the heating or cooling apparatus flows through the bypass line to the standpipe and back to the equipment room for heating or cooling and recirculation. Type: Grant Filed: February 27, 1979 Date of Patent: September 1, 1981 Assignee: Gershon Meckler Associates, P.C. Inventors: Donald G. Westenhofer, Gershon Meckler From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 6:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: One weird cross connected system <https://tr.cloudmagic.com/h/v6/emailtag/tag/1477908647/2d4c4b9cd9f303a04c4d 9c24d32f6571/ecdd64c309bb34b23eb65c654267bfff/1fefe822716bbbd7efa6f3a027987f 92/9efab2399c7c560b34de477b9aa0a465/ufo.gif> I was at a location last Friday that had one of the strangest systems I have seen. This is a 3 story office/retail space with underground parking garages. The upper floors are wet and the garages dry. The sprinkler system on the upper floor has several connections to feed mechanical equipment (VAV boxes, etc.). This has been in place since the mid 1980s and the local AHJ has made no comment. I'm sure this is not legal and I have no idea why they do not get false alarms or why the fire pump does not go off on a regular basis. Has anybody run into something like this before? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) via Newton Mail <https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti=9.1.28=9.3.5=email_fo oter_2> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Drawing orders of hierarchy
What has the architect said about the design change? You sprinklered based on a partial height wall and the drywall contractor built a full height wall? And now you are being required to pay for his mistake? I think your interpretation, especially given the “not connected” comment, is probably correct. “Wall type” does not necessarily mean full height unless your set of drawings specifically call this out. There are other details needed to show how a particular wall type is joined to a ceiling, floor, or other wall. The Gypsum Construction Handbook is full of them. http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/showpage.html?name=BXUV.U305 <http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/showpage.html?name=BXUV.U305=Fire-resistance+Ratings+-+ANSI/UL+263=1074330174=1073741824=versionless_id=1073984818=1> =Fire-resistance+Ratings+-+ANSI/UL+263=1074330174=1073741824=versionless_id=1073984818=1 Take a look at this wall type from the UL Directory. Nothing stated about partial or full height. Bill Brooks From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Drawing orders of hierarchy Kind of strange, but does anyone know where I can find in writing somewhere some common sense info on the hierarchy of contract drawings? Here's the issue: Main floor print shows a particular wall as being 'type g' which is indicated as being full-height in the wall types plans. Also shows the walls as not being 'connected' to the other walls it intersects with, which I know means its normally a different wall material, type, or some other indication of being 'not the same' On the detail drawings for these areas, there's a note that says this particular wall is to only be 6'-6" in height and not going up to the deck. GC is trying to claim that since the drywaller followed the overall plans, and we followed the detail plans, we're both equally at fault for this one. I know that's ridiculous since just like dealing with codes, you can have a broad rule (wall type G) and then all specific exceptions to that rule on a case-by-case basis (a note saying this wall isn't full height) Similar to a note that says 'all walls to be full height unless indicated otherwise.' I'm pretty comfortable defending my position, especially since the overall floor plans have a note to reference the detail drawings. FYI, this is a hotel, and the main floor plans don't show the notes, but the unit plans (plan, finish, interior elevations, etc) do. I'm just wondering if there's some obscure AIA document that says how this is supposed to work, or anything I can fall back on besides common sense, which we all know doesn't exist inside most superintendent's offices on construction projects. For the record, I showed the walls dashed on my plans which indicates a wall that doesn't cross the RCP cut plane, and there's a counter in the room which has the same dashed linetype. Both were not indicated as dashed on the architectural plans, so I changed them on my RCPs for submittal based on the notes on the unit drawings. Yes, this involves a change order over added heads. There's nothing in the specs or drawings that I can definitively point to that says what I'm looking for, so this is a last ditch effort. Also, my plans have already been approved by the A/E team, and the AHJ. We only noticed this when we saw the wall framing going up to the ceiling on-site. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ben Benjamin Young ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Flexheads in small renovation (Calculation Software)
You will be able to tell this question is based on minimum software application experience, but does current software automatically determine “most demanding”? Or, is it up to the human operator to guess where this area might be? If it’s a guess, how do you know you have chosen correctly? Bill Brooks From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flexheads in small renovation To underscore John’s point, these fittings impose with a SUBSTANTIAL pressure loss. As 3rd party, we would ask for calculations to prove the performance of the revised configuration. SL From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hill Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Flexheads in small renovation I agree with Richard, it needs to be evaluated. It is known that flex piping is generally more demanding than their hard piped counterparts. If the base building design did not include flex piping, I would look at it as a change to base building design and perform a quick calculation to see how it looks. I assume they didn’t use excessively long flex pipe with more bends or lops than were needed. Mike Hill From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 8:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Flexheads in small renovation This is a single story building. Multiple looped 4" and 3" cross mains with branches to wings. (Think nursing home with interior court yards). No fire pump. 100 psi static with a flat curve (2 year old test, DeltaE = 0). Area in question not most hydraulically remote but toward that end of the building. Branch lines are fed from the loop, not a DE branch main. LH occupancy. I am not worried about this not being adequate, more a consensus of what needs to be done and what is correct. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) Sent using CloudMagic <https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti=6.0.64=8.2> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Richard Carr <rc...@coxfire.com <mailto:rc...@coxfire.com> > wrote: I can’t disagree with John (Hi John) but we need more info to make the call, In remote area? Fire pump? What is safety margin on existing? What is friction loss on the flex? Just because you add 4 flex piping to an existing system does not require it to be calculated. But does need to be evaluated. Richard Carr, SET Branch Manager Cox Fire Protection, Inc 6555 Grace Lane. Jacksonville, Fl. 32205 rc...@coxfire.com <mailto:rc...@coxfire.com> 904-781-8227 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Irwin Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Flexheads in small renovation I disagree with Richard. (Hi Richard!) Relocating these sprinklers with flex heads may very well change the location of the most hydraulically remote area to the place you are working. Flex-heads come with a substantial pressure loss. Even if doing calculations wasn’t required, I would want to do them for myself for peace of mind. My belief has always been that you can’t tax the system without verifying that it still works. John Irwin Manger – Fire Sprinkler Division Critical System Solutions, LLC Cell: 813.618.2781 Email: jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com <mailto:jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Richard Carr Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Flexheads in small renovation Are the relocates in the remote area? if not I would not calc. also , some flex brands are better that others as far as friction loss. Richard Carr, SET Branch Manager Cox Fire Protection, Inc 6555 Grace Lane. Jacksonville, Fl. 32205 rc...@coxfire.com <mailto:rc...@coxfire.com> 904-781-8227 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Flexheads in small renovation I have a client that did a 4 sprinkler relocate job in an office and used Flexheads (no sprinklers added
RE: Separation of Fire Mains from other utilities
Military projects may bring in other requirements by referencing various UFC for example. Bill Brooks From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Morey, Mike Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 8:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Separation of Fire Mains from other utilities I thoroughly reviewed NFPA 24 and reviewed the applicable chapters of IFC/IBC slightly less thoroughly, and I can't find any guidance there. Is there any code or standard, AWWA etc that might give some guidance on minimum separation from other utilities? Mike Morey, CFPS, SET Planner Scheduler/Designer BMWC Constructors, Inc. 1740 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46222 O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 <https://owa.bmwc.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=hEc2LsZXLUqfB3v1fAsIUDtQSkfsw9AIUxDXh x81O08DpGEK3NHRaSbWuncnZEk-mLpe2vYiBJY.=mailto%3amanta%40bmwc.com> mo...@bmwc.com | <https://owa.bmwc.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=hEc2LsZXLUqfB3v1fAsIUDtQSkfsw9AIUxDXh x81O08DpGEK3NHRaSbWuncnZEk-mLpe2vYiBJY.=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bmwc.com%2f> www.bmwc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage
As a PE you would be remiss in not noting your concerns. However, it appears the owner is relying on his/her insurance entity and the AHJ for the current risk assessment. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Existing pipe schedule and storage Actually this is part of the pre 1896 pipe schedule system I mentioned in previous posts. The branch line sizing is less that the 1896 standards. No major renovation >20%. Density requirements would be approx .24/2000. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) Sent using CloudMagic [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti=6.0.64=8.2] On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:31 AM, John Paulsen <j...@crwnfire.com> wrote: Todd: I have come across this situation a couple of times and in my experience, you are waltzing in a mine field. I am going to assume for the sake of argument that: The existing pipe scheduled system is per the OLD Extra Hazard pipe scheduled guidelines. The Class IV storage usage is a change from the building's original use. And that the building has not undergone a > 20% area renovation recently. The commodity being stored would normally require the overhead system to meet a design density consistent with an Extra Hazard demand. NFPA 13, 23.5 relegates pipe scheduled systems to only being acceptable as an existing situation and in my experience, any major change in use is an excuse to prove it hydraulically and 23.5.4 states that all Extra Hazard systems must be hydraulically calculated. However the part of your email that states the AHJ has approved it, tells me that you could be picking the wrong fight. You could do a quick calculation and show the existing system to be woefully inadequate, then inform the owner and fire prevention. At least you would have documentation that you brought it to their attention in the event of a fire. John Paulsen - SET Crown Fire System Design 6282 Seeds Rd. Grove City, OH 43123 P - 614-782-2438 F - 614-782-2374 C - 614-348-8206 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 6:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Existing pipe schedule and storage I am working at a facility where there is an existing OH pipe schedule system over 12ft palletized Class IV storage. The fire department has approved it, but I question whether it will provide adequate protection. I did not see anything in NFPA 13 that requires storage occupancies to be hydraulically calculated. Am I missing something? This is outside of the project I am working on, but as an FPE, I feel obligated to notify someone if I see a potential hazard such as this. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) Sent using CloudMagic [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti=6.0.64=8.2] ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage
Palletized probably better than rack. Class IV probably better than Group A. OH better than LH. Wet probably better than dry. Pipe schedule probably better than no system. Water flow reported to a supervising station better than cell phone from highway. The 1973 edition of NFPA 13 had an OH3 category which included warehouses. Water supply was at the discretion of the AHJ although a hydraulically calculated system at the time required 750 gpm. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 6:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Existing pipe schedule and storage I am working at a facility where there is an existing OH pipe schedule system over 12ft palletized Class IV storage. The fire department has approved it, but I question whether it will provide adequate protection. I did not see anything in NFPA 13 that requires storage occupancies to be hydraulically calculated. Am I missing something? This is outside of the project I am working on, but as an FPE, I feel obligated to notify someone if I see a potential hazard such as this. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) Sent using CloudMagic [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti=6.0.64=8.2] ___ 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 Calc: Adding City Demand to Pumper Truck?
And sometimes the hose used to connect the pumper to the FDC is an issue as well if it is not rated for higher pressures. I know this is something we toss back a forth but shouldn't the Engineer of Record be the person to do this legwork ahead of time? Bill Brooks Brooks Fire Protection Engineering -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:34 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Standpipe Calc: Adding City Demand to Pumper Truck? Attention Everybody (and Sean): It is time for us as an industry to move outside the box. Prescriptive codes and standards are convenient, and most AHJ's will defer to them without amendment or interpretation because it's usually not required to do so. But sometimes we have to address situations that ARE subjective and this is one of those - you have to meet with the serving fire department to verify their operational practices and pumping capabilities. Your statement that the pumper is "... sized for 150psi at 1000gpm" isn't accurate; generally, modern pumpers and engines can make up to 300 PSI at either 1,000 or 1,500 GPM so available pressure isn't the issue. Design of the system and identification of the demand are the issues.150 PSI is an industry practice, not an absolute threshold that can't be crossed and NFPA 14 has a requirement that you must hang a sign on the FDC informing the FD of the required pressure to meet the calculated demand. As with sprinkler systems, Pressure = $$, so the more you have the smaller the piping can generally be and you save $$. 150 is a safe starting pressure so most FD's will require that you use that as a source pressure; if a manual standpipe system is a little longer or taller and requires more pressure we can make that up by subbing 6" for 4" and it still works at 150. But in taller buildings, you will need more pressure so, if you want to do a 70' tall building with 4" risers all the way up the shafts, then you have to obtain FD approval to pump at 195 or 215 or whatever it turns out to be. And, you have to build the system out of components rated for that pressure, which is actually no big deal these days.And when it's over, you badge the FDC with a sign that states, "PUMP 1000 GPM AT 215 PSI TO MEET DEMAND AT STAIR #2 ROOF" or something like that (your FD will tell you how to word the sign). Partner up people ... The preceding is my opinion only and does not represent the opinion of or an interpretation of the standard by NFPA or the Technical Committee on Standpipes. Steve L. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 8:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Standpipe Calc: Adding City Demand to Pumper Truck? Sorry for coming into this a week late. We have recently been dealing with specs and AHJ requirements that state we need to supply 130psi and/or 140psi at the top outlet regardless of whether it is manual or automatic. Same flows as outlined in NFPA 14 (500gpm +250gpm per standpipe up to 1000gpm). The fire pumper truck is still sized for 150psi @ 1000gpm. What do you suggest we do if we can only set the FDC to be the source of 151@0 and 150@1000? Some building are still 70ft tall and the standpipe is still a manual wet. Only accounting for elevation we are looking at 160psi/170psi demand at the FDC. Even if your answer is make it an automatic standpipe, the 140psi requirement limits the "manual" standpipe building height to 23ft when we don't account for friction loss using your calculation procedure. So we can't even meet these manual FDC 150psi calcs on a building that doesn't even need a standpipe. Thanks, Sean VG -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Standpipe Calc: Adding City Demand to Pumper Truck? Tony: You (or the submitter) are over-simplifying what the annex says. It's not the intent that you take the city flow test and add it to the pumper curve. NFPA 1901 sets the basic performance curve for a pumper at 150 PSI/1,000 GPM. NFPA 13E is the standard for FD Operations for buildings equipped with sprinklers and standpipes - that standard goes into the company engineer's procedure for calculating the discharge pressure of the pump based on suction pressure, friction loss in hose and other variables. But the bottom line is that it's all targeted at discharging 150 PSI residual at 1,000 GPM. This has NOTHING to do with pressure at the FDC; it has to do with calculating the performance of the apparatus. What gets to the FDC is up to the engineer. Which
RE: Preaction Systems Scope
It's nice to know, after more than 40 years at this stuff, we still have the same coordination issues. I thought these problems could be fixed with smart phones and snapchatting. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Preaction Systems Scope The problem of nobody bidding the detection, but everybody excluding it, was exactlty what happened at the C-17 Simulator building at McChord AFB. On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:04 PM, <craig.pr...@ch2m.com> wrote: > Price is all they care about. > > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29303 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > craig.pr...@ch2m.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Michael > Hill > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 2:55 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Preaction Systems Scope > > Can you send those contractors our way. We can cloud, highlight and > put arrows pointing to our exclusions and the general contractor still > only sees the price at the bottom of the page. > > Mike Hill > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of rongreenman . > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 2:05 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Preaction Systems Scope > > You could have a base bid price excluding the electrics, with an "in bold" > extra for the inclusion electrics. That might get their attention and > still let them compare apples to apples. I know I've done that and > that started someone asking questions about just what the other bids included. > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Rod DiBona <r...@rapidfireinc.com> wrote: > > > Thank you all for your help. That is what I thought but we were > > starting to wonder if we were the only ones that seem to > > consistently have this problem. We so clearly, in bold exclude it in > > detail and then still end up with a fight at the end because the GC > > didn't buy it out. We were considering just including all of it in > > all of our preaction bids so they get a complete system and > > eliminate the hassle but felt that this would make us less > > competitive if others weren't doing the same. We will continue to > > exclude and see if we can't find a better way to communicate that > > this is a likely scope gap unless it is > addressed at bid time. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > rongreenman . > > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 11:03 AM > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > Subject: Re: Preaction Systems Scope > > > > Here it is typically handled like Mike describes too. Everyone > > pretty much knows the general's contracts guy will miss all the > > exclusion clauses unless he's been bitten before. The object is to > > get the building built with all systems working. > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Morey, Mike <mo...@bmwc.com> wrote: > > > > > Typically we tried to let the project team work it out, but if > > > they didn't or there wasn't a well defined project team to resolve > > > these issues we'd typically take it out for numbers. Usually we > > > try and get the electrical/alarm bidders for the project to put a number on it. > > > > > > Mike Morey, CFPS, SET > > > Planner Scheduler/Designer > > > BMWC Constructors, Inc. > > > 1740 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46222 > > > O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 > > > mo...@bmwc.com | www.bmwc.com > > > > > > > > > From: Sprinklerforum > > > <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > > > on behalf of Rod DiBona <r...@rapidfireinc.com> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:25 PM > > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > Subject: Preaction Systems Scope > > > > > > I am wondering how most of you handle the detection and releasing > > > systems for your preaction systems. We traditionally have excluded > > > all
RE: Locker Rooms (who prepared the Owner's Certificate)
What about the Owner's Certificate required by 4.3 in the 2007 edition and for all editions since then? Has anyone checked this document to see what the declared use of the space is? Why does the sprinkler contractor always seem to take on the responsibilities of others? There's also the language of 1.2.1 (2007) with regard to "reasonable degree of protection for life and property". It doesn't say the sprinkler system will forever be perfectly matched up with the contents under it. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 12:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Locker Rooms And my comments were in tacit support of your perspective, based on historical performance. You are much more in touch with what the good people of Lake Oswego are going to do (or not) in those situations. The challenge for an industry that still delivers 90+% of its designs on a deferred basis is to determine what's actually required before starting preparation of plans, so all we would ask is that if you want it, codify it or advise the ownership team of those requirements in the earliest possible phases of the project. SL -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Smith, David Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 9:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Locker Rooms I understand (& support) your perspectives and was simply trying to answer Todd's question of what could be stored in a locker room; based on my experiences. Hopefully during the plan review process, the AHJ is able to look at these locations (& location on site; next to the track) and make appropriate comments back regarding these potentials. I am by no means supporting a situation where a local AHJ simply says to change it. I would prefer asking the questions or pointing out where meeting minimum code requirement could potentially cause a future problem during the review process where it then gets documented within the comments. Particularly when some years later that documentation resurfaces as part of the explanation as to why they can't do what they are doing and are limited to the original design or make necessary upgrades. David Smith | Deputy Fire Marshal P 503.635.0378 | F 503.635.0376 dsm...@ci.oswego.or.us 300 B Avenue | PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 8:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Locker Rooms Valid point for an engineer of record to ponder during the A/E design. But if nothing is stated to a bidding contractor other than the space will be locker rooms, than nothing should be inferred other than a standard, light hazard, locker room space. Contractors should not be obligated to extrapolate occupancy classifications to anything beyond that described on the plans, unless it has been codified or otherwise declared in the bidding documents. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Smith, David Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 10:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Locker Rooms I have seen portions of locker rooms sectioned off with chain link fencing material and plywood walls for security and used to store all kinds of things. Items can include various sporting equipment; large piles (~1200 sq feet and 8 feet tall) of rubber mats used for track high jump mats, tackling dummies, wrestling mats, stacks of plastic cones, piles of plastic street hockey sticks, foam dodge balls, portable plastic bleachers, stacks of folding plastic tables, gymnastic mats, or the best one chemicals for the chemistry class. These rooms evolve over time and in a number of schools, they no longer use the locker rooms resulting in them being sectioned off as storage areas; or even used as office space. I'm not saying it's necessary to go to OH1 but it's often easier to have it built that way during construction than having to re-educate every new principal, PE teacher or building engineer for the life of the building when inspections are done what can/can't be in these spaces. Worse is having them go back and modify the system if they do change the use of an area over time. David Smith | Deputy Fire Marshal P 503.635.0378 | F 503.635.0376 dsm...@ci.oswego.or.us 300 B Avenue | PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Wil
RE: Locker Rooms (who prepared the Owner's Certificate)
So it would seem that the "sprinkler installer" would have some sort of QA/QC checklist with things on it like: 1. Address of Building 2. Owner's Certificate 3. Water supply quality information That's it for me on this. Seems things an owner is required to do should be in the building or fire code, and things the sprinkler contractor should do should be in NFPA 13. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 3:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Locker Rooms (who prepared the Owner's Certificate) I believe the language in 13 says the Owner's Certificate should (not shall) be used. It is also in 2002 and I have never seem one. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) Sent using CloudMagic [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti=6.0.64=8.2] On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:14 PM, sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: "What about the Owner's Certificate required by 4.3 in the 2007 edition and for all editions since then? Has anyone checked this document to see what the declared use of the space is? Why does the sprinkler contractor always seem to take on the responsibilities of others?" Because - at least in the case of projects with A/E teams - the engineers are rarely held to account for their efforts. I would venture guess that a large percentage of engineering firms being paid for their 'performance specifications' haven't the foggiest clue about what we're talking about in this thread. To them a good contractor is one that has few change orders, gets to the job on time, and makes few waves. The fact that they've dumped design authority onto that same low-bid contractor is completely missed or ignored. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.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: Healthclub on top of parking structure
There's also 2012 IBC 903.2.11.3 referring to buildings = 55 ft. Been in there since at least 2000 edition I believe. Bill Brooks AFSA Member -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Healthclub on top of parking structure And that is because ...? -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Healthclub on top of parking structure To be clear - this is high-rise by IFC standards. ? ___ 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: ignoring new standard requirements
So a corollary would be - do you declare your previous jobs to be unsafe or somehow not acceptable if a new code or standard is published? Do you notify your previous customers about this? Somehow I think you don't. All in all, designing in accordance with adopted codes and standards is a defensible standard of care in my opinion. Otherwise, where do you go to search out the safest code approach? Another city, another state, another country? Bill Brooks AFSA Member -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 12:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ignoring new standard requirements Thank you all for your response and input. Mark hit the nail on the head for what I was driving at regarding the PE's obligation to society, and how one would deal with this kind of problem. If I'm not mistaken, your code of conduct requires you to lookout for welfare and safety of society. You can only do that by basing your design on the most current information. But if an AHJ doesn't require the newest codes, whether more stringent or less as many have pointed out, then as a subcontractor you may be pricing yourself out of a competitive bid. So you are stuck with the dilemma...meet the code of conduct, or ignore the latest requirements to compete with other subcontractors so you can put food on your plate. Going all dramatic here...but which is the lesser of two evils. Has anyone heard of a legal case involving this type of scenario and what the outcome was? Thanks, Sean Van Gaal -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: ignoring new standard requirements My favorite example of this conundrum goes back to the transition to the requirement in 13 for the use of QR sprinklers in Light Hazard, and the reduction in design area allowed by their use. I believe this occurred in the '96 edition - whatever, our local codes were following earlier editions of 13. So when the engineer specifies to design to the latest edition of NFPA 13 and follow state and local codes, what do you do? QR sprinklers at the time were more expensive; but you could get the reduced design area, which could save money. Meanwhile, since the most recent edition of 13 called for their use, it was implied that QR was superior protection to standard response in Light Hazard occupancies. Galen's response make the most sense, but in my example, we were a contractor competing for a job as a sub-contractor to mechanical - or maybe sub- to a sub- of the general. No one cared about such an issue during bidding. If you won the job, no one was going to listen to your esoteric discussion about the benefits of QR sprinklers unless you were willing to give a deduct change order. It was more difficult after receiving my PE, when I became professionally obligated (not just morally) to provide the best system for our customer. The QR issue was relatively minor and I am certain no one suffered injury because our local codes didn't adopt the latest version of 13 at that time. But it highlights the challenge and emphasizes a common point on this forum: engineers of record need to be more engaged in and take more responsibility for the fire suppression aspect of their job. And if the opportunity is available to contractors (with or without PEs on staff), they should take Galen's advice and propose alternative designs based on the latest standards. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 7:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: ignoring new standard requirements I'm sorry for my grammar and autocorrect as this is coming from my phone. How does the forum feel about ignoring the more stringent requirements of the most current NFPA standards all because the AHJ hasn't adopted the latest year? As the standards have evolved with each new addition, they typically try to clarify murky wording of past standards, expand on topics, or add/change requirements based on the latest and greatest tests. So should we be purposely designing and installing and inferior product that more times than not is less safe just because the AHJ hasn't adopted the latest design guidelines. I've heard sometimes the AHJ doesn't adopt the new standard simply due to the financial impact of republishing their amendments and not merely because they don't agree. To me it seems morally/ethically wrong
Fire Wall Integrity
John, now that you bring up the subject of collapse on both sides, just how do you treat this subject? I have seen the interpretation which appears to suggest that a sprinkler pipe penetration of a fire wall would not be acceptable if the pipe (in coming down with collapsing side) somehow compromised the gypsumboard separation assembly. Same with an electrical conduit. I'm also not sure how to design the collapsing side in such a way that it falls cleanly to the ground without some member shifting sideways and penetrating the separating assembly. In other words, do you wait till after the fire to say it works or doesn't work? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Floor Control Stations LOL Horizontal Fire Wall..we inspectors are still scratching our heads how this meets the performance definition of a firewall...collapse on one side, stays in placethen again sprinkler guys are famous for skyhooks. You just can't make this stuff up. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 rongreenman . rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Roland, Would you think with all the hoopla about non-combustible floor assemblies being equivalent to horizontal fire walls. and high rises typically not needing vertical fire separation, that a floor would fit a loose definition of a zone? Two floors, even if within the area limits of a single system seem to define two zones. Just thinking, and remember that Leyton was concerned this morning that my meds have lost their efficacy, so I may just be having another flashback to the sixties. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM, David Blackwell david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov wrote: On a related note and of interest to this forum should be the change to next section, IFC 914.3.1.2, in the 2015 edition. The limiting phrase In buildings that are more than 420 feet (128m) in building height, has been added to the 2015 edition published by ICC. Prior to that change, the 2012 edition applied the separate supply piping requirement per IFC 914.3.1.2 more broadly to include high-rise buildings below that height. Respectfully, David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFPE, CFI I Chief Engineer Office of State Fire Marshal SC Department of Labor, Licensing, Regulation, 141 Monticello Trail, Columbia, SC 29203 Telephone: 803.896.9800 [Office] 803.896.9833 [Direct] Fax: 803.896.9806 [Office] Email: david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov Website: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ Please note that you can sign up to receive automatic information on SC Division of Fire and Life Safety current events, policies, laws and procedures by visiting our Web site at: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Floor Control Stations The main point is that for standard high rises, the codes and standards only require a single riser. Very Tall High Rises (420 ft) are a unique beast. The IFC requires these tall buildings to have 2 risers per zone. Not 100% sure but I don't think they mean each floor is a zone. The same section says Each riser shall supply sprinklers on alternate floors. A lot of these building going up in parts of the Middle East but not hearing about any here in the USA. Any one involved with one? Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/ On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:55 AM, David Blackwell david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov wrote: It is also found in Section 914.3.1.1 of the 2012 IFC, which is referenced from 2012 IFC Table 903.2.11.6 [Additional Required Fire Suppression Systems]. Respectfully, David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFPE, CFI I Chief Engineer Office of State Fire Marshal SC Department of Labor, Licensing, Regulation, 141 Monticello Trail, Columbia, SC 29203 Telephone: 803.896.9800 [Office] 803.896.9833 [Direct] Fax: 803.896.9806 [Office] Email: david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov Website: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ Please note that you can sign up to receive automatic information on SC Division of Fire and Life Safety current events, policies, laws and procedures by visiting our Web site at: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fairchild, Jack Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Floor
RE: Fire Wall Integrity
Yes, I am aware of this. But it is possible to create a fire wall with gypsumboard, and this is where the collapse on both sides without damaging the wall comes into play. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Fire Wall Integrity There are physical differences and penetration restrictions based on whether the membrane is a Fire Wall or Fire Partition or other codified separation. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Fire Wall Integrity John, now that you bring up the subject of collapse on both sides, just how do you treat this subject? I have seen the interpretation which appears to suggest that a sprinkler pipe penetration of a fire wall would not be acceptable if the pipe (in coming down with collapsing side) somehow compromised the gypsumboard separation assembly. Same with an electrical conduit. I'm also not sure how to design the collapsing side in such a way that it falls cleanly to the ground without some member shifting sideways and penetrating the separating assembly. In other words, do you wait till after the fire to say it works or doesn't work? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Floor Control Stations LOL Horizontal Fire Wall..we inspectors are still scratching our heads how this meets the performance definition of a firewall...collapse on one side, stays in placethen again sprinkler guys are famous for skyhooks. You just can't make this stuff up. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 rongreenman . rongreen...@gmail.com wrote: Roland, Would you think with all the hoopla about non-combustible floor assemblies being equivalent to horizontal fire walls. and high rises typically not needing vertical fire separation, that a floor would fit a loose definition of a zone? Two floors, even if within the area limits of a single system seem to define two zones. Just thinking, and remember that Leyton was concerned this morning that my meds have lost their efficacy, so I may just be having another flashback to the sixties. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM, David Blackwell david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov wrote: On a related note and of interest to this forum should be the change to next section, IFC 914.3.1.2, in the 2015 edition. The limiting phrase In buildings that are more than 420 feet (128m) in building height, has been added to the 2015 edition published by ICC. Prior to that change, the 2012 edition applied the separate supply piping requirement per IFC 914.3.1.2 more broadly to include high-rise buildings below that height. Respectfully, David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFPE, CFI I Chief Engineer Office of State Fire Marshal SC Department of Labor, Licensing, Regulation, 141 Monticello Trail, Columbia, SC 29203 Telephone: 803.896.9800 [Office] 803.896.9833 [Direct] Fax: 803.896.9806 [Office] Email: david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov Website: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ Please note that you can sign up to receive automatic information on SC Division of Fire and Life Safety current events, policies, laws and procedures by visiting our Web site at: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Floor Control Stations The main point is that for standard high rises, the codes and standards only require a single riser. Very Tall High Rises (420 ft) are a unique beast. The IFC requires these tall buildings to have 2 risers per zone. Not 100% sure but I don't think they mean each floor is a zone. The same section says Each riser shall supply sprinklers on alternate floors. A lot of these building going up in parts of the Middle East but not hearing about any here in the USA. Any one involved with one? Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/ On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:55 AM, David Blackwell david.blackw
RE: Underground Piping Under Slab
Highly desirable is an understatement I assume? I'm just hoping this is a typographical thing. I sent an email to NFPA earlier this week on this - no response yet. So many more things could be done to make the online subscription more useful like having errata noted and having TIAs noted and linking all text changes directly to the ROP/ROC or whatever these are called now and maybe more. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 3:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Underground Piping Under Slab NFPA has at least temporarily stopped flagging the sections that have changed. Not sure how long this will continue. IT has been expressed pretty loudly that having the changes identified is highly desirable. Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/ On Feb 20, 2015, at 11:45 AM, David Blackwell david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov wrote: When comparing NFPA 10.6.3.1 in my hard copy versions of the code and handbook, I noticed that while the language of 10.6.3.1 has changed in the 2013 edition to clarify the 10 ft distance, but the section was not marked as new in either the printed code, the handbook or the PDF version available through NFPA All-Access... Respectfully, David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFPE, CFI I Chief Engineer Office of State Fire Marshal SC Department of Labor, Licensing, Regulation, 141 Monticello Trail, Columbia, SC 29203 Telephone: 803.896.9800 [Office] 803.896.9833 [Direct] Fax: 803.896.9806 [Office] Email: david.blackw...@llr.sc.gov Website: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ Please note that you can sign up to receive automatic information on SC Division of Fire and Life Safety current events, policies, laws and procedures by visiting our Web site at: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Underground Piping Under Slab 10.6.3.1* (13 Ed.) The requirements of 10.6.2(2) and 10.6.2(3) shall not apply where fire service mains enter under the building no more than 10 ft (3 m) as measured from the outside edge of the building to the center of the vertical pipe. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Underground Piping Under Slab The new NFPA exception formatting is interesting. 10.6.1 categorically states not to do something, yet 10.6.2 allows it. Elimination of 10.6.1 seems the thing to do and would not change the intent. After all it's impossible to meet 10.6.1 unless you put the stub up in an exterior enclosure and route it through the exterior wall. Even the language in 10.6.3 is an exception to 10.6.1. How much inside the building is too much? If this is important it should be submitted as a Building, Plumbing, Mechanical Code change and removed from NFPA 13. So, like we see on TV, you should now clarify your meeting comments to say what you really meant was that as long as the plumbing inspector is OK with the special precautions so are you. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Underground Piping Under Slab I understand it's not typical to run the fire main under the building slab but if it's a must there are some precautions that must be taken as shown in 10.6.2 (2007). My question is are the (3) provisions that are mentioned all required or as a bare minimum? I'm working on a project and the architect has located the riser room in the center of the building, approximately 15' from the outside wall. I brought it to their attention that it's not the best idea and provided them the above code reference. Instead of appreciating the heads up I'm now the redheaded step child, go figure. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.comhttp://bvssystemsinc.com/ Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 ___ 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
RE: Underground Piping Under Slab
The new NFPA exception formatting is interesting. 10.6.1 categorically states not to do something, yet 10.6.2 allows it. Elimination of 10.6.1 seems the thing to do and would not change the intent. After all it's impossible to meet 10.6.1 unless you put the stub up in an exterior enclosure and route it through the exterior wall. Even the language in 10.6.3 is an exception to 10.6.1. How much inside the building is too much? If this is important it should be submitted as a Building, Plumbing, Mechanical Code change and removed from NFPA 13. So, like we see on TV, you should now clarify your meeting comments to say what you really meant was that as long as the plumbing inspector is OK with the special precautions so are you. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Underground Piping Under Slab I understand it's not typical to run the fire main under the building slab but if it's a must there are some precautions that must be taken as shown in 10.6.2 (2007). My question is are the (3) provisions that are mentioned all required or as a bare minimum? I'm working on a project and the architect has located the riser room in the center of the building, approximately 15' from the outside wall. I brought it to their attention that it's not the best idea and provided them the above code reference. Instead of appreciating the heads up I'm now the redheaded step child, go figure. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.comhttp://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
RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops RETORT (resend)
