Re: FM and Concealed Sprinklers

I don't think what the value of the rule is, or how it's determined or any other thing than what's required is germane to the discussion. If the AHJ wants squealing raccoons glued to the ceiling and FM wants quiet ones you have the problem of serving two masters. When they've both already decided

Re: Monolithic domes

I thought about PEX as well Steve, its no four letter word for me. At least with the CPVC we can comply with the pipe requirements from NFPA 13, which would require less 'selling' than PEX use. Although as Mark points out about thermal expansion, PEX does have a lower rate of I think about an

RE: Monolithic domes

I think an investigation of the potential for thermal expansion would be prudent. The applications I described topped with 3-8 feet of earth, so temperatures were stable year-round. But PEX is designed to expand and contract without loss of structural integrity, so it's well suited for

RE: FM and Concealed Sprinklers

Excellent stuff here Pete. I think you meant me, Brad, about the "it's a tie". The distinguishing between concealer and non concealer has never occurred to me. I input Temp Rating and RTI only (if it's just activation I'm looking at). You're right about the oven plunge tests to establish RTI not

Deep Hole Saws

I am starting a Freezer/Cooler installation and looking for a hole saw that will cut a 2.25" diameter hole 6" deep. I need it that deep with a matching pilot drill/mandrel. The cooler panels are 6" thick and I am dropping Dry Pendants from above. I prefer to do this in one step and not drill

RE: FM and Concealed Sprinklers

Thank you all for your responses! I enjoyed reading the conversation so much I forgot I had asked the question. Regards, Scott H From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Friday, October 7, 2016 1:34 PM To:

Re: Monolithic domes

Isn't PEX used as the piping in heated floors where you would have a large change in temperature from winter (using it to halt the floor cum building, and summer where you wouldn't? On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: > I think an investigation of

RE: FM and Concealed Sprinklers

Interesting topic. In my humble opinion, the UL 199 tests to qualify concealed sprinklers as quick response is extremely questionable! On the other hand, what do you think you are getting when you install a quick response sprinkler anyway? Effectively, the UL 199 test requires the concealed

RE: FM and Concealed Sprinklers

Hi Pete, Just saying what the code stipulates and therein we follow, however if it’s acceptable for AHJs to use interpretive approval discretion (i.e. I don’t agree with that standard) regarding listings just say the word. Case in point UL 2196. John Drucker From: Sprinklerforum

RE: FM and Concealed Sprinklers

From a code compliance standpoint Underwriters Laboratories is one of appx 22 Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL). Interestingly UL 199, 1626 etc. are the defacto standards for fire sprinklers which any of the other NRTL’s would use to test and list a fire sprinkler (aside from

Re: Monolithic domes

One thing no one has mentioned on this thread concerning the installation of sprinkler pipe in cast in place concrete, is the differential rate of thermal expansion. While concrete and steel have very similar rates of thermal expansion, the rate of thermal expansion for pvc and cpvc is quite

Re: Deep Hole Saws

I have drilled similar holes with a ship’s auger. If you cannot find one that will drill to that depth, there is an extension available. The brand was Milwaukee. I think the cost was about $100.00 10 years ago, from Home Depot From: 321 Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 2:16 PM To: