Than you all for your valued inputs and expertise.
In the 2nd to last paragraph in the 2010 California Fire Code 903.2.8 'When
not used in accordance with section 504.2 or 506.3 of the California Building
Code an Automatic Sprinkler System installed in accordance with section
903.3.1.2 shall be allowed in Group R-2.1 Occupancies. Is it safe to assume
that since it doesn't specifically mention an R-2 occupancy not being used in
accordance with section 504.2 or 506.3 of the 2010 C.F.C. that it be allowed to
be installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2 of the 2010 C.F.C. (Did I say
that correctly?)
George Medina Jr.
Mobile: 323-906-5701
-----Original Message-----
From: Cahill, Christopher <ccah...@burnsmcd.com>
To: sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 1:25 pm
Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Why does NFPA 13x committees deal
with this? Most (not all) of us in the US work with I codes and it's rather
clear to me what to use. I don't work in NFPA 5000 but ASSUME it's similar.
IBC tells me which variant to use, NFPA 13x only tells me how to do it.
(Avoiding the vernacular code/standard out of respect for Greenman.) So the
NFPA Committees can change or say anything they want and it's pointless. Hell,
they could say 13D for residential high-rises and NFPA 13D Committee would have
little they could do about it.
Not that dissimilar to NFPA 409 and IBC 412. In 409 ch. 5 they have all sorts
of requirements for a building that are not required if following the basics of
IBC. For example, rated walls are not required in many hangars if you meet the
height and area limits for mixed use. Don't need to protect the columns and
don't need draft curtains, etc. True, a few places might legally adopt 409 in
its entirety or you get there from insurance but that's not routine.
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-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
A heads up in regards to the 2016 edition of NFPA 13R. The committee has made a
pretty drastic change that will significantly "assist" in determining if and
when NFPA 13R applies. This was done in the First Draft phase and is currently
open for Public Comment.
Here is the language from A.1.1 as how it appears in the First Draft Report.
See
the end sentences in paragraph #1.
NFPA 13R is appropriate for use as an alternative to NFPA 13 only in those
residential occupancies, as defined in this standard, up to and including four
aboveground stories in height, and limited to buildings that are 60 ft (18 m)
or
less in height above grade plane, which is consistent with limits established
by
model building codes for buildings of Type V construction. The height of a
building above grade plane is determined by model building codes, which base
the
height on the average height of the highest roof surface above grade plane. For
further information on the building height story limits, see model building
codes.
Buildings that contain multiple occupancies (either separated or
non-separated),
accessory occupancies or incidental uses are often subject to special rules
that
may restrict the use of NFPA 13R. Refer to the adopted building code to
determine whether such restrictions are applicable.
The criteria in this standard are based on full-scale fire tests of rooms
containing typical furnishings found in residential living rooms, kitchens, and
bedrooms. The furnishings were arranged as typically found in dwelling units in
a manner similar to that shown in Figure A.1.1(a), Figure A.1.1(b), and Figure
A.1.1(c). Sixty full-scale fire tests were conducted in a two-story dwelling in
Los Angeles, California, and 16 tests were conducted in a 14 ft (4.3 m) wide
mobile home in Charlotte, North Carolina. Sprinkler systems designed and
installed according to this standard are expected to prevent flashover within
the compartment of origin where sprinklers are installed in the compartment. A
sprinkler system designed and installed according to this standard cannot,
however, be expected to completely control a fire involving fuel loads that are
significantly higher than average for dwelling units [10 lb/ft2 (49 kg/m2)],
configurations of fuels other than those with typical resi
dential occupancies, or conditions where the interior finish has an
unusually
high flame spread index (greater than 225).
To be effective, sprinkler systems installed in accordance with this standard
need to open the sprinklers closest to the fire before the fire exceeds the
ability of the sprinkler discharge to extinguish or control the fire.
Conditions
that allow the fire to grow beyond that point before sprinkler activation or
that interfere with the quality of water distribution can produce conditions
beyond the capabilities of the sprinkler system described in this standard.
Unusually high ceilings or ceiling configurations that tend to divert the
rising
hot gases from sprinkler locations or change the sprinkler discharge pattern
from its standard pattern can produce fire conditions that cannot be
extinguished or controlled by the systems described in this standard.