Sorry, it appears only the dry type can be replaced, but it still looks like you can remove the drop (including the head) and replace it. I thought I saw an exception for flex heads too. Maybe this could be clarified further. So sprinklers removed for NFPA 25 inspection procedures and dry sprinklers can be replaced, but other sprinklers can't? Even though the same people are handling all of them? I don't see how these exceptions make sense. I'm pretty much old school on most things but what would allow ANY sprinkler to be replaced given the bucket of heads argument? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:54 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops RETORT Agree - here's my question where's the data or experience this is a problem? For 15 years I was either the FPE for St. Paul or a sprinkler contractor. In St. Paul I personally went to about 90% of the sprinkler activations and as a contractor we were small enough I knew of everything we did. Not once did I have any reason to believe a false discharge was caused by a repositioned head whether removed from it's fitting or not. I have to believe there were 10's of thousands of heads moved in this period. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 8:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Relocate sprinklers with drops RETORT It sure seems like a waste of resources to me. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 6, 2015, at 6:49 PM, rfletc...@aerofire.com rfletc...@aerofire.com wrote: Like shipping, unpacking and installation only applies the proper and necessary stress for the sprinkler to operate as intended. Or maybe the engineering is so precise that the sprinkler can only stand the rigors of being threaded into a fitting once and then it's useless. Or maybe there are sprinkler manufacturers reps on the 13 committee that know how fragile and un-robust sprinklers are? Why would you build something could only be threaded in once? I'm glad they don't manufacture pipe or fittings. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone On Feb 6, 2015, at 4:43 PM, John Denhardt jdenha...@stricklandfire.com wrote: Mark - well said. I totally agree. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 6, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. masorn...@kfi-eng.com wrote: My two cents is that it is not only the potential stress to the sprinkler from removal/replacement, but the potential for damage during handling. This is especially true for QR sprinklers. From the EOR perspective, I have them replaced with new regardless of if it could be kept in a drop. I understand there may be differing perspectives when you are in a competitive bid that doesn't address the issue, or you have an owner griping about every dollar spent. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of accentf...@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 4:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Relocate sprinklers with drops RETORT Good afternoon, All: I thought a previous discussion revealed that currently IF the sprinkler stays in the RC, weld-o-let, fitting, etc., then it can be reinstalled if the sprinkler has not actually been removed from the original fitting/outlet. I believe the concern was the amount of 'stress' applied to the sprinkler when trying to remove it - and possible damage resulting from the 'torque'. Previously, everyone seemed to be on board with this approach. Cordially- Jerry _accentfire@aol.com_ (mailto:accentf...@aol.com) *Jerry D. Watts, SFPE President Co-Founder ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd.** Santa Fe, New Mexico USA (800) 503.1961 nationwide *New Mexico Journeyman Sprinklerfitter Lic. #08228 **Licensed Fire Protection Engineers - Architects/Inspectors/Fire Investigators: AZ CA CO NM NV NY TX UT KS MD MS In a message dated 2/6/2015 2:04:42 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, pe...@waynefire.com writes: Based on the 2nd draft, this is what the 2016 language will say unless it is Successfully NITMAM ed 6.2.1.1* When a sprinkler is removed from a fitting or welded outlet, it shall not be reinstalled except as permitted by 6.2.1.1.1. 6.2.1.1.1 Dry sprinklers shall be permitted
RE: day of questions - Hangars
I specify the area increase for the excessive slope. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars This must be one of those design features of a hangar where the fire, the building and the sprinkler system realize it isn't a NFPA 13 design and the sprinklers operate differently (quicker and more effectively) with a slope exceeding 2 in 12 then they do for a sprinkler system installed in a different building with a slope exceeding 2 in 12, right? We always require the thirty percent increase because why would it be any different unless the original specified design area included the increase already? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001x12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: day of questions - Hangars
Yes, I'm also referencing the ETL. Have you had your opinion confirmed by MED FPE? I've never considered the ceiling slope provisions to be a density issue. So maybe I've been an overly conservative designer. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Bill - as Chris just pointed out, The Air Force ETL (which this thread is discussing) references NFPA 13, but not for design densities. Because the ETL defines the design densities, you cannot get to the sloped ceiling requirements of NFPA 13 because they fall under the design densities section of 13, which we are not referencing. Apparently - absent the specific requirement by the ETL to increase design areas - the Air Force considers sloped ceiling to be a non-issue in a high-ex foam / overhead sprinkler system design (or that it is adequately addressed with the 5,000 sq.ft. design area). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars I specify the area increase for the excessive slope. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars This must be one of those design features of a hangar where the fire, the building and the sprinkler system realize it isn't a NFPA 13 design and the sprinklers operate differently (quicker and more effectively) with a slope exceeding 2 in 12 then they do for a sprinkler system installed in a different building with a slope exceeding 2 in 12, right? We always require the thirty percent increase because why would it be any different unless the original specified design area included the increase already? Scott Office: (763) 425-1001x12 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: day of questions - Hangars Chris - The ETL references NFPA 13 409 at the beginning; then under the sprinkler design section (A1.3.1.1) it references NFPA 13. I don't see a statement NOT to increase design areas (though my experience has been that we do not on these Air Force jobs - just don't recall under what authority). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.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 __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Massive fire burning at Edgewater apartment complex | NJ.com
Exactly correct, public policy normally follows disastrous events. In the PA Fire and Panic Act days there was a huge fire which destroyed a shopping mall. Although it had a huge impact on the community in terms of jobs and revenue, it was a successful code event in that no one died. It will be interesting to see if a 13 system would have mitigated the damage in this case. In hindsight the cost of a 13 system would seem to be pretty economical for this property, but when you multiply the 13 cost by every property in the state this still might be a cost effective code success. Therefore no need to adjust your regulations. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Massive fire burning at Edgewater apartment complex | NJ.com Pedestal 13R. This is typical of the special provisions section. I did a presentation at the NJ league of municipalities in 2013 on this type of construction noting particularly where the measurements are taken (two different places, ie height and stories). Fact is unprotected lightweight wood frame (5B) and 13R are all about risk tolerance, ie what's acceptable. If occupants getting out safely but losing the building is, then the paradigm worked. Its really a matter of public policy. IBC special provisions, NFPA 13R is just that. Hey I'm a firefighter/fire protection guy, concrete 1A, NFPA 13, 14, 20, non combustible furnishings, smoke detection, notification, etc etc works for me, then again I'm not writing the check. We will see how public policy shapes our building and fire codes going forward. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: John: Photos seem to show a 4-story type 5 with attic over a concrete podium. Is that the configuration? Do we know if it was 13? 13R? Looks like the classic roof burn-off; I wonder if draftstops were compromised, or even installed? Lots and LOTS of questions ... SL -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of John Drucker Sent: Wed 1/21/2015 7:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Massive fire burning at Edgewater apartment complex | NJ.com http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2015/01/crews_battling_fire_at_edgewater_ apartment_complex.html#incart_m-rpt-1 John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.orgmailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org Cell/Text 732-904-6823 ___ 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: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill
I see some worms peeking through the lid of the can. Is this going to spiral us down the EOR hole again or is this another hole occupied by sprinkler designers/contractors? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill 1.7 New Technology Nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements... Based on the recently discussed conservative committee actions I would think that anything in the later editions of 13 should be allowed as an alternate arrangement. Say something in 2002 edition that was later proved to be wrong through full scale testing. Would you force a licensed contractor to install it wrong because the AHJ hasn't adopted the standard with the new data with the corrections? Or as a licensed contractor would you knowingly install something that has been proven to be wrong by today's standards because it was okay in the 2002 editionRon F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill There are two lines of reasoning I have seen on matters such as this: 1.We aren't following the newer NFPA 13 - period. 2.The newer standard may have what the NFPA committee believes to be the best criteria, but the ICC and our local codes folks have not weighed in on the changes to the standard. Therefore, we cannot accept those 'clarifications.' WE may KNOW that the changes won't affect the future code revisions; but the AHJ doesn't know and most times won't take the chance. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 7:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill We are bound to NFPA 13 (2002). We have an ECHSW above the door in a room. On the opposite wall is a window and sill that does not create an additional floor area. There is a built in cabinet that partially obstructs the window sill and creates a shadow of 2 sq.ft. between the cabinet and the window over the window sill. We informed the AHJ that per NFPA 13 (2007) 8.5.3.2.4 sprinklers are spaced to walls and not windows if they do not create additional floor area. We also pointed to NFPA 13 (2013) 8.1.1(3) A.8.1.1(3) which indicate shadow areas are acceptable so long as the other obstruction guidelines are followed. The AHJ stated they cannot accept the newer standard clarifications on this issue. Is there something I am missing in NFPA 13 (2002) that states this design is acceptable? Thanks, Sean ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.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: Cloud Ceiling Article in Sprinkler Age (Get Involved)
Brad, you need to 1) start submitting proposals and comments during the NFPA Standards cycle, and/or 2) apply for a seat on one of the Technical Committees. It is an awakening process to see the way a typical committee operates. In my experience there is a handful of opinion leaders on each committee who drive the process forward. It's best to figure out who these individuals are and attempt to understand their motivations. The process is set up to make it difficult to overturn committee actions. This is good or bad depending on your point of view. All this said, it is actually possible to affect a change if you are persistent. The NFPA website has all the proposals and comments for each Standard, along with the committee action. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 9:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Cloud Ceiling Article in Sprinkler Age Good Article by Tom Wellen in current Sprinkler Age. Tom did the original modeling in 2000, and came up with max gap width 8 (to not need heads above). The recent tests and modeling confirmed that, but showed it was reasonable to extend it to allow 1 gap width per foot of ceiling height, so at 12'-0 ceiling height the gap between clouds could be 12 and not need heads above. There are other rules that apply. I found it disturbing that the TC decided to go conservative after all that and say 8 max gap width PERIOD. That really gives the Architects a lot of leeway in the design phase... (frigging) NOT! Design by Committee. That is something to NITMAM if I ever did see one, and I will if I get a chance. Is there somewhere I can see whom voted for what on this issue, a link or something? I've been stewing over this for a few days now, and it doesn't help to 'talk it out'. Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ 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: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in?
Another case of the difference between when required and how to do it. The International Mechanical Code (2012) Sections 510 (Hazardous Exhaust Systems) and Section 511 (Dust, Stock and Refuse Conveying Systems) provide guidance on this. Again, it shouldn't be up to a sprinkler contractor to figure out whether sprinklers should be installed but only to install per the appropriate standard. As with most of these issues, we don't know if there is a design professional on this job or whether your regular customer has just installed a new process and has called you to do what's required. At a minimum you should have a copy of the IMC which is enforced for this location. So, someone (you??) must assess the installation per IMC Section 510/511 from end to end. There is a suppression system reference in Section 510.7. Some determination needs to be made as to whether the materials are nonflammable and noncombustible under all conditions and at any concentration then make the call on suppression. The entire exhaust system must be engineered to meet the performance characteristics in the IMC. Of course, local code amendments will govern as well as any local AHJ, insurance requirements etc. Sprinkler contractors have a long history of being the can-do guys, with no good way to transfer scope responsibility to the right place. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and ductwork? Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in?
Again, without any information about which codes are in effect, you should start with the IMC as I indicated earlier. No one on this list can actually give you an answer, and, as Ron has shown, sprinklering everything is not always the correct answer. Craig's response is pretty much what is necessary. In the absence of other information, perhaps you will have to hire someone to make the assessment. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? There is no ME for the project and the HVAC contractor who is providing it brought up the question on whether sprinklers are required. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? Quite honestly you should throw this back to the owner/GC to have a mechanical engineer or vendor determine what is required per code. There are several conditions to be considered. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and ductwork? Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ 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 bracing
Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just a preference of the local AHJ ? One way to do this would be to ask the AHJ. This is something AHJ's are supposed to know. It is unusual for an AHJ to put himself/herself in the middle between yourself and the building owner by dictating building code requirements. It is actually the Owner's responsibility (with advice from the design professional's team) to figure this out. However, you are being given some good advice by others regarding the process involved. The IBC, along with ASCE 7, will provide the basis for the SDC C advice and there could be a state or local code amendment which supplements the IBC. Being your project is in NC it's likely the IBC is used, but there could be other jurisdictions where there is no adopted code or else it isn't the IBC or a current edition of the IBC. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Sorrell Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Seismic bracing I need some help with a seismic problem. I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are using the 2000 ed of NFPA 13. There is no seismic bracing on this system. I have had to add some new main in various areas. The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler main will need to be braced. Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just a preference of the local AHJ ? Obviously I am trying to avoid installing the seismic bracing on this project. Stephen J. Sorrell, CET NICET# 77901 Level III E mail: ssorr...@performancefire.commailto:ssorr...@performancefire.com Performance Fire Protection, LLC Corporate Office 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 Mooresville, NC 28117 Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 Web: www.performancefire.comhttp://www.performancefire.com Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL Performance on Every Level. ___ 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
Simultaneous Fires
Has anyone had a design which considered the possibility of a fire in a diesel pump house simultaneous with a fire in the protected property? (Buildings are adequately separated). The thought would be an upset condition occurs with the pump while it is doing its job and a diesel fuel fire is generated. I've never been down this road before but there's always a something new out there to discover. Bill Brooks ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ?
Do these flow models know when a valve is closed? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:48 AM To: craig.pr...@ch2m.com; masorn...@kfi-eng.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? Now that I understand the intent of the topic ... Ironically, this underscores something that's somewhat controversial and is a current topic in the NFPA 14 revision cycle, i.e. currency of flow tests and the use of flow models in lieu of open port flow testing. If you're dealing with a water agency that has their system(s) modeled, or uses a third party to run flow models, it can be determined with a very high level of accuracy just how much flow (and at what velocity) a particular leg or main will produce. Craig's point about a single 8 not likely producing 4,000 gpm may be true, but two or three 8 legs of a municipal grid certainly can and that's where extrapolation of flow test results or the use of a model can help a fire official determine whether a particular water supply is capable of delivering the require fire flow to particular parcel. BTW Mark Sornsin, I've already heard about this from others so if you want to make fun of me anymore the line forms over there. SL -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:41 AM To: masorn...@kfi-eng.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? I understand the purpose of the 20 psi value. I have seen 20 psi values that in no way would flow. 4000 gpm+ though an 8 water main, or a flow value not achievable by the municipal water supply. My point is there is a danger in posting non-verified values in a flow report. If you want to know what's available at 20 psi then flow the system until it bottoms out at 20 psi then you have factual data. Otherwise when it's needed most that fictional 4000 gpm may only actually be half or less. In the midst of a fire fight, is not the time to find out reality and extrapolation are not the same. Now I realize that most project do not require large flow rates, so it's typically not a big deal. In the industrial world, it's a big deal. We had a large project, water department did a flow test on a single hydrant butt with less than 1000 gpm flowing, extrapolated the curve out and modeled the water supply to the site which indicated we would have sufficient flow and pressures for our system. When the final pump test was performed the flow rate was not there, not even close, the water department had assured the owner of a robust water supply. In actuality, they had a lot of water but their modeling was flawed and their test inconclusive due to extrapolation and not actual verification. The owner had to add an above ground suction tank which delayed occupancy of the facility. Facts are facts and extrapolations are nothing but a good guess in many cases. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.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
Patterson Fire Pumps
Looking for a link to the Patterson fire pump selections - not just sales brochures. Looking for diesel drive, 2500 gpm options. Thank you. Bill Brooks ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Fire Pump Electrical Service
Are you saying the utility is not supplying the correct voltage and a transformer is needed between the pump controller and the primary service disconnect? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Don Lowry Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 1:11 PM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: Fire Pump Electrical Service References from NFPA-20 (2010 edition) Situation: Fire Pump to be installed on ESFR system (75 hp) electric motor. 9.2.2 (1) or (5) On down through Chapter 9 to; 9.2.3.4 Where the overcurrent protection permitted by 9.2.3 is installed, the overcurrent protection device shall be rated to carry indefinitely the sum of the locked rotor current of the fire pump motor(s) and the pressure maintenance pump motor( s) and the full-load current of the associated fire pump accessory equipment. OK, so the locked rotor current is 543 amps, plus jockey pump, lights, heat, etc added would require a 600 amp over current protective device. This is what the Engineer and I determined would be the requirement for this dedicated service to the fire pump. When the engineer submitted his electrical service plan (600 amp service) to the city, the City Plan Reviewer states that we don't need a 600 amp service, but rather a 125 amp service. In reading through Article 695.4 of the NEC. It states: Where the locked rotor current value does not correspond to a standard overcurrent device size, the next standard overcurrent device size shall be used in accordance with 240.6. The requirement to carry the locked rotor currents indefinitely shall not apply to conductors or devices other than overcurrent devices in the fire pump motor circuits. So, does this mean that the service itself (transformer) and related conductors can be per normal size (125 amp) with just a 600 amp fuse in the disconnect before the controller? In 30 + years this is the first time I have ever been asked about this. Before I was only asked about pump size etc , and when installed and checked at pump start-up there was indeed a fuse of appropriate size in the service disconnect. So I assumed all was correct. I'm just wanting to make sure the Engineer and I understand the requirements for the actual electrical service provided. I know it's not my area of expertise, nor my responsibility, just curious. Thanks in advance for any help. Don Lowry, CET, RME (TX) ___ 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: 1978 NFPA 13 question
This would have been based on NFPA 231, 1974 edition. Class III storage, 25 ft high. Basic density of 0.19 over 4000 but a 140% density multiplier for 25 ft storage. In those days Class III was wood, paper, natural fiber cloth or products thereof with or without pallets. Products contain a limited amount of plastics. Metal bicycles with plastic handles, pedals, seats and tires is an example of a commodity with a limited amount of plastic. 500 hose, not sure about the 600 number. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:33 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: 1978 NFPA 13 question I'm looking for the definition of what was covered by an Ordinary Hazard Group 3 classification based on the 1978 NFPA 13. I have a warehouse designed at .26/4000 with 600 gpm hose stream allowance, Ordinary Hazard Group 3. It was a preaction system with area heat detection. (non-heated whse). Trying to figure out what the EOR was basing the design on as far as anticipated type of storage. 25 ft high piled (no racks), 35 ft high ceiling. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Pre-fabbed Hangers and Drops
