And there, as Roland also points out over and over, is the crux of it all. And not even a square hole, but a varying rectangular one at best, with calculations containing numbers from constants (compromises to begin with), to a fixed guesstimate of coefficients based on varying factors at a given time somewhere in the future, to numbers gathered at a fixed point in time from a variable system, by recording the average of a fluctuating gause. Yep. I think four decimal places accuracy is necessary given those conditions.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > If there was ever an application of putting a square peg (design spacing) > in a round hole (actual discharge pattern), sprinklers is it. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > 860-535-2080 > www.fpdc.com > > > On Sep 5, 2013, at 5:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Do you mean the same rectangular spray pattern? ( hehe) > > > > Ron F > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad > Casterline > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:17 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > I still have fresh enough scars to throw SAME PATTERN in there too :) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:06 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > I dunno Pete - didn't we hear a proposal in that regard last week? Who > submitted that? > > > > The FIRE CODE tells us that, absent a change of use and/or occupancy, a > FLS system is required to be maintained in accordance with the code(s) and > standard(s) that governed at the time the system and building were > > originally permitted for occupancy. So you would use your professional > > judgment to select a new sprinkler that most closely approximates the > discharge characteristics and RTI of the displaced sprinkler and move > > on. > > > > This isn't rocket science. Is there anyone who thinks that replacing a > sprinkler with one of the same K-factor and RTI will compromise the > capability of a control-mode system to function properly in that mode? > > Regardless of whether that sprinkler is listed for .03 or .05 or is > calculated at .10? > > > > SML > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Pete Schwab > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 11:56 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > Steve > > So what do you do if the sprinkler is no longer available? (Residential > sprinklers prior to the minimum .05 density and the NFPA 13 2002 > requirement for a minimum 0.10 density) Pete > > > > Peter Schwab > > VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies > > > > Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. > > 222 Capitol Court > > Ocoee, Fl 34761 > > > > Mobile: (407) 468-8248 > > Direct: (407) 877-5570 > > Fax: (407) 656-8026 > > > > www.waynefire.com > > > > > > > > Celebrating over 34 years of life safety > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Steve Leyton > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 1:38 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > I didn't mean it as a poke at you - this is the same underlying problem > as with ITM. So long as there are one or two service providers that will > do an "inspection" for $250, then it's always going to be that much more > challenging to sell a complete and comprehensive professional > > service package into that market. More universally, the standard > > practice needs to be that sprinklers be replaced when they are removed > from fittings, period. And this will entail hammering on enforcers to hold > up their end of the equation as well, which is really the only way > > that unscrupulous corner-cutters can be held accountable. > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Greg McGahan > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:30 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > "adjust prices" > > With all due respect Steve - I said the WE would comply with > code......we are still in the fight every day with those that don't. So > issues like this are business killers for those of us that work with the > unscrupulous and uneducated....Not that we ourselves are unfallible - but > we do at least try. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Steve Leyton > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> I was asked about 4 years ago to assist with a lawsuit as either a > >> technical consultant or designated expert that was focused on this > >> exact issue. The case was over a sprinkler that discharged in a > > retail suite > >> that was being remodeled. A sprinkler contractor had relocated a > >> sprinkler by wrenching out the drop with sprinkler intact, and > >> reinstalling it a couple feet away. After they did the work, there > >> were painters and finishers working in the suite over a weekend. > >> Sunday night, the sprinkler released and flooded the suite, wrecked > >> the new paint and drywall, etc., etc. > >> > >> Neither side could prove their points. The sprinkie alleged that > >> other trades must have hit the pipe and the finishers and painters > >> were using pads and rollers on extensions, so that was a distinct > > possibility. > >> And there were teeth marks on the drop, but it wasn't possible to say > >> forensically and with certainty if they were made during the T.I. or > >> rough-in. But, there was no way corroborate the fitter's affidavit > > that > >> he hadn't dropped, wrenched or mishandled the sprinkler. No forensic > >> conclusions could be reached regarding the sprinkler, as certain parts > > > >> were missing and someone (a responding firefighter, allegedly) had > >> badly damaged the sprinkler. The bottom line is that if the sprinkler > > > >> had been new, there would have been no allegation of negligence > >> against the sprinkie. > >> > >> Whatever sprinklers cost, this is the new price of tea in China folks. > >> Adjust prices and let's move on. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> Greg McGahan > >> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:19 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop > >> > >> H > >> ave we sufficient evidence that it is the reinstalled heads are the > >> ones accidently discharging? > >> > >> It just seems like a waste to throw a 20 dollar head away because you > >> have to remove and reinstall.....or even a 3 dollar head. > >> > >> We WILL comply with code, but I strongly disagree. > >> > >> Greg > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Todd - Work <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I would think that the vast majority of problems in mis-handling > >>> sprinklers in this manner come from premature actuation (especially > >>> with glass bulb) and not failure to actuate in a fire. I would also > >>> think that only in very rare circumstances would you lose a building > > > >>> due to an accidental discharge of a sprinkler. > >>> > >>> Todd G Williams, PE > >>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting > >>> Stonington, CT > >>> www.fpdc.com > >>> > >>> On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:48 AM, "Cahill, Christopher" > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> "then it appears you can re-use sprinklers left in drops or > > sprigs" > >>> Where does this appearance come from? I don't see it in the Code, > >>> Annex or Handbook. Quite frankly, that is the only place that > >>> counts in descending order of priority. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with Todd there is some judgment and risk tolerance. I'm > >>>> sure > >>> not 'buying' a building loss over what a <$10 device I my current > >> role. > >>> When I was a contractor maybe we weren't perfect in this regard. > >>> When I was an AHJ if asked - new, and lot of don't ask don't tell. > >>>> > >>>> Chris Cahill, PE* > >>>> Senior Fire Protection Engineer > >>>> Burns & McDonnell > >>>> 8201 Norman Center Drive > >>>> Bloomington, MN 55437 > >>>> Phone: 952.656.3652 > >>>> Fax: 952.229.2923 > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> www.burnsmcd.com > >>>> > >>>> Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > >>>> *Registered in: MN > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto: > >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. > >>> Sornsin, P.E. > >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:27 AM > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > >>>> > >>>> I would argue that this shouldn't be an argument as long as it is > >>> specified up-front. If the owner or engineer says do not reinstall, > > > >>> then don't argue, because if you win, it is your butt on the line > >>> should the head fail. > >>>> > >>>> If this is a competitive bid situation or direct work with owner, > >>>> with > >>> no c > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> > >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > >>> kl > >>> er.org > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Greg McGahan > >> Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > >> 1160 McKenzie Road > >> Cantonment, FL 32533 > >> 850-937-1850 > >> fax 850-937-1852 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > >> er > >> .org > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> > >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > >> er.org > > > > > > > > -- > > Greg McGahan > > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > > 1160 McKenzie Road > > Cantonment, FL 32533 > > 850-937-1850 > > fax 850-937-1852 > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler > > .org > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler > > .org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler > > .org > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] 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, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
