[Sprinklerforum] Re: SECTION ~ 9.3.14.3 & FIGURE A.9.3.14.3 (NFPA-13, 2022 ed)

George, I believe I see the confusion here. The figure in the annex illustrates that the sprinkler system is to extend into the open space 0.6 x sqrt of the remote area,  and it also provides guidance that any fire in the high ceiling area is

[Sprinklerforum] SECTION ~ 9.3.14.3 & FIGURE A.9.3.14.3 (NFPA-13, 2022 ed)

Sprinklerforum, Section 9.3.14.3  says extend system over ceiling .6 x sq. rt. of design area (adjacent to drop ceiling)  Than Figure A.9.14.3 states to extend 1.2 x sq. rt. of design area. Which one is it? Section 9.3.14.3.1 states to extend at least 24 ft. over drop ceiling (I understand that

[Sprinklerforum] NFPA-13 (2022 EDITION) CODE CLARITY

I am looking at Figure 25.3.2.4.1 (e) In Rack Sprinkler Arrangement and Design, Exposed Nonexpanded Group A Plastic Commodities Up to 25 ft. in Height in Up to a 35 ft, High Building. Option 2: .30 over 2,000 sq. ft. Notes (1) In-rack sprinklers are ordinary-temperature-rated, quick - or

[Sprinklerforum] EQB Zone Of Influence - Disregard last enquiry (Found it in NFPA-13-2022) 18.5.9.6

George Medina Jr. Sr. Fire Sprinkler DesignerSINGLETON FIRE PROTECTION INC.Office: (818) 252-5744Cell: (323) 906-5701 Business Hours: 9:00am-5:00pm _ SprinklerForum mailing list:

[Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13 2022 ESFR

To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13 2022 ESFR   Can you use 2022 edition on NFPA 13

[Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13 2022 ESFR

rictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents. From: cw bamford Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 7:22 AM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: N

[Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13 2022 ESFR

Can you use 2022 edition on NFPA 13 ? On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:13 PM Rocci 3 Cetani wrote: > Ok we have a project where we will be installing and ESFR system in a 32’ > high warehouse. A majority of the racks will be open but a few will have > solid shelving. I’m a little confused o

[Sprinklerforum] NFPA 13 2022 ESFR

Ok we have a project where we will be installing and ESFR system in a 32' high warehouse. A majority of the racks will be open but a few will have solid shelving. I'm a little confused on chapter 25. Do I follow ceiling sprinkler design from chapter 23 table 23.3.1 and then for the racks

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016 Crossing editions, Mike, 10. 2. 7. 2 is referenced in the '22 edition, and Jackie was discussing the '16. Everything in the '16 edition, chapter 10 deals with underground, and there is no such section. If Jackie can apply the '22 edition, then ZjQcm

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

esprinkler.org Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016   Jackie, I echo the thoughts of Anthony, Matt, and my good friend Cliff. All the sections I note are from the '16 edition of NFPA

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

if it is 1' to <18" than it can be no more than 2-1/2" above the tee, and etc /Thank you, Bob Knight, CET III// /*/Fire by Knight, LLC/*/ //208-318-3057/ FIREBYKNIGHT On 2/9/2024 2:37 PM, Jackie Ward wrote: I have 18” wide concrete beams extending 24” from the bottom of the d

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016 Jackie, I echo the thoughts of Anthony, Matt, and my good friend Cliff. All the sections I note are from the '16 edition of NFPA 13 Obstructed construction per §3. 7. 1, §A. 3. 7. 1(1), as you have concrete beams, spaced between 3' and 7½" apart.  ZjQcm

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

Jackie, I echo the thoughts of Anthony, Matt, and my good friend Cliff. All the sections I note are from the '16 edition of NFPA 13 Obstructed construction per §3.7.1, §A.3.7.1(1), as you have concrete beams, spaced between 3' and 7½"

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

E,1,Wdb65AWzMgSBzW3HDw91SfcRQCtxDUQKoJf-UowQ-WnB_WMosgG-8W7eLePJ42PwWQvLiQx16Pls052VqwHO7tKm-_u5AnWly0ewkNiMkxn-AjQb1JI,=1> From: Anthony Carrizosa Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 1:49 PM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers Subject: RE: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016 Sound

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

Friday, February 9, 2024 1:38 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016 I have 18” wide concrete beams extending 24” from the bottom of the deck on 7’-0” centers. NFPA-13 (2016) 8.6.4.1.2 Obstructed Construction (5)* Installed with defl

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

> > C: 307-236-8249 > > *matthew.will...@ferguson.com * > > *www.FergusonFire.com <http://www.fergusonfire.com/>* > > > > > > *From:* Jackie Ward > *Sent:* Friday, February 9, 2024 2:38 PM > *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > *Subject:*

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016 I have 18” wide concrete beams extending 24” from the bottom of the deck on 7’-0” centers. NFPA-13 (2016) 8.6.4.1.2 Obstructed Construction (5)* Installed with deflectors of sprinklers under concrete tee construction

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

sonFire.com<http://www.fergusonfire.com/> From: Jackie Ward Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 2:38 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016 Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click links or o

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

] Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016 WARNING:This message came from an external source. Please exercise caution when opening any attachments or clicking on links. I have 18” wide concrete beams extending 24” from the bottom of the deck

[Sprinklerforum] Concrete Beams -- NFPA 13, 2016

I have 18” wide concrete beams extending 24” from the bottom of the deck on 7’-0” centers. NFPA-13 (2016) 8.6.4.1.2 Obstructed Construction (5)* Installed with deflectors of sprinklers under concrete tee construction with stems spaced less than 71⁄2 ft (2.3 m) on centers, regardless

[Sprinklerforum] NFPA-13 (2022 ed) Section 20.4.13.4 ~ Mixed Commodity Segregation

Can I apply the above Section to the following scenario: I have an area which requires .60 over 2,000 sq. ft.. In the area requiring .60, there are only 11 heads in the room and I am calcing 7 heads on the grid line (1 grid line supply the room) at 115 sq. ft. per head. In order to calc 2,000

[Sprinklerforum] NFPA 13 (2022ed) sections 28.2.4.2.4 vs 28.2.4.2.5

When do you apply one vs the other? If I am interpreting correctly you apply 28.4.2.4 when you don't have the available floor area and 28.2.4.2.5 when you have the available floor area but not the minimum flow? Thanks, Thank you, Dewayne Martinez Fire Protection Design Manager TOTAL

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13

t; > > > > > *Taylor Schumacher* > > > > *From:* Brett Peters > *Sent:* Thursday, July 20, 2023 11:41 AM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Residen

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13

hydraulic demand. Taylor Schumacher From: Brett Peters Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 11:41 AM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13 Caution: This email originated from outside your organization. Please take

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13

ection.com> wrote: >> >>> Brett, >>> >>> I think you answered your own question. “I always choose whatever gives >>> me the greatest pressure loss not necessarily the larger flow.” Wouldn’t >>> that by definition be the hydraulically most demandi

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13

ssure loss not necessarily the larger flow.” Wouldn’t >> that by definition be the hydraulically most demanding area regardless of >> location? It’s exactly what I do also in this situation. >> >> Chris Dorn >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13

sprinklers Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13 LOL, unfortunately I have someone arguing that it can be done the other way because "those heads have a larger area of coverage". In my opinion they are twisting the definitions of "adjacent" and "hyd

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13

? It’s exactly what I do also in this situation. > > Chris Dorn > > > > > > > > *From:* Brett Peters > *Sent:* Thursday, July 20, 2023 11:15 AM > *To:* Sprinklerforum > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Residential Design in NFPA 13 > > > > Having a deb

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13

To: Sprinklerforum Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Residential Design in NFPA 13 Having a debate on which sprinklers actually have to be part of the hydraulic calculation in a residential unit in a 13 building (So the calculation has to include 4 sprinklers) - NFPA 13, 2013 11.3.1.1* The design area

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Residential Design in NFPA 13

From: Brett Peters Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 11:15 AM To: Sprinklerforum Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Residential Design in NFPA 13 Having a debate on which sprinklers actually have to be part of the hydraulic calculation in a residential unit in a 13 building (So the calculation has