NFPA 13R references NFPA 13 in many aspects (hanging and bracing, design
densities and spacing outside of dwelling unit, painting and finish of
sprinklers, welding, etc.). If this standard does not specifically address a
situation, NFPA 13 is a good resource that can be utilized by the installer and
the authority having jurisdiction for a solution. It is not the intent of this
standard to require compliance with NFPA 13 when NFPA 13R is silent on a
subject. Only AHJ approval should be required.
There is a committee input that adds language into A.1.1 discussing separated
and non-separated occupancies, podiums, incidental occupancies and where to
find
that info in the (2) Model Building codes. That task group spent several days
developing the language. However, the committee felt that the installation
standard should not say when, just how. I am in disagreement but was in the
minority. End result: More NFPA 13 systems throughout entire buildings because
fire AHJ's will not be versed in how to navigate the building codes and will
simply insist on the better life safety.
It should be recognized that the above is my opinion only, and has not been
processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations
Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied
upon, as the official position of the NFPA, nor any of their technical
committees.
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
We're hiring great people at all of our locations! Please check out our
website
for the details!
-----Original Message-----
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
That's what I was alluding to and that Ken reiterated. You can take credit
with
a 13R for certain things that require the building to be furnished throughout
with "an approved automatic fire sprinkler system"
but increase in height and area are not among those certain things and
that mistake is made ALL the time. The committee has been wrestling
with how to deal with mixed occupancies for three cycles. Once upon a time it
was simple: if the building is classified as multiple occupancies, then it was
a 13 (or should have been). Now we have to determine if residential is the
"predominant" use or not. If it is, such as a hotel, then the other uses such
as A, B and S2 occupancies are considered accessory and you design per 13R but
protect areas outside the dwelling per 13. AS PRESCRIBED IN 13R.
But if you read A.1.1 in the 2013 edition of 13R, you will see a provision that
states, "Where buildings of mixed use can be totally separated so that the
residential portion is considered a separate building under the local code,
NFPA
13R can be used in the residential
portion while NFPA 13 is used in the rest of the building." This part
requires that all the stakeholders put on their thinking caps and determine 1)
Do the occupancy separations qualify as building separations and, 2) Is it
cost-effective to offer up separate bases of design in such a circumstance. I
would postulate that in 99% of cases, it's just a helluva lot easier to treat
mixed uses as 13 and primarily residential uses as 13R. 13R offers a much
wider
range of flexibility than many users of the standard are aware of, and includes
provisions for more conservative design in the non-dwelling areas. There have
been some roof burn-offs in Type 5 buildings that prompted proposals to require
sprinklers in combustible concealed spaces the last two cycles,
but those proposals were rejected. The life-safety record of 13R
systems is still exemplary, even in buildings with a certain amount of
non-residential uses ...
The foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the opinion
or intent of the NFPA 13D/13R Technical Committee on Residential Sprinkler
Systems.
SML
-----Original Message-----
From:
sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:26 AM
To:
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
I too have seen this more than once. About to start on a motel where the
architect took an allowance for increased building size (thus requiring a 13
system), but the project engineer specified a 13R system.
When they get that worked out, I'll start design.
Ed Kramer
Lawrence, KS
-----Original Message-----
From:
sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:04 PM
To:
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Re: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
Agree as well. I am no IBC expert, but I do know a couple instances where the
architect can take an allowance and it drives the system to
903.3.1.1 instead of 903.3.1.2 of the IBC. I always check these on all
projects
where 13R may be applicable. If I find what I feel is an error, I will call
the
architect and point out my concerns. I can't tell you how many times the
architectural firms say they were unaware of the difference in those two
sections.
My first check is to always go with the code study analysis and then if it
doesn't make sense, I throw it back to the architect and make them do the final
determination.
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
On 4/22/2014 10:59 AM, Parsley Consulting wrote:
> I have to agree with Steve. There has been many a multi-family
> project cross my plan review table with the system designed to NFPA
> 13R because "the architect called it out on the drawings", while also
> taking several allowances for a fully sprinklered building. Thanks to
> Steve, and a couple of others, I'm now well aware of the limitations
> in the IBC (CBC out here), which allow that to be done only if the
> design of the system conformed to NFPA 13. Some pretty high profile
> architectural firms have made that error, stamped and sealed their
> drawings.
>
> A significant number of AHJ's don't seem to know that's the case, at
> least based on the training classes I've attended and taught. More's
> the pity.
>
> Ken
>
>
> On 4/22/2014 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton wrote:
>> Chris:
>>
>> You know we're buds, right? Good, 'cause that's just
>> regoddamnediculous. "Many AHJ's don't have all the information
>> ..."??? TFB - they owe their customers the professional service to
>> acquire and apply that information. You wanna be sued into oblivion
>> after a fire loss? Do the code analysis apart from the enforcing
>> agency (especially if someone can show evidence later of
>> correspondence or opinion by the AHJ that maybe it should have been a
>> different basis of design) and then prosecute your work based on that
>> "independent" opinion.
>>
>> I agree that the architect is in responsible charge and typically
>> they do a code analysis. But they very often simply put "Sprinklers
>> - Yes" or words to that effect into the note block. It says in the
>> code which design to use and if the Architect can't or won't answer,
>> then the BO should have the final say. Legally, in most cities and
>> states, they do have the final say.
>>
>> SML
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-
>> boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>> Cahill, Christopher
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 10:41 AM
>> To:
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fi
>> resprinkler.org>
>> Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
>>
>> I agree Arch is better to ask. As a sprinkler contractor you
>> probably don't have all the information to ask correctly. Many AHJ's
>> don't have all the information either. I've seen many a project go
>> forward on this issue long before an AHJ sees it. And if you call the
>> fire marshal because that's who the sprinkler permit is through
>> probably the building official approved the type of sprinkler. I was
>> an AHJ for a long time and wouldn't answer. I'd ask you what the
>> Arch said and the building official agreed to. If I discovered a
>> problem later I took it up with the building official. When I was an
>> contractor I sure drove a lot of Arch's nuts asking. And yes they
>> rarely knew the answer. We'd talk it out and caveat the bid.
>>
>> Chris Cahill, PE*
>> Associate Fire Protection Engineer
>> Burns & McDonnell
>> Phone: 952.656.3652
>> Fax: 952.229.2923
>> ccah...@burnsmcd.com<mailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com>
>> www.burnsmcd.com<http://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-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-
>> boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>> Forest Wilson
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:39 AM
>> To:
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fi
>> resprinkler.org>
>> Subject: Re: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
>>
>> I ask the Architect.
>> The problem with asking the AHJ is that they can change their mind
>> later.
>> In Ohio, most of their approval stamps have an exception clause.
>> Ask the Architect, let the Architect ask the AHJ.
>> Then if the AHJ changes their mind, the Architect is caught in the
>> middle of the dispute.
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/2014 12:28 PM, Taylor, Galen wrote:
>>> Let me add to what Steve just said: During the building plan check
>>> process a trade-off may occur in which an otherwise acceptable 13R
>>> system is required to be upgraded to a full 13 system. This fact may
>>> or may not be fully revealed upfront to bidding contractors, so it
>>> pays to ask. And any questions you have concerning the application
>>> of the code should be directed to the AHJ.
>>>
>>> Galen Taylor
>>> County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Engineering
>>> 323-890-4339
>>> galen.tay...@fire.lacounty.gov<mailto:galen.tay...@fire.lacounty.gov
>>> >
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:
>>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum
>>> -boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Steve Leyton
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:06 AM
>>> To:
>>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.f
>>> iresprinkler.org>
>>> Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
>>>
>>> I'm a little late to this thread, but I did want to address the
>>> initial question, i.e. when do you use this standard or that
standard.
>>> Notwithstanding the annex language in 13R that's intended to clarify
>>> its application, the bottom line answer is that it's up to the
building
>>> official. If you - as a bidding contractor or design consultant or
>>> whatever your stake in the issue - cannot clearly determine the
>>> applicable standard, a formal query should be directed to the
>>> building official with jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> Steve L.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:
>>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum
>>> -boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>>> rongreenman .
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:45 AM
>>> To:
>>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.f
>>> iresprinkler.org>
>>> Subject: Re: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
>>>
>>> Go Mark!