This is not the why group. This is the follow-the-rules group, which includes engineers, educators, AHJs, designers, installers, and manufacturers, because NFPA 13 is a rule book and not an engineering guide. If you want to reach the why group, submit Proposals to the NFPA 13 committee during the Proposal period, or begin sending Comments during the Comment period. By doing this you will get direct feedback in the form of Committee Responses directly addressing your concerns. Send them your good ideas, then challenge them all the way to the Standards Council if you wish. You sound like the kind of person who would enjoy the jousting. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pre-fabbed Hangers and Drops True enough! Actually, there are quite a few ceiling height changes and surface mounted lights and other fixtures. Thank you very much Vince. You are one of the few whom did not reply to my Why? why? why? with DONT WORRY ABOUT IT JUST DO IT -Original Message- From: Vince Sabolik [mailto:vi...@wtfp.net] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Pre-fabbed Hangers and Drops Very Obvious = Target Hell, Brad even I can remember that far back. And no, I'm proud of you as I am all my chillun On 3/13/2014 1:29 PM, Brad Casterline wrote: I want it to be very obvious to the students that their dormitory is sprinklered, and if they get to horsing around too much and break one, they will all go off and flood the place. Once they graduate I will set them straight. Thanks Vince, my mentor*, I knew I could count on you. Brad *i hope you are not ashamed of that-- I am not your fault! :) ! -Original Message- From: Vince Sabolik [mailto:vi...@wtfp.net] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Pre-fabbed Hangers and Drops I think it'll work fine. Why deep plates? Vince ___ 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: Pump House Controls
What do you have to say about a triple pump arrangement with 7500 gpm total capacity being fed by a 10 supply? Wouldn't this mean the system was designed for 2500 gpm demand? Maybe I'm missing some other information about the existing set-up. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Pump House Controls I have a question regarding how you guys would control this. Outside pump house with aboveground tank, 500,000 gal. Three diesel drive fire pumps in parallel from 10 tank supply to 10 yard supply. All three pumps are rated at 2500 GPM but different pressure ratings. I have no design information right now but it's a record storage facility, 50' high piles of paper, fwiw. I'm looking at replacing one of the pumps, the oldest and original, I'll call it pump #1. Pump #1, original 1971 is a 10x8 rated for 2500@125 PSI. Pump #2 was replaced in 2003, same model 10x8, nice tier 2, 2500@125. Check. Pump #3 was replaced in 1994, same model 10x8, but 2000@65. Huh? Jockeys are dual vertical turbine, 100@140. Check. If I work under the premise of direct replacement and quote a 2500@125, tier 3 or 4, how would you guys balance these pumps for lead to lag with a pump so small compared to the rest? Pump #2 becomes the lead pump and #1 and #3 fall in 10# each behind? TD ___ 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 bracing calcs
Exactly. Unless your drawing which shows those little criss-cross arrows are accompanied by calculations AND unless your calculations are acceptable to the project structural engineer, then you do not have a complete package that's ready for installation. As we've seen for many years on this forum, sprinkler contractors have been assuming the responsibility of architects and various types of engineers, and even the owners themselves by worrying about what they intend to put in their swimming pools when they drain it (just as an example!). Mostly out of necessity and really bad performance design documents. I sympathize with all of you who want to do things right but are faced with a tangle of ineptitude by so many others. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:13 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: seismic bracing calcs How do you locate per 13? How do you know what you did will work? How do you know that 1 x 34 brace at 37 degrees to side of a beam doesn't need to be shorter, at a different angle, or a 1 1/4 brace, without doing calcs? 13 only tells you the general and minimal places where the braces need to go, lateral and longitudinal, but you ned to do the work and then prove it. Why then would you not include the calcs in your submittal? On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Forest Wilson Fire Sprinkler Contractor forest_wil...@aol.com wrote: Locate per 13 and send a calc sheet only if required in plan review. Forest Wilson Fire Sprinkler Contractor 937-736-0425 Notice: This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. Original message From: rongreenman . rongreen...@gmail.com Date:02/20/2014 11:36 AM (GMT-05:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: seismic bracing calcs From the Piemontesi to the greasy Sicilian, with molte amore. I won't hold it against you that your family is from the rock of hell in the Med 'cause you always explain the problem so clearly. And Letyon's OK too. On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Right - all of the above. We put the calc's on our detail sheet(s) next to enlarged sketches of the proposed anchorage. Steve L. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs Both... Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:27 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: seismic bracing calcs Seismic design category C, contractor submittal package, Do you provide a calc sheet for EQ bracing or just locate per NFPA 13 and send typical catalog data sheets? FM Global project, BTW. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin kler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin kler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon
RE: seismic bracing calcs
I have specified the shop drawings and bracing calculations be submitted to the project structural engineer to confirm the adequacy of the attachment point to resist the loading. Is this a common practice? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs And we haven't gotten approval for a document set without including all of those things in, like, forever.Standards of care and regional best practices ... Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:37 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs Steven, I have never received a contractor shop drawing that covered things to the detail you describe. It's often a wonder to get the basic information on the drawings like pipe elevations and hangers let alone anything to the depth you describe. I don't disagree with your statement just saying, I've never seen it happen. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steven Scandaliato Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs Wait...hold on...just to make sure, and Craig I am sure you probably know this...BUT we have a lot more than just calcs for braces that have to be addressed. We have 4 other design features that have to be addressed. Cplgs, clearance, separation and restraint. This is a weakest link kinda thing...so just because we have braced a system does not mean it is designed for seismic...we have to put flex and rigid cplgs where they go, we have to show that we have accounted for clearance where it applies, we have to acknowledge that there is no separation required if applicable and we have to show and space b'line restraint. Seismic design demands its own sheets and symbols and sheet installation notes etc. Do not try and pile all of this onto an already unreadable piping plan. EOR or Shop design, all of these categories must be addressed in the documentsand by the way, putting 4-ways and every change of direction is not a design feature required or intended by 9.3. I see a lot of contractors do that thinking they are in compliance. This may be a great cost saver or standardized thing you want to do with your fitters but it does not automatically put you in compliance with 9.3just sayin. One other note while I am on this, we all need to pay better attention to restraint. I still have many AHJs and contractors alike that haven't heard of it. If seismic is required then restraint is required. This isn't optional. And pay attention to the spacing requirements for it. Many, including myself, have fallen into the end of line mentality and think that is the only place we have to have it...but if you have long branchlines, you definitely will have more than end of line locations. With Sicilian Love, Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS 520.971.2322 Cell Skype: steven.scandaliato -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: seismic bracing calcs Cliff's opinion is right. On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Cliff Whitfield cl...@fire-design.comwrote: Craig, If you don't calc it, how do you know it works? That would be like sending in drawings with 'hydraulically calculated pipe sizes' with no hydraulic calcs to prove the sizes are correct. Just not happening. A lot of 'East Coast' contractors/designers (I fit in that category even though I now live in Colorado) just show braces on their drawings but it's not even close to being the correct way to do it. They need to take the time to learn from the AFSA classes that Ken Wagonner and others do so that they can do it right. I've had to take it 3 times because I don't use it very often and it easy to forget without the repetition but it's just something you have to do if you are doing your job correctly. Simply my opinion (but I think it's right!) Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
NFPA 13 Future Development
Perhaps a question for Roland or other committee members. What is the big picture with regard to the coordination of FM 2-0, 8-9, etc. with NFPA 13? Are we going to see two competing sprinkler standards in a few years? Will the sprinkler requirements in NFPA 30 be merged with NFPA 13 at some point? Bill Brooks ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Transfer Switch Tests
Not covered on the AFSA webinar either. One of my recurring concerns for the NFPA system is the ratio of People Who Get Paid for Stuff / People Who Actually Pay for Stuff. NFPA 25 is about 10 to 1 but can you consider large organization reps in the category of payers? That would be GSA rep, VA rep, DOE rep, and Home Depot rep. The Home Depot rep made the presentation so I'd assume there is more (or less) to this than meets the eye. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 11:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Transfer Switch Tests From the 25 - 2014 ROP 25-187 Log #249 Final Action: Accept in Principle (8.3.3.4(3) (New) ) ___ Submitter: John Whitney, Clarke Fire Protection Products, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to add; Verify that pump continues to perform at peak load on the alternate power source for 10 minutes or 30 minutes if alternate power source is a standby generator set. Substantiation: During annual tests it is only appropriate that the alternate power source also be tested to assure that circuits and generators be tested to confirm they perform under peak load. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add peak horsepower before load. Verify that pump continues to perform at peak horsepower load on the alternate power source for 10 minutes for a alternate utility or 30 minutes if the alternate power source is a standby generator set. Committee Statement: Clarifies that a standby generator requires a 30 minute test while carrying peak electric motor fire pump horsepower load. Number Eligible to Vote: 33 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 33 WOW! - No negative votes! No comments! John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Transfer Switch Tests All of a sudden, flow meters piped back to suction (or suction tank) look like a good thing - at least when you need to test transfer switches. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Transfer Switch Tests Can't be every year, really? I think (or hope) that's a misprint because flowing 150% for 30 minutes is beyond ridiculous. No, there is no other way to put peak load on the driver other than to pump. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Transfer Switch Tests Agree every year. But what about the 30 minutes flowing water. Is there another way to simulate peak load? Sent from my Motorola Smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint! -Original message- From: Tom ihaveakub...@yahoo.com To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sent: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 18:36:03 EDT Subject: Re: Transfer Switch Tests Tom, Not sure if you are referring to annual testing (NFPA 25) or acceptance testing (NFPA 20) ? If NFPA 25 I believe the transfer test is required annually not every 3 years. Tom ___ 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 __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
RE: Hazard classification
Take it from me - it is a small sum, generally some percentage of the overall construction cost as doled out by the architect. For some reason we can do performance sprinkler design but the plumbers still draw piping diagrams showing the cold on the right and the hot on the left. Why that can't be performance I'm not sure. (It's Friday) Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hazard classification I've shared this before I think, but it seems apt again: I once pursued an A/E project where I felt the owner was seeking actual engineering from the engineer of record for the fire sprinkler system. I suggested to our team that we propose doing just that and sell ourselves as providing a complete design for the sprinkler contractors to bid apples-to-apples. The mechanical engineer on the team (from a different company) suggested that taking on the design of the sprinkler system might be taking on too much risk/liability (after all, MEs are used to performance specs - usually without the performance part - my words not his). That solidified my understanding of the MEs' approach to fire sprinkler systems. Not sure how they justify receiving payment for what they provide (unless it's a really small sum). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Craig Leadbetter Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hazard classification Dwight, I love the optimism that there is actually a spec to look at that says more than provide a system per code. No mention of commodities types on the plans and if I asked I have sure I would get the deer in the head lights look. This has been great discussion on this topic, it confirms that my area of the country is not the only one that provides more questions than answers. I believe that most systems we see are under analyzed from a fire suppression stand point. Most engineers appear to be so afraid to put anything in writing when it comes to fire protection that we generally get an X through the drawings with a note to provide per all codes and insurance requirements, and add any additional heads at no cost to the owner. Craig Leadbetter _ ___ 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: BK Design
Wouldn't 634 sq ft be partial? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 12:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: BK Design Trying to figure out if you are disagreeing with Curtis other than the reference to latest code. You are right you follow the code in effect as to whether you need sprinklers. So there are differences in which edition in whether they are required. But if not required and you choose to go over and above you are still obligated to follow the referenced standard (and year) of the adopted code. See IFC 2006 (and '03 and I still think it's in '12) 901.4.2 Nonrequired fire protection systems. Any fire protection system or portion thereof not required by this code or the International Building Code shall be allowed to be furnished for partial or complete protection provided such installed system meets the requirements of this code and the International Building Code. So you can't do a 634 sq ft system. Now there is a question about doing above the ceiling with the phrase for partial...but generally AHJ's rule either all of 13 or no sprinkler (when allowed to be non-sprinklered). Could one say they are doing a full 13 design below the ceiling or I suppose the same question is if you only do 634 sq ft in the building then you have a 634 sq ft design (notwithstanding the phantom design area if in the '13 13). Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: BK Design Curtis, You're obligated to design to the current adopted code of the jurisdiction which may or may not be the latest codes and standards. And if this building is a stand alone of 5000 sqft, with an occupancy of 100 it doesn't need to be sprinklered at all per IBC (see requirements for an A-2 occupancy). If the applicable building code is IBC 2003 (I think it changed in 2006 but maybe 2009--the prior threshold being 12K sqft and 300 people), or some earlier version, or one of the other model codes from the Twentieth Century, or any code amended upon adoption by a state legislature, or an amended municipal or county code (acceptable in home rule states), or the code adopted in a major city, requirements can be wholly different either requiring more or less protection. If BK has chosen to provide what is essentially a volunteer life safety type system to provide customers added egress protection in case of emergency (pretty standard thinking in A and R type occupancies in the late seventies, through the eighties and into the early nineties) in an otherwise non-required building I applaud them. That it hasn't been revisited by the corporation since 1978 is troubling but it's their decision. Personally I feel I'm pretty savvy as to how a fire works and what threat I'm exposed to in the dining area of a stand alone corporate fast food joint, and don't even give it a second thought as to where I sit other than noting where the exits are. Now if it's in a strip mall or a high rise or a full mall it's going to be fully sprinklered because of the type of building it's in, first and foremost because these buildings will already be sprinklered (at least relatively new ones), and secondly because it poses a greater exposure threat to it's neighbors, not necessarily its customers. More prevalent on the fire alarm forum than here is an attitude of' If a little is good, then the most is best. This is eventually self defeating as other interests have larger stakes in buildings than fire guys and fire protection contractors , and the concept of cost/benefit and diminishing returns has to be considered from the customers' point of view. The engineers are supposed to be doing this, but while the design/build model is prevalent it's incumbent upon the contractors and techs to study up on this stuff and incorporate it into their thought processes. I'm not directing these comments at you Curtis, even though it was your comment that put me on this track, but rather just in general. Nothing makes my head explode more than a spec calling for a double-interlock pre-action system covering a closet with a single rack of five or six PC type servers. Not only an unnecessary expense in this case but the wrong system, spec'd because someone thought if single-action is good double-action must be better. Damn it Jim, I'm no accountant but even I know it's cheaper
RE: BK Design
Perhaps a non-required system if bldg fire area 5000 or 100 person occupant loading (2012 IBC 903.2.1.2). Then 901.2 Exception would say a system is permitted to be installed for partial or complete protection provided that such system meets the requirements of this code. I'd say a letter to the contractor would be the next step, referring to the code sections above. Meets the requirements could be broadly interpreted to mean sprinklering only a part of the building, selecting materials per NFPA 13, spacing heads per NFPA 13, or some other selection of requirements from NFPA 13. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:58 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: BK Design I'm working on a Burger King. I've never done a BK before, so what I'm about to describe seems ridiculous. The design criteria is based on a PE proto type from 1978. This is what the contractor was given and told to use as spec. There are combustible concealed spaces above ceilings throughout premises, but no sprinkler protection is to be provided. The design criteria is 6 sprinklers over 653 sf in the dining area. To be calc'ed light hazard. That's it. Has anyone out here in forum land provided the system for a BK lately? What was required/done? Thanks, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: George L. Church, Jr.
Some guy from Anchor Fire Protection introduced me to the list back in 1998. My response was something like maybe you should switch to decaf. Not knowing George well at the time I had no idea about his passion for things which extended way beyond his job - like his continuing support for this list and the AFSA. There's nobody out there who could get things done like George. Impossible situations could be reduced to solutions in a single phone call and the next day implemented in the field. I had the privilege to work for George as a reviewer on a number of projects years ago. What I found to be surprising was his ability to say OK we'll take care of it no matter what the deadline or consequence. I also know he valued his wife as a true partner inside and outside the office - something all of us attempt but are not always successful in achieving. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ken Holsopple Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: George L. Church, Jr. Dear Forumites, It is with great sorrow that I bear the news that George L. Church, Jr. past away last evening after a 16 month battle with lung cancer. George was 58 years old. George leaves behind a wife Cathy, daughter Margaret (Meg) Ames, son-in law Dave Ames, his mother and four sisters. George's sprinkler career started in 1974 with Automatic Sprinkler Corporation of America (Philly) and in 1998 started Rowe Sprinkler with his wife Cathy. As many of you know, he was a fan of this forum and an huge advocate for the fire sprinkler industry. He served on several NFPA committees and valued the many friends he made along his journey. His humor, enthusiasm, and passion for the sprinkler business will be a great loss for all of us. I will post funeral arrangements here on the forum when they become available. But in true George Church fashion and as a tribute and continuation of his last forum postI know he is licking (kicking) himself in a better place. (Sorry Mr. Muncy, but I know he wouldn't have passed this one up.) Wiping away tears as I hit the send button. Ken Holsopple Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. ___ 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
Contact
Scot, I've taken the liberty to pass your email address on to a young fire protection engineer who works for the Corps of Engineers. I just spent a month with him in Afghanistan and he is in need of some advice with respect to the relationship between US and European standards. I told him you are the best I hope I'm not exaggerating!! Thanks. His name is Drew Lange (pronounced Lang ie two syllables). Bill Brooks ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: fire pump controller detection requirement
So, if it does not have a secondary power source it would not be a Dedicated Function Fire Alarm Control Unit? I don't believe the committee had a fire pump controller in mind when this change was made. I never have thought of a fire pump controller as a component of a fire alarm system, but I'm willing to be educated. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Failla, Daniel Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:52 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' Subject: RE: fire pump controller detection requirement Tim, First I am working under the IFC 2012 that requires sprinkler systems to be electronically monitored with supervising central station. Per Section NFPA 72, 2010 10.15 and the definitions of a Fire Alarm Control Unit and Dedicated Function Fire Alarm Control Unit, a smoke detector is required to be located above the fire pump control panel. Daniel S. Failla Jr. Assistant Fire Marshal Charleston Fire Marshal's Office 75 Calhoun Street 3rd Floor Charleston, SC 29401 Office - 843 - 724 - 5960 Email: fail...@charleston-sc.gov -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Easter, Timothy Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:35 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: fire pump controller detection requirement I know smoke detectors are required within 5' of FACP/MNS panels, what about fire pump controller panels? Regards, Timothy Easter E.I.T. Graduate Fire Protection Engineer URS Corporation ___ 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: Looking for ideas- Fire Protection Engineering presentations
I like the idea of linking significant fire events to corresponding advances in fire protection and code development. Use of examples such as photos of fires that destroyed major portions of US cities (San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore - most cities have had a significant fire) and link these photos to early efforts to develop building codes. Explain the evolution of codes from the aspect of preventing the destruction of neighboring property (substantial construction materials) to where we are today in theoretically preventing multiple life loss (sprinkler system installation). Note the corresponding fire testing that has followed major fire events like fire resistance testing that began with studies of fuel loading in buildings and the development of the time/temperature curve. Maybe cite the GM fire at Livonia Michigan where the roof burned off an entire building. Then there is the Our Lady of Angels fire in Chicago that resulted in the E84 test which of course was used to classify foam plastics until we found that foam burned differently when it was installed vertically which resulted in yet another test method. I'd note the Cape Canaveral pad fire when three astronauts were killed and the resulting changes based on high oxygen concentrations. Then the 9/11 towers collapse where CFD modeling and other methods are used to explain some of the events of that day. You could look at the various testing agencies that develop new technology or products using actual fire testing. Maybe a rack test from UL or FM would be a good video clip. I'd also note the efforts of the three persons in the U.S. who have made fire protection engineering a profession. John Bryan, founder of the MD FPE program, who stayed with this program and its eventual accreditation even though he could have moved in other directions throughout his career. Bud Nelson, instigator of engineering methods, who saw the possibilities of transferring mathematical methods to prediction of fire effects and the development of performance design through the goal oriented systems approach. Rolf Jensen, who was part of the Illinois Institute of Technology program till he found the rewards of consulting following the McCormick Place fire in Chicago. For something to take home with the students, perhaps assign them the task of determining if their homes have smoke detectors, if their family has a pre-fire plan, if their smoke detectors are photoelectric or ionization, and whether they have CO detection in case of fireplaces, fuel gas appliances, or attached garages. All of this is engineering in one form or another and the idea is not to focus just on a sprinkler going off and fixing all our problems (even this would go a long way toward that end). Excuse my MD bias, I can't help myself. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Looking for ideas- Fire Protection Engineering presentations We have Engineers Week coming up in a couple of weeks and our industry has never had any representation for Fire Protection. I was wondering if anyone has done one of these type of presentations and had anything to use as a go-by? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Replacing heads after a fire
But here's a follow-up question - who is the appropriate individual to make this determination? In my opinion this is not the sprinkler contractor. Please read the word not as if I had capitalized it. Just my opinion. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Replacing heads after a fire 2 is all required in your example, well if you want to return to service. The heat cooling cycle of the glass bulbs are repeated cycles to very near operating temperature as I understand it. One more cycle if it takes 100's or more cycles won't make a difference. The first 99 are the problem. On the creep of solder its sustained temperatures near operation as I understand it. This is a problem not a single fire. On the acid - well smoke comes in all flavors. I'm certainly no chemist but with that logic why are we not replacing the structural components or the plumbing etc.? Weren't they also damaged by the acid smoke? I think where acid is an issue is in sensitive electronics. Think of the difference in surface area. And I don't understand the burn/smoke radius part. The burn radius of a sprinkler controlled fire is on the order of 1 to ten's of feet. The smoke is often the entire building. Not sure you need to go next door and replace sprinkler head to get 2 rings past, lol. What I typically see is out of an abundance of caution replace the fused heads and the first ring around. But I don't think it has any technical merit. Once the fitter is there a couple more heads is cheap to make everyone feel good. In the end I wouldn't balk if you replace the 2 and if someone pays you for more, good for you. Good discussion item. Often we don't get truly new things to banter about on this forum. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Replacing heads after a fire This was a hypothetical question asked by one of our inspectors the other day, and I did not know the answer. Thought I would see if anyone else here might know where this is written in black and white. Say you have a large room with 20+ heads, or an open warehouse area. The building is fully sprinkled, and everything else is normal / SOP. They have a fire in this room/area, and lets say, two heads activate and control the fire. The question is, how many of the heads do you have to replace? Is there a code requirements for this that exists? I found some anecdotal evidence from someone in the industry with more experience than I, but the only thing close I could find in the codes was the NFPA 25 stuff relating to loading on sprinkler heads. I looked at NFPA's list of codes online, and saw some that may have some information on this (NFPA 902 and 904) but they were withdrawn in 2001, and I cannot view them online. Obviously from a liability standpoint, you would want to replace as many of the heads as possible, if not all of them, but what if you had a 500K SQFT warehouse that was all open, would you want to replace all of them? Here's the information that I got from my friend who's been around a while. -If they're link heads, you want to probably replace all the heads, since the acids in the smoke will impact the solder -Look at the burn/smoke radius from the fire, and replace the heads around this area for the next two rings of sprinkler heads. He couldn't tell me where this came from, it was just the way it was always done. Is there a hard and fast rule for this? Is it an insurance carrier or head manufacturer judgement call? Would rapid heating and cooling cause glass bulbs to weaken or micro-fracture down the road? Thanks, Benjamin Young -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20130117/93248633/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo
RE: Maximum in-rack sprinkler spacing - plastic over 25ft
In my case the rack uprights were 10' 4 but with only two pallet loads. It caused the addition of an extra sprinkler even after much writing and attempted explaining of the rack uprights being the transverse flue. I don't think this was the intent but it sure is written this way. It's an unusual looking in-rack arrangement. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of å... Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:38 PM To: SprinklerFORUM@firesprinkler.org Subject: Maximum in-rack sprinkler spacing - plastic over 25ft Wayne: You make a good point. Per NFPA 13 in-rack sprinkler layouts, I don't perceive that a gap between pallets constitutes a formal transverse flue. I think the transverse flue is formed by the steel column of the racking structure. Wayne, you are correct in that 2007 NPFA 13 Figure 17.3.1.2(a) includes the exception-to-the-rule of having in-rack sprinklers in each transverse flue (TF) for plastic storage in open racks two-or-more-bays deep, [1] that stores commodities at heights 25+ ft.. NFPA 13 however, mitigates the reduction of in-rack sprinklers (particularly, but not exclusively) at every transverse flue. For the case of Figure 17.3.1.2(a), this mitigation calls for horizontal barriers above each level of in-rack sprinkler *with face-sprinklers*. Does our situation you are describing contain such horizontal barriers in the racking scheme? One *could* assume (at least I do) that the horizontal spacing between in rack sprinklers in Figure 17.3.1.2(a) is not to exceed 10 ft, as this is maximum width of two pallets mentioned in Note 7 of this Figure. This maximum horizontal spacing between in-rack sprinklers is enforced even if metal racking support columns are spaced greater than 10 ft apart. [1] new criteria added to this comment. scot deal Excelsior Fire On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Dewayn e Martinez deway...@dbfp.net wrote: Thanks Scot, What is confusing is that you are allowed to have more loads in the vertical as long as you don't go past 10ft spacing but nothing is mentioned for the horizontal spacing. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20130115/33812f1b/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Underwater Tank Inspection
Anyone out there been involved in a project where you conducted an underwater inspection of a tank? Did you use a diver or remote camera? I'm trying to specify such an inspection and I'm looking for some suggestions. Thanks. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Underwater Tank Inspection
The tank is 40 ft diameter, 300,000 gallons. Just trying to develop a list of steps and associated equipment and personnel needed to produce an NFPA 25 report that would be acceptable to about 99% of the AHJ population. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Underwater Tank Inspection Bill, I am curious about the application. Can you share more details about this underwater tank? Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Underwater Tank Inspection Anyone out there been involved in a project where you conducted an underwater inspection of a tank? Did you use a diver or remote camera? I'm trying to specify such an inspection and I'm looking for some suggestions. Thanks. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
NFPA 20 Shop Drawings
Seems as though there are no documentation requirements in NFPA 20 (like NFPA 13, Chapter 22) when it comes to submittals and acceptance test results. Am I missing the obvious? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: NFPA 20 Shop Drawings
My interest is general at this point. However, I am preparing a specification for a job which will require the preparation of fire pump installation documentation. I thought I'd go right to NFPA 20 to find what's needed, but it's not there as has been pointed out. Seems each NFPA Standard should have a chapter which describes the minimum amount of information needed to adequately document compliance. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 20 Shop Drawings What does the ahj have on their website? bv -Original message- From: Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thu, Dec 20, 2012 21:31:14 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: NFPA 20 Shop Drawings You're right about there not being an explicit prescriptive for pump system plans. But if I were an AHJ, I'd throw the applicable subsections of NFPA 13, Chapter 23 at the issue, such as 23.1.3(11), 23.2.1. As for detailing the pump room, that falls squarely into of 23.1.3 and the provisions for hydraulic calc's and substantiating calc's. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:24 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA 20 Shop Drawings Seems as though there are no documentation requirements in NFPA 20 (like NFPA 13, Chapter 22) when it comes to submittals and acceptance test results. Am I missing the obvious? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20121220/61b91204/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
AFSA Storage Webinar
A little AFSA cheerleading today. Yesterday the AFSA sponsored a webinar on storage applications. James Golinveaux from Tyco was the presenter. Two hours in length and worth every penny of my membership dues. First seminar where I had outstanding evaluation marks in every category and actually meant it. He had tables and flow charts and detailed comparisons of NFPA 13 and FM storage rules, along with videos. He covered the new EC applications, the 6-head designs, cautions in making sure your open racks don't turn into solid shelving because of slip ups in flue space allocation, etc. Just like George Church says, membership is a great idea. I'm in. Bill Brooks ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports
I definitely don't agree with this. Pipe racks are routinely installed in industrial settings and are used for transiting roadways and other parts of industrial sites. The piping on these racks is designed by folks who use standards other than NFPA 13. I would recommend using the equivalency provisions of Section 1.5 in this case and allowing the piping professionals the ability to provide the calculations needed. Sometimes we lose sight of this important provision. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports If the spacing of pipe rack supports does not meet the spacing requirements of the NFPA Standards you need to supplement with intermediate hangers in order to have a compliant installation. I just don't use what's given. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports I agree that you would have to follow NFPA 13/15 hanger requirements for spacing of pipe stands you are building to support pipe around like a pump set or a transformer. In the pipe rack however I think you can only use what you are given. In the past we have used flanges to join bulk pipes in the rack. Threaded branchlines hold up okay with hangers every 20 ft. Of course we did all of this back before the scientists got involved in NFPA 13 so if it was solid, wouldn't wiggle if pulled on, didn't fall down from its' own weight and didn't move when flow tested it was good enough. Ron Fletcher Aero -Phoenix -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports Whether it's a pipe stand, a hanger or pipe rack, they must conform to the spacing requirements of the applicable standard. NFPA 15(2012) 5.6 defers to NFPA 13 for hangers. I can't find any A10.4.1 in NFPA 15, 2012. So no, 20' hanger spacing is not compliant with the NFPA 13 or NFPA 15 standards. The assertions of the structural engineer are incorrect. Additionally, I would suggest looking at the installation manuals provided by the coupling manufacturers to see if they refer to any particular support spacing requirements if there is specific direction needed. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Hinson, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pipe support spacing requirements for structural supports I've got a couple projects which have pipe racks for supporting above grade firewater piping. These rack supports are spaced at 20' or more on center. From the NFPA 13 Handbook at the beginning of Chapter 9, pipestands are to have the same safety factors as hangers. NFPA 15 is suggested for additional guidance. NFPA 13 limits hanger spacing to 15'. NFPA 15 (2012) Sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.3 state that firewater piping shall be supported under fire conditions and shall be supported from steel or concrete structural members or pipestands. Do these also need to conform to the 15 ft maximum spacing? I've received this question from a structural engineer regarding the pipe support requirements for NFPA 13 (2010) Chapter 9. His assertion is that this refers to pipe stand and pipe hanger spacing requirements for piping 8 and smaller only. As such, his feeling is that there are no limits on spacing for concrete and steel support conditions other than those required per AWWA M11 4th Edition Chapter 7 and sound structural engineering design. Incidentally, NFPA 15 (2012) Section 6.3.2.2 calls out structural supports specifically as if there is some difference for their design and does not actually provide a limit. Both NFPA 20 (2010) Section 4.13.5 and NFPA 24 (2010) Section
Qualified NFPA 25 Persons
What are the qualifications for an NFPA 25 sprinkler system inspector? Seems pretty open ended to me. We routinely look for NICET qualifications for designers but what about the inspectors? I'm trying to establish a specification for NFPA 25 inspections and originally thought I'd say qualified persons per NFPA 25 but now I'm not so sure. Is there a NICET program focused on inspections? Thank you. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Draft curtain
See 2009 International Fire Code for some guidelines/requirements before you confirm the depth of the curtain or the construction. Just using this reference as an example since you didn't specify the applicable code in this jurisdiction. I don't think the cover on both sides is necessary. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Byron Weisz - Cen-Cal Fire Systems Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain That is a Building Code issue Byron Weisz Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 1615 So. Stockton St. Lodi, CA. 95240 Ph. (209) 334-9119 Fax (209) 334-2923 by...@cen-calfire.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and attachments is strictly prohibited. Thank you. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Draft curtain Importance: High We have a project that we are demo'ing a pipe schedule system and installing a ESFR system for storage. There is an adjacent area of the building that will have a pipe schedule system w/standard response sprinklers in it. Per NFPA13 2007 8.4.6.4 the owner will provide a draft curtain since a wall is out of the question in this area. The draft curtain will be 2'-0 down from the deck constructed of non-combustible materials and sealed at the deck (probably smoke caulk). The owner is going to provide a 4'-0 clear aisle centered on the curtain (2'-0 each way). The contractor plans on using metal studs and roof decking material for the curtain. The question is, do the studs have to be covered each side or is putting the decking on one side sufficient? I didn't see anything as far as thickness of curtain or that would lead me to believe it would have to be covered each side. Thank you, Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell http://www.keyfireprotection.com www.keyfireprotection.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120920/20d1b142/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Draft curtain
Table 910.3 and Section 910.3.5 of the 2006 International FIRE Code if this is adopted. It notes the ESFR to non-ESFR boundary. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain Thank you - 2006 IBC - do you know the label of the section its in - I glanced and didn't see it. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain See 2009 International Fire Code for some guidelines/requirements before you confirm the depth of the curtain or the construction. Just using this reference as an example since you didn't specify the applicable code in this jurisdiction. I don't think the cover on both sides is necessary. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Byron Weisz - Cen-Cal Fire Systems Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain That is a Building Code issue Byron Weisz Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 1615 So. Stockton St. Lodi, CA. 95240 Ph. (209) 334-9119 Fax (209) 334-2923 by...@cen-calfire.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and attachments is strictly prohibited. Thank you. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Draft curtain Importance: High We have a project that we are demo'ing a pipe schedule system and installing a ESFR system for storage. There is an adjacent area of the building that will have a pipe schedule system w/standard response sprinklers in it. Per NFPA13 2007 8.4.6.4 the owner will provide a draft curtain since a wall is out of the question in this area. The draft curtain will be 2'-0 down from the deck constructed of non-combustible materials and sealed at the deck (probably smoke caulk). The owner is going to provide a 4'-0 clear aisle centered on the curtain (2'-0 each way). The contractor plans on using metal studs and roof decking material for the curtain. The question is, do the studs have to be covered each side or is putting the decking on one side sufficient? I didn't see anything as far as thickness of curtain or that would lead me to believe it would have to be covered each side. Thank you, Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell http://www.keyfireprotection.com www.keyfireprotection.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120920/20d1b142/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5281 - Release Date: 09/20/12 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Draft curtain
I see an Exception from the area requirements of Table 910.3 but there is no exception from the need to separate ESFR from conventional. So when there is a need for a draft curtain there would be a minimum 4 ft depth. Perhaps someone can help me with this. I am not involved with storage 24/7. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain Thank you both. I did mean IFC Bill - thank you. The only reason for the draft curtain is due to the different response elements of the sprinklers as Chris said. Looking at IFC 2006 910.3.5 it appears my situation qualifies for the Exception and I can apply the 2'-0 depth as referenced in NFPA13 2007 8.4.6.4. It will be smoke tight. Thanks again. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain Table 910.3 and Section 910.3.5 of the 2006 International FIRE Code if this is adopted. It notes the ESFR to non-ESFR boundary. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain Thank you - 2006 IBC - do you know the label of the section its in - I glanced and didn't see it. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain See 2009 International Fire Code for some guidelines/requirements before you confirm the depth of the curtain or the construction. Just using this reference as an example since you didn't specify the applicable code in this jurisdiction. I don't think the cover on both sides is necessary. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Byron Weisz - Cen-Cal Fire Systems Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Draft curtain That is a Building Code issue Byron Weisz Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. 1615 So. Stockton St. Lodi, CA. 95240 Ph. (209) 334-9119 Fax (209) 334-2923 by...@cen-calfire.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and attachments is strictly prohibited. Thank you. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Draft curtain Importance: High We have a project that we are demo'ing a pipe schedule system and installing a ESFR system for storage. There is an adjacent area of the building that will have a pipe schedule system w/standard response sprinklers in it. Per NFPA13 2007 8.4.6.4 the owner will provide a draft curtain since a wall is out of the question in this area. The draft curtain will be 2'-0 down from the deck constructed of non-combustible materials and sealed at the deck (probably smoke caulk). The owner is going to provide a 4'-0 clear aisle centered on the curtain (2'-0 each way). The contractor plans on using metal studs and roof decking material for the curtain. The question is, do the studs have to be covered each side or is putting the decking on one side sufficient? I didn't see anything as far as thickness of curtain or that would lead me to believe it would have to be covered each side. Thank you, Bobby Gillett Sr
RE: Ventilation for diesel driven fire pump room
I've consulted with Tigerflow in the past on projects requiring standalone fire pump enclosures. They ship worldwide and I'm sure they would accept a phone call to discuss this if you do not have access to a mechanical engineer (HVAC type) who does this routinely. As others have noted the engine needs combustion air and the pump room may require supplemental cooling (or heating). Depending on how the room is classified by the Mechanical code, a minimum ventilation rate could be required as well. Generally, if not considered occupied, there would be no ventilation requirement (see 2009 International Mechanical Code, 401.2) but your jurisdiction's code may be amended in some way. I suppose the size of the room is not the controlling factor if the only requirement is for the pump driver combustion air. For supplemental cooling this would matter when calculating heat loss/gain through the enclosure. www.tigerflow.com Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 6:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Ventilation for diesel driven fire pump room Where I can find guidelines for determining the size of the ventilation openings in a pump room containing a diesel-engine driven pump? I imagine that the size would depend on the room size (volume) and the size of engine. David Bitton, ing. Quest Loss Control Services Inc. Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest inc. 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200 Montréal, QC H4P 1T8 (514) 341-4545 www.questlosscontrol.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120823/efe19989/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Ventilation for diesel driven fire pump room
Google search result for combustion air requirements diesel engine http://www.cumminsfirepower.com/documents/ES027_ventilation.pdf Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 6:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Ventilation for diesel driven fire pump room Where I can find guidelines for determining the size of the ventilation openings in a pump room containing a diesel-engine driven pump? I imagine that the size would depend on the room size (volume) and the size of engine. David Bitton, ing. Quest Loss Control Services Inc. Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest inc. 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200 Montréal, QC H4P 1T8 (514) 341-4545 www.questlosscontrol.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120823/efe19989/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: solid shelves in auto parts stores
Anytime the word storage appears there's a need for much more extensive analysis of all of the likely materials and their configuration. For example the 2009 International Fire Code deals with retail storage of aerosols in Section 2806 with 8 ft and 8 ft categories. Flammable and combustible liquids are covered in IFC 3404.4. Then there are the Group A plastics determined by the product itself or the packing material covered in IFC Chapter 23. Note the definition of high-piled high-hazard commodities could start at 6 ft. Ceiling height was not noted. This could dictate maximum storage height. Without looking at any further I'd say the chance of OH2 would be slim. Looks like NFPA 13 is applied for the shelf storage question per IFC Section 2307. Maybe this major chain store already has corporate guidelines. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: solid shelves in auto parts stores Considering the amount of rubber and plastic parts, oil, solvents and aerosol sprays and paint, I think it should be higher. I think in spots it is more than a class 4 commodity. Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: solid shelves in auto parts stores Hello, 1) There is a PE involved 2) This is not my job, but I am trying to be a friend to the AHJ' 3) I can't readily put my hands on this due to other issues A local AHJ has called me to inquire about the requirement for protecting a major chain Auto Parts Store. The PE has stated OH2 throughout the store. AHJ is asking questions because there are 12' tall racks with a solid top making him think they will store over 12'. Questions, Are solid shelves allowed in racks aver 30 deep in this scenario without protection in the racks? Is OH@ appropriate for these typical Auto Parts Stores with the storage as it is? Thanks for your help if you have time, if not please ignore and have a great day! -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120816/ec9499ea/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5203 - Release Date: 08/15/12 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: solid shelves in auto parts stores
From a sign-off responsibility standpoint, it seems like it could be approved. Maybe, but only if you provide a letter stating the owner is responsible for storage arrangement and contents complying with NFPA 13 (2007), Table 13.2.1 for OH2 design. But, then again, all this information would already be stated in the Owner's Certificate. (??) Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: solid shelves in auto parts stores Is there any reason why this would not meet the letter of the code for OH2 protection of a mercantile application? If questions are going to be raised about if they will stack over 12' on 12' racks, one might also wonder if they will change the racks out for taller racks, etc. Wouldn't the design have to be based on the stated intent for the tenant? I agree that this is probably on the high side of what OH2 was intended for. It could also be protected by the retail storage criteria (NFPA 13 2007 20.3). If I was their insurance carrier, I might be more concerned. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: solid shelves in auto parts stores Anytime the word storage appears there's a need for much more extensive analysis of all of the likely materials and their configuration. For example the 2009 International Fire Code deals with retail storage of aerosols in Section 2806 with 8 ft and 8 ft categories. Flammable and combustible liquids are covered in IFC 3404.4. Then there are the Group A plastics determined by the product itself or the packing material covered in IFC Chapter 23. Note the definition of high-piled high-hazard commodities could start at 6 ft. Ceiling height was not noted. This could dictate maximum storage height. Without looking at any further I'd say the chance of OH2 would be slim. Looks like NFPA 13 is applied for the shelf storage question per IFC Section 2307. Maybe this major chain store already has corporate guidelines. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: solid shelves in auto parts stores Considering the amount of rubber and plastic parts, oil, solvents and aerosol sprays and paint, I think it should be higher. I think in spots it is more than a class 4 commodity. Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: solid shelves in auto parts stores Hello, 1) There is a PE involved 2) This is not my job, but I am trying to be a friend to the AHJ' 3) I can't readily put my hands on this due to other issues A local AHJ has called me to inquire about the requirement for protecting a major chain Auto Parts Store. The PE has stated OH2 throughout the store. AHJ is asking questions because there are 12' tall racks with a solid top making him think they will store over 12'. Questions, Are solid shelves allowed in racks aver 30 deep in this scenario without protection in the racks? Is OH@ appropriate for these typical Auto Parts Stores with the storage as it is? Thanks for your help if you have time, if not please ignore and have a great day! -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120816/ec9499ea/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message
RE: 02 storage (hazardous materials assessment)
The definition of O2 as a hazardous material is based on IBC Section 307.2 and the defined quantities in IBC Table 307.1(1). When quantities exceed the MAQ in Table 307.1(1), the various design options being discussed come into play. The concept of Control Area is defined in (2009) IBC Section 414.2. The IBC fire barrier is noted in Table 414.2.2. I'm very surprised any AHJ would have to be educated on this, but looking back at the messages it may be that what the AHJ said was being filtered through a number of people who were not familiar with the process used to deal with hazardous materials. What I've found in the real world is the lack of correlation between commonly generated MSDS and the various building and fire code classification tables which does not appear to factor into this application. I'm not familiar with the Florida Building Code, perhaps it is much more complex than the IBC. Keep in mind there are 13 Exceptions listed under Section 307.1, one of which (Exception 2) is the storage of flammable and combustible liquids in mercantile. If it were not for this exception some stores we regularly shop in would not exist in their present form. Also Exception 6 is your neighborhood State Store (a nod to George C.). Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 3:05 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 02 storage Sounds like there are some building code issues which should not be addressed by the sprinkler contractor. It may be your job is not so complicated if you apply NFPA 55. But somebody else may or may not have done their job. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of jhoff...@kcp.com Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 02 storage IFC, chapter 27 and NFPA 55 have the same criteria for oxidizing gas. It is 3000 cu ft per control area. Don't know where the AHJ is coming up with 12000 cu ft unless he is considering the maximum of 4 control areas per building and then you get to 12000 cu ft. This means 4 areas that are fire separated from each other and the rest of the building. John Hoffman P.E. | Fire Protection Engineer | Facility Engineering Services, KCP, LLC - Burns McDonnell Engineering | National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City Plant | Operated by Honeywell FMT | 2000 E. 95th St | Kansas City, MO 64131 | ph 816-997-7213 | jhoff...@kcp.com From: Greg McGahan g...@livingwaterfp.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: 08/10/2012 12:50 PM Subject:02 storage Sent by:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org This is a completely new area for me so any help is appreciated. Issue: Medical Gas Storage of 02 only in various cylinders. The tenant and owner of this Commercial / Industrial Strip center is having difficulty with the AHJ who claims that even if they classify the warehouse portion of this space as Storage Occupancy instead of Business, The maximum cubic footage of 02 allowed to be stored in one place is 12,000 with High Hazard Sprinkler protection. The tenant needs to store almost 20,000 cubic feet. Does anyone have expertise in this area? Thanks, Greg -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments /20120810/f3e9c5a0/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: 02 storage
Sounds like there are some building code issues which should not be addressed by the sprinkler contractor. It may be your job is not so complicated if you apply NFPA 55. But somebody else may or may not have done their job. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of jhoff...@kcp.com Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 02 storage IFC, chapter 27 and NFPA 55 have the same criteria for oxidizing gas. It is 3000 cu ft per control area. Don't know where the AHJ is coming up with 12000 cu ft unless he is considering the maximum of 4 control areas per building and then you get to 12000 cu ft. This means 4 areas that are fire separated from each other and the rest of the building. John Hoffman P.E. | Fire Protection Engineer | Facility Engineering Services, KCP, LLC - Burns McDonnell Engineering | National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City Plant | Operated by Honeywell FMT | 2000 E. 95th St | Kansas City, MO 64131 | ph 816-997-7213 | jhoff...@kcp.com From: Greg McGahan g...@livingwaterfp.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: 08/10/2012 12:50 PM Subject:02 storage Sent by:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org This is a completely new area for me so any help is appreciated. Issue: Medical Gas Storage of 02 only in various cylinders. The tenant and owner of this Commercial / Industrial Strip center is having difficulty with the AHJ who claims that even if they classify the warehouse portion of this space as Storage Occupancy instead of Business, The maximum cubic footage of 02 allowed to be stored in one place is 12,000 with High Hazard Sprinkler protection. The tenant needs to store almost 20,000 cubic feet. Does anyone have expertise in this area? Thanks, Greg -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC http://www.livingwaterfp.com 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments /20120810/f3e9c5a0/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: RTI Cloud Deluge
Yes we have a rulebook instead of an engineering approach (thank goodness), and yes we have been fumbling around for many years about this cloud thing, but in the name of common sense (which I hope we still have a little of) this design approach must be stopped at all costs. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:36 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI You won't believe this! Armstrong ceiling clouds that are arched, architect doesn't want to penetrate the clouds like the Armstrong data sheet shows so we have QR sprinklers above the clouds and a deluge system of sidewall sprinklers feed from the soffits throwing water under the clouds. Some big DA came up with this idea. It's a tiered classroom with a sloping floor, I suggested they install some life preservers for the students so they won't drown when the system trips. Mike From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:29:07 + Are the detectors at the same temperature as the QR heads? That just sound weird, what would be in the same room that would be protected by deluge system and also allow QR sprinklers? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:08 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI There are QR Sprinklers in the same room that has a deluge system with open heads in it, they want to make sure that the detectors do not trip the deluge system first. From: ccah...@burnsmcd.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:31:18 -0500 Subject: RE: RTI Curious if you know why the AHJ wanted to know? Listings take care of either FR/QR or SR. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:26 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: RTI Thanks, They told me it was 36. Mike From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RTI Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:21:17 + Call Tyco. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:19 PM To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM Subject: RTI I have a AHJ wanting to know what is the RTI for a TYCO FR-B TY3231 155 degree pendent sprinkler. How do I determine the RTI? Mike -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/ atta chments/20120606/0ddfb8a7/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/at tachments/20120606/47d8575c/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman
RE: minimum 7 PSI end head logic, check please!
What are you comments with regard to Figure 11.2.3.2.3.1 (2010)? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: minimum 7 PSI end head logic, check please! Thanks Mark, I would not want to reduce LH spacing. I think density should be tied to sprinkler height and area to occupancy. I think the water demands are too high for low ceilings and too low for high ceilings. Basing min flow rate on density time head area, without min end head PSI brings the demand down where the ceiling heights are less that 12'-6. Activation time is a function of ceiling height and is the main reason for tieing density to it too. thanks again, Brad -Original Message- From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: minimum 7 PSI end head logic, check please! Research the development history of the Residential sprinkler. It was done during the late 70's and covered all the issues you're thinking about here. I believe NFPA 13D was first published in 1980 or '81. I think I remember that some of the first heads listed for residential had a minimum starting pressure of 5 PSI. I know there were design densities of .05 GPM/PSF. Also the residential Sprinkler is designed to hit the WALL near the ceiling at minimum operating pressure. Just out of curiosity, why would you want to reduce LH spacing to 100 Sf? Mark at Aero - Original Message - From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 06:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: minimum 7 PSI end head logic, check please! Good points guys, thanks. Here is an 'equivalency thought experiment' if the Forum will suffer me a little more: the water hits the floor (at a wall 9' away when it has 7 PSI on it. Throttle the flow down until it hits the floor 5' away. Now what is the pressure? We don't know until we measure it, but for 100 s.f. head spacing it is obviously less than 7 PSI. I am not trying to rock the boat or waste anyone's time. I plan on submitting a proposal for change regarding calc rules for water supplies for LH and OH, so I am trying to establish equivalency, identify arbitrariness, etc. Is it coincidence that 7 PSI is 32 ft/sec? I only got 20 years to get this change through so I thought I'd better get started. -Original Message- From: Ron Greenman [mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: minimum 7 PSI end head logic, check please! Oops, forgot the pattern part (thanks Bruce), but the argument is the same. The head is tested/listed at not less than psi. Rule 1 then is 7 psi or more, if less than 7 psi raise the starting pressure to 7 psi, that's it, don't worry, carry on, complete the design, get it out the door, and approved, build-it, get it signed off, collect the money, move on. On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Bruce Verhei bver...@comcast.net wrote: Would the heads make an effective pattern below 7psi, and more important, is the answer known, and not guessed at? Bruce Sent from my Motorola ATRIXT 4G on ATT -Original message- From: bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Sun, Jun 3, 2012 20:31:30 GMT+00:00 Subject: minimum 7 PSI end head logic, check please! Fact: a minimum pressure is required to 'push the stopper out of the orifice' once the 'link has broken'. This means the column of water above the head has to be at least 16 feet tall. (i wonder if this is enough for the 'bigger stoppers' of today, but I'll trust the manufacturers). An overall statement could be made Sprinklers do not work where the static is less than 7 PSI. Question: Why should we calculate the minimum required flow rate based on anything other than density times head area, since at that point the stopper has already been pushed out? If in doubt about the Pt available to a non-flowing head when others are flowing, couldn't we use a flow test graph to find GPM at 7 PSI, and make sure we are flowing less than that? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments /20120603/c7182724/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates
Adjusting Pump Curves for Pump Speed
This is something I should know, but how are pump curves adjusted for pump speed? I'm looking at a curve based on 3450 rpm (60 Hz) and want to adjust it for 2900 rpm (50 Hz). Is this possible? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Adjusting Pump Curves for Pump Speed
Thanks, age is a good thing in some products, but ... Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:20 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Adjusting Pump Curves for Pump Speed See NFPA 20, A.14.2.5.4(7)(f) on page 90 of the 2010 ed. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:11 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Adjusting Pump Curves for Pump Speed This is something I should know, but how are pump curves adjusted for pump speed? I'm looking at a curve based on 3450 rpm (60 Hz) and want to adjust it for 2900 rpm (50 Hz). Is this possible? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Water testing volumes
And almost exactly 500 gpm for 20 minutes. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:55 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water testing volumes Have you asked the owner the purpose of the tank? Sounds like a secondary containment tank. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 3:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water testing volumes In an industrial building there is a concrete storage tank below gound level. It is about 19'x7' and 10 feet deep and covered with an open grated steel panel. Top of the steel panel is level with the adjacent ground floor level. Someone said it was to collect rain water but I need to get that confirmed. It could even be that the other floor drains drained into this tank and was pumped out. Anyway, this space is non-combustible, but could collect debris that would fall through the open grate panel. The question is, does it have to be sprinklered? I would say NO, but is there anything in the code to justify that position? Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: UFC3-600-01
You may also have a 25 year system life on your job, and this may not be incorporated into the sprinkler specification. It may be in the boiler plate that's in the hands of the general contractor, and it may not have been passed along to you. I believe the sprinkler system would be one of the elements that would have to meet this life span. In my experience this particular requirement is not well understood by anyone on the design side, the contracting side, or the owner. Whatever you do you better make it clear what you intend to provide. The standard use schedule 40 may not be applicable for aggressive water conditions if the Sched. 40 pipe won't last 25 years. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jay Stough Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 2:43 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: UFC3-600-01 Thanks. I had not had anyone ask about MIC in so long, I forgot about it. Is anyone testing for MIC and finding anything? In the last two years, we've tested 8 systems and only 1 had the possibility of bacterial growth. Jay Stough From: etamb...@aerofire.com etamb...@aerofire.com To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2012 1:54 PM Subject: RE: UFC3-600-01 We had a similar comment come up on a USACE project and we were allowed to get a letter from the local fire marshal saying that there have been no historical problems with piping corrosion in their district. Ed AERO Automatic Sprinkler Company -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120405/e6c0d21d/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Flow Test
Common practice in my experience is to list these flows as part of the contract documents and then require the winning contractor to conduct a confirming flow test prior to submitting drawings and calculations. I assume you've accounted for elevation in your example in that the static/residual hydrant is at the same elevation as the BOR. But I'm not saying I would list these flows or issue this documentation as you've described. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey Prentice Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test We are looking at a project that involves an addition to an existing Institutional occupancy(University)in Ontario Canada. Existing flow tests indicate available flows as follows: Static 68 PSI Test 1-50 PSI @ 223 USGPM Test 2-39 PSI @ 416 USGPM Test 3-13 PSI @ 538 USGPM Existing Hydraulic calculations show a most demanding area calculation for the boiler room requiring 23.1 PSI @ 247.12 USGPM @ BOR plus 250 USPM hose allowance. What flow test results should have been used for this system design? I bet you can't guess what numbers the existing system has been designed too?? I can find nothing that requires the design contractor to use the most demanding curve, If test three had not been performed we would have no real indication of the water available! Can contractors arbitrarily choose curves to meet their design needs, can interpreted points on a graph such as those used in test two be used over real numbers such as those in test three? My gut tells me no, but it seems the wallet once again decides. Thanks in advance. Jamey -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120402/5b9871be/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: FM 74 Egress Sprinklre system?
NFPA 101A has a number of partial sprinkler system options for various occupancies. I recall the original development of the point systems in the late 1970's where partial systems were given consideration in life safety evaluations. Perhaps the system in this case is a holdover from that time period. It would be instructive to take a look at past and current versions of NFPA 101A to see how some of these systems could have been introduced especially on the fire marshal side where NFPA could have been used in lieu of building codes in upgrading existing buildings. NFPA 101 has included a provision for 6 heads off domestic for many years. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 5:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: FM 74 Egress Sprinklre system? Douglas, During the early eighties and maybe the seventies (I was in California until the late eighties so I'm not sure about the when) schools K-12 were under the jurisdiction of the State FM. There were several I've come across with these silly partial systems protecting small areas deemed to be extra dangerous for one reason or another, including the main building at Bates Tech College (which was a vocational adult school in the Tacoma school District until 1988), my own institution. In the entry to what is now the financial aid office, but then was registration, are seven Omega heads over the doorway. There are four along one wall in a counselor's office but that wall used to be a pass through of some sort with a drop window arrangement. There's an elementary school in Puyallup with two heads (and six spares) covering a stage (platform), and a high school with four heads over the main office counter (highly combustible paperwork no doubt). All these systems are tapped off plumbing, and installed in, at best, a pipe schedule, or to nothing cogent at all like your system seems to be. I wouldn't be surprised if Washington nonsense migrated to Oregon. You may be looking at something somebody thought was a good idea at the time, like that six month or so surge of a single sprinkler head over a residential cooking surface tapped off the plumbing. Or perhaps tose guys that decided if some anti-freeze was good 100% anti-freeze would be better, until On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Douglas Hicks fire...@eoni.com wrote: I am looking at 2 schools that have partial sprinkler systems, protecting the egress routes only. The local Fire Marshal thinks they may be installed to FM74 standards. The 2 that I have seen are wet systems, 1/2 inch drops to the heads, 1/2 garden hose fitting as an inspector's test. The heads are pendant, and uprights, as far as 2 feet from the ceiling. Some of the heads are leaking, some of the heads look to be oriented improperly. No one seems to know what the year of installation was. Is/was there a standard for that type of sprinkler system? -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac hments/20120325/0cd46534/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120325/fb7364e8/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Radiation Vaults
The penetration arrangement has a lot to do with the location or possible locations of a source material. At times the 45 isn't sufficient and an offset is needed so that there is no straight line of sight from the inside to the outside. Sometimes this is difficult to deal with when the wall is 36 thick and your penetration has not been incorporated into the construction ahead of time. In other cases a radiation area may be maintained negative pressure and these penetrations would require special sealing. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Radiation Vaults Thank you! Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Randy Knutson Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Radiation Vaults Bobby, The only strange thing that I encountered was that all penetration through the vault had to be at 45º angle. Our sleeves were provided by others. Other than that it was a wet-pipe system with Sch 40 pipe DI fittings. Randy Knutson Shilo Automatic Sprinkler, Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:57 AM To: mi...@phoenixfp.net; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Radiation Vaults Thank you for your response. They did not spec anything special other than the pre-action, that is just for safety factor I am sure. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell www.keyfireprotection.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hill Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Radiation Vaults I have done a few of these. None required a preaction system. Black pipe was acceptable for the wet systems that we installed. There is usually only one penetration into the room. There were no special requirements for the penetrations on the ones I did (no dielectrics or wave guides) Mike Hill -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Radiation Vaults We are bidding a project that has Linear Accelerator Vaults. These areas have thick concrete walls, floor and ceilings and the machine produces radiation for cancer treatment. They spec us installing D.I. Preaction systems for these vaults. Is anyone familiar with these? My question is can we use black steel pipe and do we have to do anything special at our penetrations into the rooms? Thank you in advance. Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell http://www.keyfireprotection.com www.keyfireprotection.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20120322/57a64e9f/attachment.html ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4885 - Release Date: 03/21/12 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.0.0.909, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.19510) http://www.pctools.com/ === === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.0.0.909, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.19520) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum - No virus
RE: 52,000 square feet
NFPA 13, 1.5 (2007) requires TECHNICAL documentation. I believe you must demonstrate equivalency. Would it be water flow alarm is just as fast? Would it be that fire control is comparable? Would it be that overall reliability is the same? The first can be answered by timing the signal with the bigger system, the second could be answered by submission of hydraulic calculations, but the third is unanswerable unless you and the rest of us know what factors went into the 52,000 sq ft requirement in the first place. We all know it's OK to have a single valve control 52,000 sq ft of LH/OH system, but at 52,001 sq ft you are not equivalent.I don't see how any of the factors you seem to have come up with will do that. You're actually asking for a Modification as described in IBC 2009, 104.10. Then perhaps your reasons have some merit and could be accepted. But then again the language of 104.10 brings in the term does not lessen. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 3:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet Follow up - I posed this question to the EOR and the AHJ. The AHJ has a good friend in another part of the state who looked at it from a 3rd party objective point of view and stated that because: 1) this is a school occupied only during the day and the School Board policy is that all system shut downs occur when the building is unoccupied or at least when no students are present 2) the building is non-combustible with fire rated corridors and classrooms ( a lot of passive protection) 3) there is complete Fire Alarm System in place He would absolutely have no problem enlarging the system size. The local EOR said he was fine with it as well due to the fact that the existing system configuration does not lend itself to restructuring a portion near the riser ( inorder to reduce the existing systems size enough to add on the other ends) without major renovations and that he wants to keep the wings on the same systems for future maintenance and to negate the potential for a flood. Therefore, it appears that we have agreement in this particular case. Thanks for your feedback, Greg On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:02 PM, George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: Data for which one would think FM Global has, or they wouldn't have relaxed their requirement to 60k without technical substantiation. Hopefully someone up there will write a proposal sharing enough of that data so the 13 TC can consider addressing a change in the system area. One would think it would be prudent to consider the propensity for a building's occupancy to have changes made. A spec multi-tenant building with 1 and 2 year leases will likely have shutdowns for tenant mods often, compared to a hotel that's built, and pretty much stays that way until they change the wallpaper and wall sconces every 5 years or more. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet Statistically the single biggest reason for system failure is a closed valve so multiple valving (zoning) is not the answer. I think the shut down for maintenance system argument is the the area of spurious. What are the numbers on this occurring? And although I agree with limitations making some sort of sense just because without them abuse occurs, I think they do need to be based on stats and per risk type (as Chris suggests) rather than on how many heads the schedule (that is no longer used for the most part) goes to. On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Greg McGahan g...@livingwaterfp.com wrote: It would be great if there were allowances for systems that could be subdivided so that no more than xxx sq ft is disabled at a time rather than limit the entire system size. On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: I'm not sure I agree they need to go away. I understand they didn't exactly come from a well thought out principal based on some scientific merit. But my reasoning goes like this. In a 208,000 sq.ft. building right now we would have 4 systems. If a system is down for maintenance or say to add a head in a new office there is a 75% chance the fire will start in a sprinklered area. And yes I have been involved with two buildings where the system was off when the fire started. Get rid of the limits and there is a 100% chance the fire starts in an unsprinklered area during
RE: 52,000 square feet
Maybe not this century but in the next we will have an NFPA process where the committees will have to explain the rationale for the current rules before they can be carried over from one edition to the next. That would certainly make for some long meetings or some brief standards. After working at this for about 40 years I have no idea how to propose a 55,000 sq ft system using NFPA 13. NFPA 13, 1.5 seems to make it simple Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency, but actually it's impossible if the committee doesn't know how to do it. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:41 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet Statistically the single biggest reason for system failure is a closed valve so multiple valving (zoning) is not the answer. I think the shut down for maintenance system argument is the the area of spurious. What are the numbers on this occurring? And although I agree with limitations making some sort of sense just because without them abuse occurs, I think they do need to be based on stats and per risk type (as Chris suggests) rather than on how many heads the schedule (that is no longer used for the most part) goes to. On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Greg McGahan g...@livingwaterfp.com wrote: It would be great if there were allowances for systems that could be subdivided so that no more than xxx sq ft is disabled at a time rather than limit the entire system size. On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: I'm not sure I agree they need to go away. I understand they didn't exactly come from a well thought out principal based on some scientific merit. But my reasoning goes like this. In a 208,000 sq.ft. building right now we would have 4 systems. If a system is down for maintenance or say to add a head in a new office there is a 75% chance the fire will start in a sprinklered area. And yes I have been involved with two buildings where the system was off when the fire started. Get rid of the limits and there is a 100% chance the fire starts in an unsprinklered area during these same down times. Double the current limits and it's 50/50. Remember most work is in design build which almost always = lowest bid = one system per building. Sure make the argument some places will have thoughtful engineers, thoughtful contractors, or owners that are interested in issues like this and I won't argue but what about the majority of work. Modify the limits perhaps but they shouldn't go away. Maybe something like warehouses 100k, HPS 40k, single tenant office buildings 50k, lease office 30k, malls by tenant. By floor in lease or malls, building over 4 stories. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer Aviation Facilities Group Burns McDonnell P: 952.656.3652 F: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com *Lic. in MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet These limitations need to go away. They're based on pipe schedules, and not because the limitations are true , but merely because the schedule stops at 400 heads. In the days when schedules were developed 52K was a really big building. On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Matt Grise m...@afpsprink.com wrote: Now that FM allows 60ksf, I have had more success convincing AHJ's that sprinkler systems still work when they exceed 52K. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - FPDC Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 12:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 52,000 square feet Chris, I agree is that is what the Code says. However, the 52000 is an arbitrary number and has no real impact on protection. For a couple of thousand square feet, I wouldn't have a big problem suggesting it. Probably 3k max. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 2, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Cahill, Christopher ccah...@burnsmcd.com wrote: As a former AHJ many requests, all denied with I agree it's silly but it's the law
Ultrasonic Flow Meters
I have a special situation where I'll be testing pumps on a combined domestic/fire water supply. Water is in a ground level tank, multiple pumps blue arranged to start sequentially as demand increases. Some of these blue pumps are designated as fire pumps and have higher flow characteristics. Problem is there is no test header and the testing will have to be performed without shutting down the water system. My suggestion is to do the testing at a low demand period but use clamp-on type flow measuring devices at the pump discharge. Compare the hydrant flow to the ultrasonic flow to identify the simultaneous domestic demand + leakage. When I contacted FM about this they did not have any objection to this technology but said no manufacturer had ever submitted this technology for approval. I know it's common in the industrial setting but I am wondering if any of you red pump people have ever come across an application? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Underground Main Pressure Test
It's been many years since I've witnessed an underground pressure test. What is the current practice for testing a 1000+ ft length of underground? Positive displacement pump? How to measure the amount of water added? Any help would be appreciated. (All messages from George Church to the forum get snagged by my Trend Micro - please don't be tempted to turn this into a series of with George's reputation it's surprising it hasn't happened a long time ago responses) Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
13R in Residential (Confession)
My previous opinion on the use of 13R in mixed occupancy buildings was based on incorrect information. What I didn't know was that the text of the 2009 IBC (First Printing Feb 2009) 903.3.1.2 was changed by an Errata. I'm a little embarrassed in not knowing this before I posted my I'm 100% right opinion on the matter. For those of you who bought the early printing of the 2009 IBC, this change may clear up some of the confusion. What is true is that contractors bidding 13R in a mixed occupancy building or portion of a mixed occupancy building need to clarify that any required fire separations (floor assemblies, wall assemblies) are provided by others in order for your 13R system to be adequate. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
New ICC Forum to Start
From the most recent ICC news: ICC to Launch New Codes Standards Discussion Forum - The International Code Council will be launching the Codes Standards Discussion Forum. This new area of ICC's website will be centered around open discussion of the International Codes and standards, allowing industry professionals to share their ideas and knowledge with one another. Seems like this will be the place to discuss the application of 13/13R and other IBC issues. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Assembly area in R occupancy (IBC approach)
If the BUILDING is Use Group R and meets the story requirement, 13R is OK. If the BUILDING is mixed use and occupancy, either separated or non-separated, then use 13. It would be up to the design professional to use the accessory and incidental rules or other exceptions to classify the building. Is it really this simple? Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:28 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Assembly area in R occupancy I am looking at an R-2 building (dormitory) with an A-2 (commons/kitchen) on the first floor. The A-2 is over 750 sq feet (so not incidental). As far as I can tell, this means that in order to use an NFPA 13R system in the building, the A and R areas must have a 2 hour separation (since the building is NOT sprinkled to 903.3.1.1) Is this the way that everyone else sees it? I am double checking because I consistently see architectural code sheets that list an A occupancy on the first floor with a 1 hour separation from the R occupancies and they call for a 13R system. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Water storage/NFPA 13 Proposal
I see four possible calculation approaches for the sprinkler demand part of tank sizing: 1. Minimum Density x Tabular Design Area x Time 2. Minimum Density x Actual Design Area (developed using the 1.2 rule) x Time 3. Hydraulically Calculated Demand (Demand Calc) x Time 4. Hydraulically Calculated Demand (Supply Calc) x Time I intend to submit a Comment to clarify this. #1 is the easiest for everyone, the others require the sprinkler system to be fully designed before the tank size can be confirmed. It's also evident that all of the methods other than #4 will mean draining the tank in less than the required time duration. Then of course is how to decide whether to use 60 minutes or 90 minutes or something in between for OH. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage/NFPA 13 Proposal I concur with Craig. It seems the proposal was written to clarify for AHJs that one needs NOT run a separate calculation for sprinklers closest to the source simply to identify maximum flows (and therefore maximum supply requirements). The remote area calculation(s) is 'good enough'. I do not think the proposal is suggesting you can calc a tank based merely on 'density x area x duration = volume'. The procedures in Chapters 11 through 22 for the required duration as specified in Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and through Chapter 21 do not allow you to omit overages within the design area. Mark A. Sornsin, PE| Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc.| Fargo, ND mark.sorn...@ulteig.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:26 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage But we all know that a .15 gpm/sf over 1500 gpm doesn't calc out to exactly 225 gpm of flow and we know that most fires are controlled by 3 or less sprinklers. So if someone wants to cut it that close, go for it. Related to the question of whether to include hose stream or not, what's interesting is that in other areas of 13, it is clearly spelled out that the demand is to include both hose and sprinklers. But in the NFSA response it's talking about not considering the excess flow that is typical of sprinklers closer to the riser which are OUTSIDE of the remote area. It is NOT saying anything about factoring the imbalance or overage for the remote area sprinklers. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage Well, I guess my point would be that you don't have to figure any hydraulic imbalance in your sprinkler water quantity. Just density x area x time. Perhaps Ken's approved proposal could be clarified to confirm. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage OK? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage 13-494 Log #356 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept (23.1.2) Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 23.1.2 Capacity. Water supplies shall be capable of providing the required flow and pressure for the remote design area determined using the procedures in Chapters 11 through 22 for the required duration as specified in Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and through Chapter 21. Substantiation: The water supply only needs to provide the duration for the remote
RE: Water storage/NFPA 13 Proposal
Excuse my inability to read. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:42 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage/NFPA 13 Proposal There's no decision to make on whether to use 60 or 90 minutes. The Standard is clear on how that decision is to be made. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage/NFPA 13 Proposal I see four possible calculation approaches for the sprinkler demand part of tank sizing: 1. Minimum Density x Tabular Design Area x Time 2. Minimum Density x Actual Design Area (developed using the 1.2 rule) x Time 3. Hydraulically Calculated Demand (Demand Calc) x Time 4. Hydraulically Calculated Demand (Supply Calc) x Time I intend to submit a Comment to clarify this. #1 is the easiest for everyone, the others require the sprinkler system to be fully designed before the tank size can be confirmed. It's also evident that all of the methods other than #4 will mean draining the tank in less than the required time duration. Then of course is how to decide whether to use 60 minutes or 90 minutes or something in between for OH. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage/NFPA 13 Proposal I concur with Craig. It seems the proposal was written to clarify for AHJs that one needs NOT run a separate calculation for sprinklers closest to the source simply to identify maximum flows (and therefore maximum supply requirements). The remote area calculation(s) is 'good enough'. I do not think the proposal is suggesting you can calc a tank based merely on 'density x area x duration = volume'. The procedures in Chapters 11 through 22 for the required duration as specified in Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and through Chapter 21 do not allow you to omit overages within the design area. Mark A. Sornsin, PE| Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc.| Fargo, ND mark.sorn...@ulteig.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:26 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage But we all know that a .15 gpm/sf over 1500 gpm doesn't calc out to exactly 225 gpm of flow and we know that most fires are controlled by 3 or less sprinklers. So if someone wants to cut it that close, go for it. Related to the question of whether to include hose stream or not, what's interesting is that in other areas of 13, it is clearly spelled out that the demand is to include both hose and sprinklers. But in the NFSA response it's talking about not considering the excess flow that is typical of sprinklers closer to the riser which are OUTSIDE of the remote area. It is NOT saying anything about factoring the imbalance or overage for the remote area sprinklers. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage Well, I guess my point would be that you don't have to figure any hydraulic imbalance in your sprinkler water quantity. Just density x area x time. Perhaps Ken's approved proposal could be clarified to confirm. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage OK? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct
RE: Water storage
13-494 Log #356 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept (23.1.2) Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 23.1.2 Capacity. Water supplies shall be capable of providing the required flow and pressure for the remote design area determined using the procedures in Chapters 11 through 22 for the required duration as specified in Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and through Chapter 21. Substantiation: The water supply only needs to provide the duration for the remote area, not the closer sprinklers in the system that will discharge more water. Also, all of the discharge chapters need to be specified, not just the basic storage Chapter 12. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage Assuming Ord. II at .20/gpm sf over 1500 sf would be 300 gpm flow rate minimum. Now remember that sprinkler system flows will always exceed the base design criteria because the .20gpm/sf is the hyd. remote sprinkler and those upstream will put out more. So typically you will see a 10-15% overage in actual system flow. To be conservative for a wet system if you take that 300 gpm and than increase that by 15% you'd get 345 gpm. Just say 350 for simplicity. Then add the 250 gpm for hose stream allowance and you've got 600 gpm total system demand. For total capacity at 60 minutes (IF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WATERFLOW, TAMPER SWITCHES AND SUPERVISORY DEVICES ARE ELECTRICALLY SUPERVISED) 600 GPM X 60 MINUTES = 36000 gallons. If you have to use the higher value you'd be looking at 54000 gallons. Fire department hydrant hose streams fall under the category of Fire Flow within the Fire Code. This is a whole other topic of discussion that can get rather muddied and is very often totally overlooked by the EOR or others designing underground fire service piping systems. If the local Fire Service requires a site or building to provide Fire Flow the flow rates and durations can be considerably higher. One recent project I had was requiring over a million gallons of storage for fire flow based on unprotected building size and construction types. IFC Appendix B was applied as the approved method. I have encountered few fire protection system designers and engineers who understand or even implement the fire flow section of the Code. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Water storage The duration of water supply for a hydraulically calculated ord. hazard sprinkler system is 60 to 90 minutes. So if the sprinkler demand is 250 gpm the required water storage is 15,000 gallons using the lower duration. There used to be a requirement (which I don't see now) that the water supply should be 150% of the pump rating. Is that still required? The rated capacity of the pump in this case is 250 gpm. Also, is 60 minute duration enough for fire department hose streams? So, water storage for hose streams is another 15,000 gallons? Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word
RE: Water storage
Well, I guess my point would be that you don't have to figure any hydraulic imbalance in your sprinkler water quantity. Just density x area x time. Perhaps Ken's approved proposal could be clarified to confirm. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage OK? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage 13-494 Log #356 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept (23.1.2) Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 23.1.2 Capacity. Water supplies shall be capable of providing the required flow and pressure for the remote design area determined using the procedures in Chapters 11 through 22 for the required duration as specified in Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and through Chapter 21. Substantiation: The water supply only needs to provide the duration for the remote area, not the closer sprinklers in the system that will discharge more water. Also, all of the discharge chapters need to be specified, not just the basic storage Chapter 12. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Water storage Assuming Ord. II at .20/gpm sf over 1500 sf would be 300 gpm flow rate minimum. Now remember that sprinkler system flows will always exceed the base design criteria because the .20gpm/sf is the hyd. remote sprinkler and those upstream will put out more. So typically you will see a 10-15% overage in actual system flow. To be conservative for a wet system if you take that 300 gpm and than increase that by 15% you'd get 345 gpm. Just say 350 for simplicity. Then add the 250 gpm for hose stream allowance and you've got 600 gpm total system demand. For total capacity at 60 minutes (IF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WATERFLOW, TAMPER SWITCHES AND SUPERVISORY DEVICES ARE ELECTRICALLY SUPERVISED) 600 GPM X 60 MINUTES = 36000 gallons. If you have to use the higher value you'd be looking at 54000 gallons. Fire department hydrant hose streams fall under the category of Fire Flow within the Fire Code. This is a whole other topic of discussion that can get rather muddied and is very often totally overlooked by the EOR or others designing underground fire service piping systems. If the local Fire Service requires a site or building to provide Fire Flow the flow rates and durations can be considerably higher. One recent project I had was requiring over a million gallons of storage for fire flow based on unprotected building size and construction types. IFC Appendix B was applied as the approved method. I have encountered few fire protection system designers and engineers who understand or even implement the fire flow section of the Code. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Water storage The duration of water supply for a hydraulically calculated ord. hazard sprinkler system is 60 to 90 minutes. So if the sprinkler demand is 250 gpm the required water storage is 15,000 gallons using the lower duration. There used to be a requirement (which I don't see now) that the water supply should be 150% of the pump rating. Is that still required? The rated capacity of the pump in this case is 250 gpm. Also, is 60 minute duration enough for fire department hose streams? So, water storage for hose streams
Seismic Bracing - Clean Agent
Perhaps a bit off the reservation here but does anyone out there have some reason for the lack of clean agent system seismic bracing requirements? Empty piping? Bracing already factored into piping design per ??? Feel free to send me to another listserv if one exists for special hazard systems. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Seismic Bracing - Clean Agent
I saw that reference to ASME as well and made similar assumptions as you made. Yet it would mean a shop drawing review by the AHJ or the design engineer would bring in all those ASME calculations. But you'll note the Working Plans section does not have any requirement for submission of those ASME calculations to substantiate the hangar placement and attachments. I've submitted this to NFPA for some feedback also. I'll post their response for list information. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Seismic Bracing - Clean Agent If you're referring to NFPA 2001, it references ASME B31.1 for direction on support and bracing. Yes, these systems are normally supported differently than a wet pipe sprinkler system because the forces exerted upon the system at discharge are far greater than a sprinkler system. ASME B31.1 gets into greater detail of hanging and bracing and refers back to ASCE 07 for systems installed in seismically active areas. So if a sprinkler system would require EQ bracing, a clean agent system would as well. One difference being that the CA system support components may also be able to be counted towards EQ bracing requirements when designed to the higher requirements. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Seismic Bracing - Clean Agent Perhaps a bit off the reservation here but does anyone out there have some reason for the lack of clean agent system seismic bracing requirements? Empty piping? Bracing already factored into piping design per ??? Feel free to send me to another listserv if one exists for special hazard systems. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: How much discharge from a 2 system drain
I'd guess in the 350 to 400 gpm range if your main drain was attached directly to the riser off a tee then 2 angle valve then drop to floor. This is about 70 equivalent ft in length.With 100 psi at the riser you'd see a loss of 85 psi between the riser and the main drain outlet leaving around 15 psi at the outlet of the 2 pipe. Since a 2 pipe has approximately 17 times the area of a 1/2 sprinkler I'd multiply 22 gpm times 17 to get 374 gpm. Purely seat of the pants but old seat in pants. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: How much discharge from a 2 system drain Plumbing engineer is asking how much flow could come from a 2 main drain at the riser. They are sizing floor sinks to capture the discharge. No we're not discharging it outside like usual. This isn't a usual client. System pressures from the pump are around 200psi static and 180 psi residual. That's a whole other issue. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Domestic Demand
Normally the engineer is supposed to consider this and incorporate some sort of instructions with the bid package. In my opinion, domestic demand should ALWAYS be considered but many times does not change the outcome. If you are only the sprinkler designer how are you supposed to chase down all these other subs in order to find out how much water they are using? It's not the sprinkler designer's job to guess. For example, a military barracks job with multiple buildings in proximity - hundreds of showers at the same time. Perhaps a bottling plant with constant flow. Lawn irrigation systems also. I think that self shut off flows (toilet flush) can be ignored, but others should be considered. The plumbing engineer can (and should) provide a number for these based on Hunter's curve or some other engineering method. Water tank make-up would be one of the flows to consider. Probably a good practice on every job to send an early RFI and ask about all these domestic flows. Share the problem with others. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:12 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Domestic Demand I'm working on an Administration Building that has some really strange underground plumbing configurations with relationship to the sprinkler riser and it got me to thinking about domestic allowance in calculations. I'm looking for some information that says I don't need to include things like chilled water, water tank make-up, etc. in the hydraulic calculations. I can't remember a situation where I've ever included things like these in my calculations but like I said earlier the incoming water supply has some strange requirements that got me thinking. I know 11.1.4.3 says the minimum water supply requirement shall be for the sprinklers and hose stream, is this enough to hang my hat on? Brian Harris, CET First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17920) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Domestic Demand
Interesting that the 2007 language (which was unenforceable) has been eliminated in favor of the current 23.1.2 (which now could leave someone open to liability). I missed that. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Domestic Demand Roland- I don't see anything in chapter 23 that talks about including domestic in the calc's, what am I missing? Brian Harris, CET FDFP Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Domestic Demand 11.1.4.3 does not address domestic so you can't hang your hat on it. It's chap 23. Roland On Jul 19, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Brian Harris wrote: I'm working on an Administration Building that has some really strange underground plumbing configurations with relationship to the sprinkler riser and it got me to thinking about domestic allowance in calculations. I'm looking for some information that says I don't need to include things like chilled water, water tank make-up, etc. in the hydraulic calculations. I can't remember a situation where I've ever included things like these in my calculations but like I said earlier the incoming water supply has some strange requirements that got me thinking. I know 11.1.4.3 says the minimum water supply requirement shall be for the sprinklers and hose stream, is this enough to hang my hat on? Brian Harris, CET First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17920) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17920) http://www.pctools.com/ === === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17920) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Domestic Demand
I believe the 2007, 23.2.1.2 is unenforceable. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Domestic Demand Bill- What language would that be in the 07 edition? Brian Harris, CET FDFP Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Domestic Demand Interesting that the 2007 language (which was unenforceable) has been eliminated in favor of the current 23.1.2 (which now could leave someone open to liability). I missed that. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Domestic Demand Roland- I don't see anything in chapter 23 that talks about including domestic in the calc's, what am I missing? Brian Harris, CET FDFP Inc. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Domestic Demand 11.1.4.3 does not address domestic so you can't hang your hat on it. It's chap 23. Roland On Jul 19, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Brian Harris wrote: I'm working on an Administration Building that has some really strange underground plumbing configurations with relationship to the sprinkler riser and it got me to thinking about domestic allowance in calculations. I'm looking for some information that says I don't need to include things like chilled water, water tank make-up, etc. in the hydraulic calculations. I can't remember a situation where I've ever included things like these in my calculations but like I said earlier the incoming water supply has some strange requirements that got me thinking. I know 11.1.4.3 says the minimum water supply requirement shall be for the sprinklers and hose stream, is this enough to hang my hat on? Brian Harris, CET First Defense Fire Protection 11957 Ramah Church Road Huntersville, NC 28078 Phone: 704.948.3506 Fax: 704.948.3507 === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17920) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17920) http://www.pctools.com/ === === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17920) http://www.pctools.com/ === ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) === Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17920) http://www.pctools.com/ === === Email scanned by PC Tools
RE: Transition from Outside to Inside
Of course the Annex is not the body as the TC already knows, and of course this is a pretty minor point, but fixing this, even as a change to the Annex, is not that complex. And why, if this is how the TC rationalizes their opinion, would they address this topic in relation to location of the piping with respect to the foundation? I generally use the one joint rule which would limit the amount of underground piping to less than one length and thereby limiting the height of the flange above the floor (just as is shown in A.10.6.5), but I have seen multiple pieces of ductile inside as well. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Transition from Outside to Inside I agree with Mark. Some folks (including the TC at the ROP meeting) seem to think it is acceptable based on 13:A.10.6.5 showing part of the underground pipe extending above the floor. They seem to have ignored that the Figure is ductile so doesn't address plastic and seem to have forgotten that the listing for underground plastic pipe applies to it being underground. As soon as it is exposed (whether in a trench or as a transition piece above the floor) it has to be acceptable as an above ground pipe. Needless to say, this issue will be addressed again at the ROC meeting. Roland On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:16 AM, Mark Sornsin wrote: Bill - I'm going to go on a limb a bit and suggest there is no maximum height. There's underground pipe (CH. 10), above-ground pipe (CH. 6) and the transition piece (23.1.6.1.1). It is implied that underground pipe is only underground. An aggressive AHJ or EOR may argue that the flange must be located at the floor level - so no underground pipe is above-ground and vice versa. I would suggest that it really only matters when dealing with plastic underground transitioning to above- ground pipe. No plastic pipe should be allowed above ground, so the transition should start below grade. I always spec' ductile iron into the building. This meets the intent of 23.1.6.1.1 as a transition. We normally shoot for the transition to the above- ground pipe to occur at 6 to 12 inches above the floor, but there is nothing in 13 that mandates any particular height. Mark A. Sornsin, PE| Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc.| Fargo, ND mark.sorn...@ulteig.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Transition from Outside to Inside
Something I thought I could find but couldn't. What is the maximum height for the floor flange to transition from the below ground pipe to the above ground pipe? (NFPA 13-2010, 6.3 23.1.6.1.1) Ductile and plastic are not listed in the Table 6.3.1.1. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Building trade off update
Important information revealed. You'll probably get other feedback on this but the V-B construction type matched up with the A-3 use would seem to dictate a fully sprinklered 2-story building (IBC Table 503 and 504.2). If the architect is relying solely on 902.2.1.3 and 903.2.1 I believe he/she is missing the Table 503 implications. Of course this interpretation is based on a reading of the IBC and no other building specifics. To go to 2 stories the automatic sprinkler system must be per NFPA 13 (504.2 and 903.3.1.1) and here I'm not sure how a combustible attic can be excluded, even with draftstops, but maybe there's something I've missed. With V-A construction the 2-story would seem to be acceptable, but then you would need to figure out if the attic is considered a story or not (see STORY definition on IBC page 20). If it is not a story then it could be considered part of the 2nd floor which would need to be sprinklered per 903.2.1. In either case you are led pretty much to a sprinklered attic, but this last part is my interpretation of where things would go. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Building trade off update Completely understand and as always appreciate your input my friend. V-B Basement8,000 1st 8,500 2nd 8,000 Reviewing the referenced section 1018.1 and its exceptions. Thanks, Rod -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Building trade off update See IBC Table 1018.1, Note c. Also Also for our information, what is building construction type and what is area per floor? I'm trying to learn just as you are. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Building trade off update I wanted to follow up and let everyone who helped me think through the process know what happened. This was a new two story courthouse (A3) with a combustible attic above the 2nd floor and a single (B) occupancy attached adjacent on the ground floor. IBC 2009. He was sprinklering the basement, 1st and 2nd but not the attic. We met with the Architect and and asked him if he could educate us on his decision tree that allowed: 1. No sprinklers in the combustible attic that was draft stopped every 3,000 ft. 2. Install fire protection on the first and second floors (not required systems in the A3) to allow a reduction in fire rating of the corridor walls, stairs, and the wall separating the courtroom A3 from the B occupancy. 3. His logic for not mandating an increase of the design area on the 2nd floor to 3,000 ft. His answers were: 1. The IBC 2009 doesn't require sprinklers except for the basement, so NFPA 13 isn't applicable. 2. He stated that the IBC allows for reduction with partial systems. 901.2 exception 3. He believed that because partial systems are allowed and that because the code didn't require a system in the attic that we wouldn't need to increase our area on the 2nd floor even though the combustible attic above was unsprinklered. We took the advice of GC / Roland and others and listened and accepted what he said. The tone of the meeting was very good and at the end of the day I am glad he chose more sprinklers than required in lieu of more rating. I personally don't agree with the lack of increase in area ( question #3) but as it has been pointed out.. not my decision. Thanks for all the input and help. We learn and move on. Rod DiBona Rapid Fire Protection ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum
RE: number of outlets on roof manifold
The objective is not to reach all areas of the roof because not all stairs are required to have access to the roof (IBC 1009.13). If all the stairs had access to the roof, then IBC 905.4(5) would require a single hose connection for each standpipe plus an additional connection for the hydraulically most remote standpipe. So that would be two connections for the most remote and one for each of the others. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: number of outlets on roof manifold How many do you put at each landing? The roof manifold is basically an extension of the standpipe providing a hose connection on the roof. So for a single location, one outlet. Depending on the size of the roof area you may have more than one outlet on the roof in order to reach all areas of the roof. The 2006-IFC 905.4(5) for Class I Standpipes states each standpipe shall be provided with -- A -- hose connection located either on the roof or at the highest landing of a stairway with stair access to the roof. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 8:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: number of outlets on roof manifold I could not find anything in either 14 or 25 that told me how many outlets are needed on a roof manifold off a standpipe. Anybody know? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Pump, Tank, 1000 ft suction line.....
You could represent the tank as a public supply with a static pressure equal to the height of the water in the tank (problem is do you use full, half, or empty elevation). The residual pressure would be the at the pump suction when you are flowing 1500 gpm. I know it would look pretty weird showing Static: 10 psi, Residual: -45 psi, Flow: 1500 gpm @ pump suction, but this is your reality with the 1000 ft of 6 suction piping. Why would you even send anything to an AHJ when you know the situation is not possible? (rhetorical question) I forgot, maybe the minimum suction pressure can't go below -14.7 so this would mean considerably less flow than 1500. Where are the academics when we need some hydraulic theory? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ralphy Henderson Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 1:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pump, Tank, 1000 ft suction line. No, I don't need a PC to do the calc but I'd like for hydra calc to show all this w/o an additional set. Things like that tend to confuse the AHJ's - especially hand written things. You would think a multi thousand dollar program would be able to take the calc from a tank to the pump and to the system in one report - but it looks like that's not the case. --- On Tue, 6/7/11, George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com wrote: From: George Church g...@rowesprinkler.com Subject: RE: Pump, Tank, 1000 ft suction line. To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2011, 4:47 PM Why not take a piece of paper, write down the length of the run, multiply it by the FL/ft, and use a calculator to multiply the two and get the friction loss? Then correct for any dif in elevation by multiplying the dif x .433. It really isn't that hard and you really don't need a pc to run a simple supply calc. Ok, maybe I should say you SHOULDn'T need a pc George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ralphy Henderson Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; b...@firebyknight.com Subject: RE: Pump, Tank, 1000 ft suction line. Bob, That's kind of what I was getting at. I'll probably just have to submit a separate calc showing the 150% pump rating through the pump to the tank to prove the losses are acceptable. Does anyone know if there is a way to do this in a single calc in hydracalc? I can put in an additional water 'source' but then would have to enter in a static, res, and flow for the tank to get it to run through the program and these numbers are unknown (except for static). Thanks, RB --- On Mon, 6/6/11, Bob b...@firebyknight.com wrote: From: Bob b...@firebyknight.com Subject: RE: Pump, Tank, 1000 ft suction line. To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 11:05 PM Ralph, Looking at this I'm coming up with 20.3 psi loss in 1000' of pipe not counting fittings and valves. (4.52*1000.00^1.85)/(140^1.85*6.4^4.85) = .0203 .0203 * 1000 = 20.3. 6.4 is ID of 6 Tyton Joint Pipe DI. Fittings and valves will increase your losses. At 1500 gpm you will have .43 psi / ft loss. These numbers will vary depending on pipe type and ID. As far as how to do it; I think I would simply run the numbers through the calculation back to the tank. Or better yet, if there are hydrants fed off of the tank have a flow test performed and calc back to that point of connection. Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.firebyknight.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Vince Sabolik Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 4:37 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org; tm...@mfpdesign.com Subject: Re: Pump, Tank, 1000 ft suction line. Ralph - My rough calcs say about 16 psi loss at 100% flow and 34 psi loss at 150% flow. Unless this is an elevated tank, or your source is uphill from the pump, this won't work. At 06:32 PM 6/6/2011, you wrote: at 1000 gpm, you are going to lose about 2 psi per 100' of 6 ductile iron pipe. At 1500 gpm, you are going to lose about 5 psi / 100' of DI pipe. You need to have enough elevation between the tank and pump to provide a positive pressure at the suction flange. On 6/6/2011 3:28 PM, Ralphy Henderson wrote: Hi All, Can someone explain to me how one would go about calculating a fire pump being fed solely from a water storage tank but with a 6 x 1,000 ft suction line? I've calculated fire pumps off
RE: CC1/CC2 or COIN sprinklers
Do you have the 2009 IBC available? You're installing a 13R system? Would sprinkler protection be necessary in the attic space? If NFPA 13R and no sprinklers in the attic, then 3,000 sq ft draftstopping is needed. This would definitely be the architect's job to show these in my opinion. If no draftstopping is in the job, then your sprinkler scope extends to the attic. If you must use a specially listed head for this purpose and if this head requires 1000 sq ft draftstopping then it seems better to add the 3000 sq ft draftstopping (or two units) and omit the sprinklers. Have I interpreted this correctly, aside from any Marriott special requirements? Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 1:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: CC1/CC2 or COIN sprinklers Looking for some other forum experience here. How have you been dealing with architects and GC's that state the IBC does not require draft stops in an attic, so they are not willing to put them in when the CC heads are req'd and the CC heads require a draft curtain to be installed? On 6/6/2011 9:23 AM, Matt Grise wrote: I agree. Just looked at that this morning. The handbook elaborates that testing has found standard sprinks to be ineffective in short flat comb concealed spaces. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:22 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org'; 'tm...@mfpdesign.com' Subject: RE: CC1/CC2 or COIN sprinklers Yes. See 8.15.1.6 (2007). Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Support Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time -Original Message- From: Travis Mack, SET [mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: CC1/CC2 or COIN sprinklers Trying to settle a discussion here. When you have a flat concealed combustible space and36 of clearance, are the specially listed heads required? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: building code tradeoff
Rod, I know your heart is in the right place but you need to consult with a codes professional on this and you may have to pay for these services. I would think your responsibility is to implement the scope you are given, unless you intend to apply (or supply) and engineering seal on your drawings. In that case you may share the liability of bad advice given by others. Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: building code tradeoff We have a project where the architect has stated the following: 1. We have installed draftstops in the attic space to subdivide the space into areas less than 3000 sf. 2. We are installing the fire protection system in the basement according to 903.2.11.1. 3. We are installing fire protection on the first and second floors to allow a reduction in fire rating of the corridor walls, stairs, and the wall separating the courtroom A3 from the B occupancy. 4. We are installing the draftstops in the attic space and not accepting the reduction but utilitzing the exception to 901.2. 5. The architect has stated that only the basement is required to be sprinklered. This is a new courthouse. This is an architect that we have done work with and he is sharp but I don't see read the IBC the same way. First we were questioning not sprinklering the combustible attic. We don't have the water available to do a dry system in that attic without a fire pump. I don't think the reductions can be taken on first and second floor unless the entire building is sprinklered per NFPA 13. Can he subdivide with draftstops and then take the rating reductions on the first and second floor? I don't think so but even if I am wrong and this can be done, wouldn't we still have to increase our area on the second floor to 3,000ft? If so we would need the pump anyway. Thanks for your input. Rod DiBona Rapid Fire ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