[Sprinklerforum] Residential Design in NFPA 13

Having a debate on which sprinklers actually have to be part of the hydraulic calculation in a residential unit in a 13 building (So the calculation has to include 4 sprinklers) - NFPA 13, 2013 11.3.1.1* The design area shall be the area that includes the four adjacent sprinklers that produce

[Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13 (1989)

Bryan Echelberger Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 4:05 PM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13 (1989) In my 1987 edition, it appears it was 0.35 / 3200 sq ft Working remotely and in the office please reach me at 720-93

[Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13 (1989)

Welch Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 1:57 PM To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers Subject: [Sprinklerforum] NFPA 13 (1989) Does anyone know what the design criteria of 0.35gpm over the most remote 2000 sq. ft. back in 1989 would be for? Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Syst

[Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13 (1989)

I looked in my 1989 edition of and did not see anything. That may be from NFPA 231 or 231C (storage standards of the day). Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc) 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)

[Sprinklerforum] NFPA 13 (1989)

Does anyone know what the design criteria of 0.35gpm over the most remote 2000 sq. ft. back in 1989 would be for? Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY 3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377 P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 2019 NFPA 13 Table 21.4.1.2 clarification?

Looks like a type o to me, the A and B should be switched in the table but it is taking you to the correct figure number, so just go by the information in Figure 21.4.1.2(a) and utilize the appropriate curves in the figure, looks like it's just the class I that is incorrect, the other areas of the

[Sprinklerforum] 2019 NFPA 13 Table 21.4.1.2 clarification?

I have a question on this table. If you go to the height column for 22ft to 25ft, commodity class I, non-encapsulated, 8' aisles it recommends to use figure 21.4.1.2(a) curves B and D. When I read the descriptions for these curves it appears that they are in actuality the wrong curves and I

RE: NFPA 13, 1978 Table 2.2.1 (B)

TEAMS -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 7:44 PM To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: NFPA 13, 1978 Table 2.2.1 (B) Here

Fw: NFPA 13, 1978 Table 2.2.1 (B)

gt; ce...@sprinkleracademy.com<mailto:ce...@sprinkleracademy.com> ?? OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:06 AM To: Sprinklerforum Cc: Fpdcdesign Subject: Re: NFPA 13, 1978 Ta

Re: NFPA 13, 1978 Table 2.2.1 (B)

sign > used NFPA 231, it references 1978 NFPA 13, Table 2.2.1(B). Would anyone have > a copy of the 1978 NFPA 13 and could send me a snapshot of that Table? I've > looked on the NFPA site and they don't have versions available that far back. > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Prote

NFPA 13, 1978 Table 2.2.1 (B)

I'm in the middle of a whse renovation project study and the original design used NFPA 231, it references 1978 NFPA 13, Table 2.2.1(B). Would anyone have a copy of the 1978 NFPA 13 and could send me a snapshot of that Table? I've looked on the NFPA site and they don't have versions available

RE: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7

You are correct. Thanks From: Ken Wagoner Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 7:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Jones, William - Fire Plans Examiner/Inspector ; James Crawford ; Skyler Bilbo Subject: Re: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7 Bill I looked back

Re: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7

wrote: The 2016 NFPA 13 handbook states that canopies less than 4' are not required to have sprinklers, regardless of construction type, unless combustibles are stored under them. Projections 2' or more require sprinklers, regardless of construction type, if there are combustibles stored

RE: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7

ford Subject: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7 BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. We have been discussing exterior projections in the office and with an AHJ on when sprinklers are required. Section https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.7.1__;!!Fax

RE: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7

The 2016 NFPA 13 handbook states that canopies less than 4' are not required to have sprinklers, regardless of construction type, unless combustibles are stored under them. Projections 2' or more require sprinklers, regardless of construction type, if there are combustibles stored below

Re: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7

I think you are correct for your described situation: you have a noncombustible overhang, under 4 ft, with no storage underneath, then no sprinklers is OK. It sure seems to me like we don't have to install sprinklers under *combustible* overhangs 4 ft or less as long as there is no storage

NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7

We have been discussing exterior projections in the office and with an AHJ on when sprinklers are required. Section 8.15.7.1 Unless the requirements of 8.15.7.2, 8.15.7.3. or 8.15.7.3 are met, sprinklers shall be installed under exterior projections exceeding 4'-0" in width. Section 8.15.7.5

Re: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

Merriam-Webster's > Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the > ordinarily accepted meaning. > > R/ > Matt > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Taylor Schumacher via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 11:45

RE: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

: Thursday, August 5, 2021 11:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Taylor Schumacher Subject: RE: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking AHJ's get really fun in a hurry when arguing semantics. Point this individual to a dictionary which will define temporary as "la

RE: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Scott Futrell Cc: Aaron Peck ; Andrew Baldwin ; Roberto Alvarez Subject: Re: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking Scott, I can appreciate all of that, but Florida has a state fire code. And we as life safety professionals (contractors

Re: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

5, 2021 2:04:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: John Irwin ; Aaron Peck ; Andrew Baldwin ; Roberto Alvarez Subject: RE: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking I can't wait to hear what John and Kevin have to say. It seems that if the sprinkler system understands

RE: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

; Aaron Peck ; Andrew Baldwin ; Roberto Alvarez Subject: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking So I'm going 12 rounds with a local fire marshal who wants to define what temporary parking means, under a drive through canopy. His logic is that he doesn't know how long a vehicle

RE: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

Might want to rethink the truck full of fire works comment. Save it for the steering wheel when you are driving home. Appendix A.8.15.7.2 and A.8.15.7.5 NFPA 13 2013 Edition (yes Michigan is really moving on getting current) I feel explains it pretty well. Bruce -Original Message- From

RE: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

nklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: John Irwin ; Aaron Peck ; Andrew Baldwin ; Roberto Alvarez Subject: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking So I'm going 12 rounds with a local fire marshal who wants to define what temporary parking means, under a drive through canopy. His logic is that he doesn't kno

NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

So I'm going 12 rounds with a local fire marshal who wants to define what temporary parking means, under a drive through canopy. His logic is that he doesn't know how long a vehicle will be parked. His exact concerns are as follows: "Our answer was yes do to deliveries made and not knowing how

Re: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2

dt < > jdenha...@firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2 > > I'd like that. The last time I went a couple rounds with her we did have a > few AFSA interpretations but none exactly fit the 'identical' situation so > she wasn't satisfied. > > John Ir

RE: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2

I am curios, Did you include a 2 hour test at all? R/ Matt -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:25 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: John Irwin ; John Denhardt Subject: Re: NFPA 13 2016

Re: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2

PM John Irwin via Sprinklerforum > wrote: > > > NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2, Modifications that cannot be isolated, such as > relocated drops, shall require testing at system working pressure. > > We have a local AHJ that always requires us to pump up tenant improvemen

Re: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2

rch 18, 2021 10:22:20 PM > *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org < > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > *Cc:* John Denhardt > *Subject:* Re: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2 > > John - Let's talk tomorrow. I think we can prepare an informal > interpretation for you describing the i

Re: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2

: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2 John - Let's talk tomorrow. I think we can prepare an informal interpretation for you describing the intent of this section. AFSA will be covering Acceptance Testing is some upcoming AHJ webinars. Thanks, John John August Denhardt, PE *Vice President, Engineering

Re: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2

nment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for Spring 2021 <https://www.firesprinkler.org/itm>. On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 8:21 PM John Irwin via Sprinklerforum < sprinklerforum@lists.firespri

NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2

NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2, Modifications that cannot be isolated, such as relocated drops, shall require testing at system working pressure. We have a local AHJ that always requires us to pump up tenant improvement projects to 200 psi if they are over 20 sprinklers. We have a waiver/release form

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

Yes sir - it was added for the 2016 edition of NFPA 13 and remained the same for the 2019 edition. Problem solved. Thanks, John John August Denhardt, PE *Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services* *American Fire Sprinkler Association* m: p: 301-343-1457 214-349-5965 ext 121 w

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

Of Jeff Garrison via Sprinklerforum Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 10:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Jeff Garrison Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi The Bracket IS the LAST hanger, per Flex manufacturers I have talked to, but, NFSA gave us

Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

> http://www.total-mechanical.com/ > > > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum *On > Behalf Of *John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum > *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2020 10:41 AM > *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > *Cc:* John Denhardt > *Subject:* Re: NFPA 13, 201

RE: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

*Subject:* Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi In my opinion, no. The flexible drop assembly is anchored to the ceiling. The point of this requirement is to keep the pendent sprinkler from moving upwards during activation. The flexible drop assembly accomplishes

Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

All the listed flexible drop installation hardware restrain the sprinkler, but not necessarily to the ceiling. Some have gripping hardware supported by threaded rod “from the structure above". The gripping hardware is useful when the architect has some new fangled, odd ceiling design that does

Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

I will at the 2022 edition and see if we can add something. Maybe in the Annex. Thanks, John John August Denhardt, PE *Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services* *American Fire Sprinkler Association* m: p: 301-343-1457 214-349-5965 ext 121 w: firesprinkler.org

Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

I'd agree with John for the very same reason he thinks (intent of the requirement) no, but I'll bet there are AHJs out there that will read the rulebook differently, citing no exception stated, and without concern for intent, and say yes, you need to do it. And probably even some that agree that

Re: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

In my opinion, no. The flexible drop assembly is anchored to the ceiling. The point of this requirement is to keep the pendent sprinkler from moving upwards during activation. The flexible drop assembly accomplishes this requirement. Thanks, John John August Denhardt, PE *Vice President,

NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

Is the hanger on the pipe supplying a flexible drop to a pendant sprinkler in a ceiling still required to one that prevents upward movement? Sections 9.2.3.4.4.1,9.2.3.5.2.2 Thank you, Dewayne Martinez Fire Protection Design Manager *TOTAL Mechanical* *Building* *Integrity* W234

Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions

2020 12:41 PM > *To:* Sprinklerforum > *Cc:* Fpdcdesign ; Jvankolken > *Subject:* Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions > > I have all of the Codes/Handbooks from 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987... complete > up to 2016. There was not an 18 year gap > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection De

Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions

>> 1978-1996 in the code available for 13. >> >> >> >> Was there really no update for NFPA 13 in that 18 years? >> >> >> >> Jerry Van Kolken >> >> *Millennium Fire Protection Corp.* >> >> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd. >> >> Oce

Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions

> > > > > > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:41 PM > To: Sprinklerforum > Cc: Fpdcdesign ; Jvankolken > Subject: Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions > > > > >

Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions

rinklerforum > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:41 PM > To: Sprinklerforum > Cc: Fpdcdesign ; Jvankolken > Subject: Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions > > I have all of the Codes/Handbooks from 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987... complete up > to 2016. There was not an 18 year gap > &

Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions

e and notice a 18 year gap before > 1978-1996 in the code available for 13. > > > > Was there really no update for NFPA 13 in that 18 years? > > > > Jerry Van Kolken > > *Millennium Fire Protection Corp.* > > 2950 San Luis Rey Rd. >

RE: NFPA 13 Code Editions

Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:41 PM To: Sprinklerforum Cc: Fpdcdesign ; Jvankolken Subject: Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions I have all of the Codes/Handbooks from 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987... complete up to 2016. There was not an 18 year gap Todd G Williams, PE

Re: NFPA 13 Code Editions

de used for this job on NFPA’s website and notice a 18 year gap before > 1978-1996 in the code available for 13. > > > > > > > > Was there really no update for NFPA 13 in that 18 years? > > > > > > > > Jerry Van K

NFPA 13 Code Editions

I'm looking at an old job from before I started. I was trying to find the code used for this job on NFPA's website and notice a 18 year gap before 1978-1996 in the code available for 13. Was there really no update for NFPA 13 in that 18 years? Jerry Van Kolken Millennium Fire Protection

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Bill Cunningham via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:02:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Bill Cunningham Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) My foreman claimed NTS stood for Not To Sure. I always went with your

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

16 January 2020 4:47 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: Bill Cunningham > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) > > FIF. Fit in Field . Had a Foreman that claimed it meant F__ in Field. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 15, 2020, at 7:22