>>>
>>> And even if the garages are used by non-tenants I believe the 13R
>>> designation could still apply. If you look at 13R and garages, and
>>> I'm imagining the 2007 edition so it may have changed, there are
>>> three criteria for garages in 13R. Depending on how they
>>> communicate, or don't, with each other and the building itself seems
>>> to define how they are defined for design purposes. As Mark says,
>>> just because 13R references you to 13 for a single point of design
>>> to follow in a special circumstance doesn't necessarily mean you
>>> default entirely to 13. 13 references 24 but we don't install all
>>> the piping to 24 (although I did once see a backflow installed about
>>> 20 feet off the floor, with glanded flanges, Megalugs and rodding).
>>> 13 also references 72 but because I have to do a thing (hook up
>>> alarm stuff) doesn't mean it completely trumps everything else. I
>>> know this is silly but it's not far off. Just because 13R looks a
>>> lot like 13 doesn't make it the same. A zebra looks like a stripe
> d
>> h
>>> orse....
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. <
>>> masorn...@kfi-eng.com<mailto:masorn...@kfi-eng.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A word of caution regarding semantics:
>>>>
>>>> The building is either designed to 13 or 13R. There is no "13 for
>>>> this area and 13R for that area." If the garages are considered
>>>> part of the building and the building is eligible for 13R (as this
>>>> one appears it may
>>>> be) then the building is designed to 13R. The garage calculations
>>>> would be done to 13R (which happens to reference 13 rules, except
>>>> for the hose allowances).
>>>>
>>>> Only if the garages are determined to be separate buildings would
>>>> be able to say 13R for the main building and 13 for the garages.
>>>>
>>>> This sounds petty on the surface, but when we use these terms
>>>> loosely, the Architects and plumbing engineers pick up on it and
>>>> start spreading false
>>>> premises:
>>>>
>>>> "We're gonna design these rooms to that 13R code and these areas to
>>> 13."
>>>> "You need residential sprinklers everywhere, except the laundry
>>>> rooms, because those have to be designed to 13."
>>>> "The apartments above are to 13R but the first floor mercantile -
>>>> including the open stair to the apartments- is designed to 13."
>>>>
>>>> No, No, and No. One building - one design standard.
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>>
[mailto:
>>>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforu
>>>> m-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of George
>>>> Medina Jr
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:18 AM
>>>> To:
>>>> sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@firesprinkle
>>>> r.org>
>>>> Subject: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forum,
>>>> Can anyone please add there 2 cents in and help clarify when to
>>>> classify as a 13 system versus a 13R I have a project that consist
>>>> of
>>>> 3 stories with an occupancy of R2/S2 and Construction Type VA. The
>>>> project is lay ed out like a horse shoe with 3 sides and a
>>>> corridor running down the middle from
>>>> 1 required stairwell to another on the opposite end, with a
>>>> court yard in the middle. There are private garages around the
>>>> perimeter of the building (which all have access from a common 1st
>>>> floor corridor
>>>> only) All the Garages have a 2 hour separation between them and the
>>>> 2nd level residential units and the 1st floor corridor. There are
>>>> residential units on the 1st floor (opposite the garages) facing
>>>> the
>>> court yard.
>>>> I figured the Garage calculations shall conform to NFPA-13, based
>>>> on NFPA-13R (2013ed.) Sec. 7.3.1. My question is if the building
>>>> can be classified as a 13R (with garage areas calced at NFPA-13) or
>>>> should it be classified as a NFPA-13 with dwelling units &
>>>> residential heads (calculations based on the greater of the
>>>> area/density @ .10 or the head listing). If not, what is the
>>>> determining factor or the
>>> threshold.
>>>> George Medina Jr.
>>>> Mobile: 323-906-5701
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.
>>>> firesprinkler.org>
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri
>>>> nkl
>>>> er.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ron Greenman
>>> Instructor
>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College
>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave.
>>> Tacoma, WA 98405
>>>
>>> rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu<mailto: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, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
>>>
>>> A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F.
>>> Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.f
>>> iresprinkler.org>
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin
>>> kler
>>>
>>> .org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.f
>>> iresprinkler.org>
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin
>>> kler.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.f
>>> iresprinkler.org>
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin
>>> kler.org
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fir
> esprinkler.org>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