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

Cunningham via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2020 4:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Bill Cunningham Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) FIF. Fit in Field . Had a Foreman that claimed it meant F__ in Field. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 15, 2020

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

nklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:03 PM >>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>>> Cc: Kyle.Montgomery; Bruce Verhei >>>> Subje

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >>> Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:03 PM >>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> Cc: Kyle.Montgomery; Bruce Verhei >>> Subject: RE: [EXTER

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

lists.firesprinkler.org > *Cc:* Kyle.Montgomery; Bruce Verhei > *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) > > > > Are you familiar with the term ‘C.O.J.’? > > > > Heheheh… > > > > Just in case you aren’t, it’s not dirty or anything. It means “cut o

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Kyle.Montgomery; Bruce Verhei Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)   Are you familiar with the term ‘C.O.J.’?   Heheheh…   Just in case you aren’t

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) Are you familiar with the term ‘C.O.J.’? Heheheh… Just in case you aren’t, it’s not dirty or anything. It means “cut on job”. -Kyle M From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum Sent: Monday

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Bruce Verhei Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) I’ve never drawn up a fab order. I always assumed you’d need this information. Do I get it wrong. Best. Bruce Verhei On Jan 13, 2020, at 06:15, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum

Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

Greenville, South Carolina 29606 > > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 6:10 PM > To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo > Subject: [EX

RE: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

my - C Bilbo Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) Bob, The committee wants to see relative elevation changes. This helps with lengths of pipe and calcs too. We use the word relative because it doesn't need to be Above Sea Level. (But I think you already know this!!) Cecil It should b

Re: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Bob Knight Subject: NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37) >From NFPA 13 (2013 ED), 23.1.3 (37) Relative elevations of sprinklers, >junction points, and supply or reference points. This is probably an obvious question, but not to me. What is this

NFPA 13, 23.1.3 (37)

>From NFPA 13 (2013 ED), 23.1.3 (37) Relative elevations of sprinklers, junction points, and supply or reference points. This is probably an obvious question, but not to me. What is this asking for? Thank you, Bob Knight, CET III Fire by Knight, LLC 208-318-3057 FBK-L

RE: 2016 NFPA 13 Reference help

er.org Cc: Matt Grise Subject: RE: 2016 NFPA 13 Reference help 8.7.3.1.6 "sidewall sprinkler shall be permitted to be installed on opposing or adjacent walls, provided ho sprinkler is located within the maximum protection area of another sprinkler." Matt Fro

RE: 2016 NFPA 13 Reference help

forum Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 11:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G Subject: 2016 NFPA 13 Reference help Regarding sidewall sprinklers, I recall a section stating that sidewall sprinklers can not be in the throw pattern of another sidewall

2016 NFPA 13 Reference help

Regarding sidewall sprinklers, I recall a section stating that sidewall sprinklers can not be in the throw pattern of another sidewall sprinkler. Can some one help me locate that section? I'm drawing a blank today on search. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

NFPA 13 - 2013ed ceiling pockets

I have a situation where I have a condo unit where the owner is requesting to have “custom wood coffer ceilings”. This creates small ceiling pockets (4’x4’x8”) throughout the area in question. The total areas in question would be between 80 cu ft and 200 cu ft in size. What are my options to

Re: CBC / CFC vs NFPA 13

Scot. I've lost your email. Mine has not changed. Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com 253.576.9700 The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-) On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 9:56 PM å...

CBC / CFC vs NFPA 13

On 19 January this year, there was a similar thread regarding precedence of design guides: General agreement was: 1. the AHJ is alpha authority on judging design guidance, though not always the most accurate authority, 2. Not discussed on 19 January, but generally agreed to anyway, is that the

Re: CBC / CFC vs NFPA 13

181* Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 07/24/2019 2:50 PM, Steve Leyton wrote: another example in California is in Chapter 5 with regard to the height of Type 5 buildings. We require an upgrade to NFPA 13 to get a four-story Type 5 R2 occupancy where other states will

RE: CBC / CFC vs NFPA 13

01.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00] From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of John Irwin Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 3:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: CBC / CFC vs NFPA 13 Not in Florida. Florida Fire Prevention Code > Local AHJ It's a wonderful thing to have a state fire code that the local

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >