[Sprinklerforum] Re: Gym Hazard Classification

[Ron Greenman]

This goes back a ways and the wording may have changed over the editions
but here it clearly differentiates between owner and contractor and who
does what and when.

“4.3* Owners Certificate. The owner(s) of a building or structure where the
fire sprinkler system is going to be installed or their authorized agent
shall provide sprinkler system installer with the following information
prior to the layout and detailing of the sprinkler system.”

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 4:20 AM Fpdcdesign  wrote:

> In this part of the planet, contractors and engineers are told it is our
> responsibility to fill it out because it is in 13. I have gotten less than
> 5 OCs in my career.
>
> Todd Williams
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-608-4559
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2024 at 12:13 AM, >
> wrote:
>
> Dude:
>
> I have actually threatened to terminate our contract with cause in a
> couple of situations.  Had to tell the clients that we are bound to follow
> the provisions of the adopted codes and standards in our state, and the
> NFPA 13 standard mandates that they provide  us with the information that
> we need to put forth a responsive design.  My experience with public
> agencies is that they are very willing to partner once we explain what we
> need and why we need it.
>
>
>
> Steve Leyton
>
> (Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text
> corruptions.)
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Fpdcdesign 
> Date: 7/19/24 6:49 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Gym Hazard Classification
>
> “Articulate owner’s certificate”? LMFAO
>
> Todd Williams
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-608-4559
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2024 at 7:52 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> Is it just a “gym” or a multi-purpose building that will also be available
> for “community” uses?Gym mats are one thing, rummage sales, craft
> fairs, job and college recruiting expos, church and other assemblies, those
> are different things.   Iagree that an athletic/sports facility such as a
> high-school or college gym is light hazard in the main room, but the school
> or college district or municipality that will own and operate this building
> should provide you with an articulate owner’s certificate before it gets
> nailed down.
>
>
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Levine, P.E. [mailto:ad...@capitolfire.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2024 12:58 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Gym Hazard Classification
>
>
>
> I’ve always designed gyms as light hazard, although I’ve heard over the
> years that some designers increase the hazard because of the plastic mats
> (even if they are not stored over 5’). Assuming this is a standard gym (no
> foam rock walls or anything complicated), how would most of you classify a
> gym?
>
>
>
> Thanks! 
>
> *ADAM LEVINE, P.E.**​**​**​**​*
>
> PRESIDENT
>
> *​phone: *
>
> 718.533.6800 ext 137 <718.533.6800%20ext%20137>
>
> *email:*
>
> ad...@capitolfire.com
>
> |
>
> |
>
> *direct: ​*
>
> 917.818.4211
>
> *fax: *
>
> 917.810.2677
>
> 
>
> [image: Facebook] 
>
> [image: Twitter] 
>
> 
>
>
> _ SprinklerForum
> mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> _ SprinklerForum
> mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve

[Ron Greenman]

I would guess that anyone here who knew George misses him. And in the
spirit of George, anyone reading this who finds the forum useful and is not
a member of AFSA ought to join before the day is done. And also join your
local chapter.


On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 10:10 AM  wrote:

> We need a ‘smiley face’ button on the forum for times like this.  I miss
> George
>
>
>
> Cliff Whitfield, SET
>
> President
>
>
>
> Fire Design, Inc.
>
> 940 Summerbrooke Dr
>
> Tallahassee, FL 32312
>
> Ph: 828-284-4772
>
> [image: Description: New FDI Logo-4.jpg]
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Mote 
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2024 12:03 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve
>
>
>
> Thanks for the help to all who replied. Tom, I always get a little
> nostalgic around this time of year. GLC was hands down the best boss I ever
> worked for. The job in question is for Rowe, something came up and they
> asked me to unretire for a month or two, so I have.
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android 
> --
>
> *From:* tduro...@comcast.net 
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2024 9:37:06 AM
> *To:* 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve
>
>
>
> I had some difficulty in commissioning an 8” ClaVal we installed on a 1500
> gpm pump in Cranston a few years ago.  We took out the inside test header
> and installed the SCV in it’s place an piped the suction line in ¼” soft
> copper.  Joe from ClaVal had retired (too bad) but we managed to get a hold
> of a knowledgeable outside tech who helped us out.  Seemed the ‘preferred’
> location was between the discharge and pump check (not after) and the
> sensing line be ½” right from the suction gauge tap (1/4”) to the operator
> inlet (1/8”).  Once we changed that, it worked perfectly.  Happy birthday
> GLC.
>
> Go Red Sox.
>
>
>
> *From:* Merle Hittle 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2024 2:13 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Suction Control Valve
>
>
>
> It is required to be an OS and located between the suction flange and
> the fire pump bypass.  No preference on manufacturer other than complying
> with the specifications.
>
>
>
> Merle
>
>
>
> *From:* rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com <
> rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2024 11:11 AM
> *To:* 'Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers' <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Suction Control Valve
>
>
>
> I have to put a suction control valve on a fire pump for the first time.
> I’m assuming it goes on the suction side of the pump. Does it go before or
> after the RPZ backflow? Anyone have any preferences as to brand or model;
> this one is an 8”. First time in 45 years of doing this.
>
>
>
> Richard L. Mote CET
>
> Rimrock Design Services, LLC
>
> Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> Mobile 570-541-2685
>
> EMAIL rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
>
> WEB: www.rimrockdesignservicesllc.com
>
>
>
> Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> Content cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information
> could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
> incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
> liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message,
> which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required
> please request a hard-copy version.
>
> Disclaimer This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> Content cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information
> could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
> incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
> liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message,
> which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required
> please request a hard-copy version.
>
>
> 
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Protecting underground storage of explosives.

[Ron Greenman]

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IFC2018/CHAPTER-56-EXPLOSIVES-AND-FIREWORKS?site_type=public

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 1:20 PM Prahl, Craig  wrote:

> Munitions and explosives are typically protected via separation.  On
> military projects, storage areas such as these are either semi-subterranean
> (partially earthen covered bunker), or just physically separated from other
> structures by several hundred feet.
>
>
>
> I do hope the components are adequately separated.
>
>
>
> Fire is usually not an issue in these spaces since there should be very
> stringent controls on ignition sources.  So, we don’t waste money on
> sprinklers or other types of suppression systems.  They just aren’t going
> to stop an explosion event.  Once it’s done, it’s done.
>
>
>
> You can take a look at UFC 4-420-01, May 2015 for the way munitions and
> explosive storage is handled by the military.  UFC = Unified Facilities
> Criteria.  You can search for it on-line.  There are no restrictions for
> access.
>
>
>
> You’d also have to  deal with sprinkler run-off and being underground,
> that might be a big challenge.
>
>
>
> So, basically, this isn’t a sprinkler contractor project.
>
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 
>
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
> CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Dorn 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 4:05 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Protecting underground storage of
> explosives.
>
>
>
> Trying to help a friend of a friend. Has anyone ever provided any type of
> fire suppression system for underground storage of ANFO (Ammoniun Nitrate
> and fuel oil mixture)? The area in question is in a limestone mine
> underground. The space is pretty large and has 30’ ceilings so I’m guessing
> that chemical suppression is not going to be an option. I tend to believe
> that sprinklers may not be the route to go. Water will apparently render
> the ANFO inert but in case of a fire I’m not sure that the sprinklers could
> operate fast enough to provide any real protection. Additionally, the water
> supply is inadequate for almost any type of sprinkler system anyway.
>
>
>
> I’m not really finding much in NFPA except Annex C in NFPA 495 which
> refers to separation distances. I did find a reference to NFPA 490 2002
> Edition but cannot find a current code so I’m guessing it was folded into
> 495 at some point.
>
>
>
> Any direction at all would be appreciated to help me in my research.
>
>
>
> Chris Dorn
>
> Dorn Fire Protection LLC
>
>
>
> --
>
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by
> unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message
> and deleting it from your computer.
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Sidewalls on curved walls

[Ron Greenman]

I'm thinking this may be one of those occasions where that PE after your
name may need to be summoned, Todd.

On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 11:22 AM Fpdcdesign  wrote:

> Light Hazard. Waiting room
>
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2024 at 2:18 PM, > wrote:
>
> What’s the occupancy of the space?
> Rick Matsuda
>
> On Mar 8, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Fpdcdesign  wrote:
>
> 
> I am working on a project that has a 40 ft diameter circular ceiling at an
> elevation of 10 ft that is surrounded by an 8 ft ceiling. The existing
> protection to the high areis provided by 18 extended coverage sidewall
> sprinklers around the perimeter. They are renovating the space and want us
> to install new protection using 13 extended coverage sidewall sprinklers.
> My question is how do you space them along the wall? Everything I have seen
> in 13 and manufacturer’s literature details spacing on straight walls.
>
> The circumference of the space is about 125 ft and 13 sprinklers would be
> spaced at about 9.5 ft, but angled towards each other. Is this going to
> present a problem? Who else has dealt with this?
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> 860-554-7054  (fax)
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> _ SprinklerForum
> mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Dry Sprinkler Heads

[Ron Greenman]

According to this article... 1937.

https://www.sprinklerage.com/dry-barrel-sprinklers/#:~:text=The%20first%20UL%2Dlisted%20dry,three%2Dquarters%20of%20a%20century
.

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:12 PM James Crawford 
wrote:

> I was asked today when the first dry heads came into use and did not have
> an answer.
>
>
>
> Any takers?
>
>
>
> Thank You
>
>
>
> James Crawford
>
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
>
> Phone 604-888-0318
>
> Cel: 604-790-0938
>
> Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
>
> Web: www.phaserfire.ca
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: AFSA ITM Connection - Sprinkler head security cameras

[Ron Greenman]

Suppose you're in a store and you find something like this. Doesn't look
like the rest of the sprinklers in the place, are only in dressing rooms,
and in each space, there is one of these and one of the regular sprinklers
found throughout the building. You tell the manager as he's the likely
highest person you can get to. He tells his superior who may or may not be
the owner of the building and the whole thing gets dropped at that level.
You note the suspicious sprinkler(s) in the comments section of the report
and it goes to whomever it goes to. You've done your due diligence but we
all know if something goes sideways you could be sued though likely to be
held harmless because you did do what you were supposed to do. Despite the
provision in the Building Code who is it that enforces these kinds of
things? And by these kinds of  things I mean *“Any device that has the
physical appearance of life safety or fire protection equipment but that
does not perform that life safety or fire protection function shall be
prohibited.”*

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 8:55 AM Bill Jones  wrote:

> If you’re in the 2018 IFC Section 901.4.5 states *“Any device that has
> the physical appearance of life safety or fire protection equipment but
> that does not perform that life safety or fire protection function shall be
> prohibited.”*
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Rieve 
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2023 9:30 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] AFSA ITM Connection - Sprinkler head security
> cameras
>
>
>
> ⚠ *CAUTION:* External Email
>
>
>
> Today’s ITM tech memo is quite a doozy!
>
> [image: A black sign with white text Description automatically generated]
>
> And a quick Amazon search later I find this badboy.
>
> [image: A sprinkler head on a white background Description automatically
> generated]
>
>
>
> So besides telling my inspectors to start paying way more attention to
> funny looking sprinkler heads in changing rooms and locker rooms what can
> be done about this? Feels crazy that these can be marketed at all. Does
> AFSA, NFSA, or any of the major manufacturers have a communication pathway
> with like the consumer product safety commission or something like that?
>
>
>
> Yeesh.
>
>
>
> Eric Rieve
>
> Rieve Fire Protection
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Air venting

[Ron Greenman]

John D.

Remember when we used to zone each level of a dry pipe system in open
parking garages with a check valve to speed up trip time, or am I really
showing my age? Could each level of Ken's project be connected to a single
pipe, with or without a check valve that ran to the top and a single air
vent?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 9:54 AM  wrote:

> I thought so.
>
>
>
> If we look, the entire book, along with NFPA 25 is essentially per system
> based.
>
>
>
> Another such example below.
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Mat
>
>
>
> *29.6.1.1*
>
> Such general information shall be provided with a permanently marked
> weatherproof metal or rigid plastic sign, secured with corrosion-resistant
> wire, chain, or other acceptable means.
>
> *29.6.1.2*
>
> Such signs shall be placed at each system control riser, antifreeze loop,
> and auxiliary system control valve.
>
> *ENHANCED CONTENT*
>
> Collapse
>
> The general information sign is required to be located near its system
> control valve. Where valve manifolds are used, it is critical to provide
> numbering or labeling to allow the signs to be correlated to individual
> systems because the information signs summarize the basis of designs for
> each system.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Please rate our customer service
> *
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET*
>
> *Engineering Manager – Southwest Region*
>
> *FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC*
>
> *A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC*
>
> 3508 Hwy. 557
>
> West Monroe, LA. 71292
>
> C: 307-236-8249
>
> *matthew.will...@ferguson.com *
>
> *www.FergusonFire.com *
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Denhardt 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 9, 2023 12:35 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Air venting
>
>
>
> The language in NFPA 13 is clear from my perspective.  One air release per
> wet sprinkler system.
>
>
>
> For example - A 50 story building with one wet sprinkler zone control
> assembly per floor would require 50 air release valves.
>
>
>
> John
>
> John August Denhardt, P.E.
>
> Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
>
> 301-343-1457
>
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2023, at 12:29, Fpdcdesign  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Ken, I think you would have to with the check valve. I would push back a
> little in that by adding a normally open valve and a flow switch or
> manifold would not change the physics of the system enough to warrant the
> additional vents. If you had a 2 story building without zone valves, you
> would only need one vent. However, if you add normally open valves and flow
> switches, you would now need 2 (or 3?). From the standpoint of physics, why?
>
>
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
> 860-554-7054  (fax)
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2023 at 12:06 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> Yes, Todd, on each floor, as they're using a Victaulic UMC manifold which
> includes a check valve.
>
> thanks for the information,
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET*
>
>
> *Parsley Consulting 500 West Mechanic Street Harrisonville, Missouri
> 64701-2235*
> *Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
> *Visit the website
> *
>
> On 10/9/2023 10:49 AM, Fpdcdesign wrote:
>
> Is there a check valve on the floor control assembly?
>
>
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
> 860-554-7054  (fax)
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2023 at 11:44 AM, >
> wrote:
>
> Forumites,
>
> I'm working on a multi-story building protected per NFPA 13.  As each
> floor has a separate control valve, is a means to vent trapped air required
> on each floor?  Or is it only required at the highest level of the building?
>
> My thinking is that each floor has a separate fire sprinklers system.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET*
>
>
> *Parsley Consulting 500 West Mechanic Street Harrisonville, Missouri
> 64701-2235*
> *Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
> *Visit the website
> *
>
>
>
> _ SprinklerForum
> mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> _
>
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
>
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> To 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Pump Suction Components

[Ron Greenman]

I think, a dangerous thing, and based totally on speculation, without any
supporting information, the grv x flg could be used due to vibration. I can
visualize something as heavy and lopsided as an OS rotating. Again, just
pure speculation.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:31 AM Brian Harris 
wrote:

> Thank you.
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssytemsinc.com 
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Taylor Schumacher 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:10 AM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Pump Suction Components
>
>
>
> I don’t know of a requirement for flanged fittings in the suction side.
> OS valves typically came FxF and hence the suction side fittings would
> all be flanged. Grooved OS is becoming more popular… That being said, I
> have yet to see a pump with grooved inlets and outlets.
>
>
>
> Pros to all grooved are they are quicker to install.
>
> Pros to all flanged is they create a more stable/sturdy connection.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Taylor Schumacher*
>
> Security Fire Sprinkler
> 
>
> 1 Industrial Blvd | Sauk Rapids, MN 56379
>
> Office: 320.656.0847 | Direct: 320.640.7050
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Harris 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:48 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Pump Suction Components
>
>
>
> *Caution:* This email originated from outside your organization. Please
> take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
>
>
>
> I’ve seen two schools of thought with regard to pump suction components.
> One way is flanged on the suction side and grooved on the discharge. The
> other is all grooved. I can; t see where NFPA-20 requires it either way.
> What’s the popular choice and are there pro’s & cons?
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
> 
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sprinklers in column enclosures

[Ron Greenman]

I hate to solve technical problems that aren't really problems by adding
cost to a jib but if the BI is not going to budge change the wood framing
design around the columns to steel and you have a non-combustible concealed
space. Or if already framed go with Chris' suggestion. I once had an AHJ
warning wanting the full stage protection, standpipe and all, for a
perfiormance platform made of 2x8s and plywood sitting directly on the
floor because it was labeled "stage" on the floor plan.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 6:28 AM Prahl, Craig  wrote:

> I can’t see how you could shoe-horn this into resembling a chase since a
> chase typically penetrates floors and creates a shaft.  This column does
> not penetrate floors, does it?
>
>
>
> Why would this not be the same condition as an exterior column but just on
> the interior?
>
>
>
> What is the logic behind omitting a sprinkler from the void space within a
> boxed exterior column?  Why wouldn’t the same logic apply here?  Both
> support an overhead structure, both have no ignition source within the
> void, both represent conditions exactly the same.
>
>
>
> I would contend that unless someone can demonstrate a documented
> difference in construction that elevates the fire risk, a wrapped column
> whether involving an exterior column or interior column should be treated
> the same way.
>
>
>
> This is also one of those times when I’d politely ask the AHJ to show me
> where it says sprinklers are required for the benefit of my continuing
> professional education.
>
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Fire Protection SME – Special Hazards |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 
>
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
> CONTACT BY: Phone 1-864-676-5252, Email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Wagoner 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2023 8:55 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: Sprinklers in column enclosures
>
>
>
> Todd,
>
> Although I agree that the space you're discussing is not actually a "pipe
> chase" or an "exterior column" I view this as a circumstance where -13 does
> not directly address the issue at hand.  I submit that a "pipe chase" comes
> the closest to describing what is taking place.
>
> So, I looked briefly in the '13 edition, and found the following:
>
>- §8.15.1.2.9 Concealed spaces over isolated small rooms not exceeding
>55 ft² in area shall not require sprinkler protection.
>
> I would submit that this comes equally close to describing what's being
> discussed.  I have to question the need for a fire sprinkler in such a
> space, particularly when there are no sources of ignition present.
>
> scratching my head to understand this one,
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET*
>
>
> *Parsley Consulting 500 West Mechanic Street Harrisonville, Missouri
> 64701-2235*
> *Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
> *Visit the website
> *
>
> On 8/8/2023 6:18 AM, Fpdcdesign wrote:
>
> This phase of the project was designed using 2013 but the next phase will
> be using 2019. The argument from the BI is that it is not a pipe chase nor
> an exterior column.
>
>
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
> 860-554-7054  (fax)
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2023 at 4:51 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> Todd,
>
> You didn't mention which edition of -13 was applicable for this project.
> However, based on what I see in the '22 edition, here are some relevant (I
> think) sections:
>
>- §9.2.1.16, no sprinklers required in a "vertical pipe chase" < 10
>ft².  Although this isn't really a "pipe chase" it's the closest I could
>find.
>- §9.2.1.16.1, contain no "sources of ignition."
>- §9.2.1.17, exterior columns under 10 ft² formed by suds or wood
>joists supporting exterior canopies which are protected with sprinklers
>shall not require sprinklers.
>- §19.2.3.1.5.2 (8) gets into vertical pipe chases < 10 ft², not
>source of ignition, and noncombustible pipe.
>
> I always fall back on "show me why in the code/standard".
>
> hope that helps,
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET*
>
>
> *Parsley Consulting 500 West Mechanic Street Harrisonville, Missouri
> 64701-2235*
> *Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
> *Visit the website
> 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Optional sprinkler protection in garage without sprinklers elsewhere

[Ron Greenman]

I think this situation fails to fall under the guidance of any code or
standard. I think the owner needs to define what he is trying to accomplish
since he seems to be the driver for this voluntary solution to a vaguely
defined problem. The building code already demands a more robust fire
separation between the vehicle storage compartment and the dwelling
compartment(s) of an SFD than those that separate the living compartment
within the dwelling portion of the building. If life safety is the concern
then perhaps increased fire separation for a potentially larger than
typical fire is the answer. And maybe not. If property protection is the
objective is following a life safety standard that doesn't even require
sprinklering in a vehicle storage compartment even an idea worth pursuing?
If I recall this is a voluntary solution to the largely undefined problem
to begin with and so whose responsibility is it to design something
adequate? Until the problem is well-defined along with an equally
well-defined desired performance outcome there is no way to design a
solution. I'm no lawyer but as many have said you're opening yourself up to
a myriad of legal problems.

I recall once being asked by the owner of a small business to retrofit a
pre-action system into his "server room" because his data was important and
he read that pre-action was the best way to protect that. When I got there
the room was a small utility closet with a pair of PCs. After a short
discussion, we defined the problem as really only being the potential loss
of data, the equipment being reasonably cheap (even in the nineties), and
insured. Next, we defined the best solution to the actual problem as being
off-site backup. That saved him the cost of installation, maintenance, and
IT, as well as other potential problems that could cause loss of data
like a computer deciding to die.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 12:28 AM Tony Silva  wrote:

> I think it is reasonable to consider it as a 13D system with a variance to
> omit sprinklers in all areas other than the garage.
>
> Tony
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 11:12 AM Sean Lockyer 
> wrote:
>
>> I have an interesting situation here: A homeowner has an electric car and
>> an electric car charger in her garage. However, the house is not sprinkled
>> and she is asking to just sprinkle the garage only. The AHJ has even
>> pre-approved just protecting the garage only and not the entire residence.
>> No problem, right ? Well, I don't know, TBH. There is a 3/4" water line
>> that COULD feed these 4 or 5 heads, but under what code reference would you
>> apply here ? Since this would have been a 13D system to begin with, could
>> you have just put in a few concealed residential heads and connected to the
>> 3/4" water line ? All the AHJ has asked for is to draw it up, permit it,
>> and provide a bell for notification in case of a fire. Other than that,
>> details are sketchy until they can review it. Some AHJ's would go way
>> over-the-top and ask for a separate line, extra hazard protection, etc
>> and another one I could see wanting a special hazard system.
>>
>> What does everyone else here think about this ? Everyone at the office
>> believes I am over-thinking it but I believe that over-thinking something
>> is better than not putting enough thought into something when the
>> alternative could cause more problems down the road.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sean
>> AIT Life Safety
>>
>> _
>> SprinklerForum mailing list:
>>
>> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire Station Apparatus Bay

[Ron Greenman]

Given those two choices, I'd say a showroom is pretty devoid of fully
fueled cars and that they are spaced far enough apart for customers to
easily navigate around. An FD apparatus bay is filled with fully fueled
vehicles that are started in the bay. The bay also contains lots of
ancillary gear. I'd say a bay is closer to a repair garage than a showroom.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:54 AM Brian Harris 
wrote:

> Travis-
>
> Would an Apparatus Bay be considered a Automobile Parking Showroom (OH1)
> or a Repair Garage (OH2)? We’re still in 2013 edition.
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssytemsinc.com 
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Travis Mack 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2023 2:48 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Fire Station Apparatus Bay
>
>
>
> If you look at the 2022 edition of NFPA 13, you will see that automobile
> parking garages are OH2.
>
>
>
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> *M.E.P.CAD* |
>
> 181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074
>
> www.mepcad.com
> 
> | *m: 480.547.9348*
>
>
>
> *AutoSPRINK  |  AutoSPRINK FAB  |  AutoSPRINK RVT  |  AlarmCAD*
>
>
>
> Book appointment time in my calendar
>
> https://calendly.com/t_mack_mepcad
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Harris 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:42 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Fire Station Apparatus Bay
>
>
>
> I’ve seen Apparatus Bays in fire stations protected both as OH1 & OH2.
> Seems per code OH1 (car parking) would be appropriate?
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> Design Manager
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
> 
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: 13R: Hotel Corridors Open to Lobby

[Ron Greenman]

If I'm picturing this one way I'd say if there was no separation other than
visual like a valance, a floor elevation difference, or a change of carpet
pattern then there is no corridor. If in another visualization where there
is a corridor to either side of a wide opening from the lobby then the QR
should extend with a QR sprinkler 1/2S inside each corridor for the
extension of the higher hazard area into the lesser.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:10 AM J H  wrote:

> Ref: NFPA 2013 6.4.7
>
> Use of residential sprinklers are permitted in corridors, foyers, hall
> etc. under 6.4.7. However, lobbies in hotels and motels are
> expressly forbidden to have residential sprinklers in this section which
> leads me to a couple of questions:
>
> What about the corridors connecting to the lobby? Picture a layout like
> the letter T and the lobby is in the stem of the T with two corridors on
> either side.
>
> If you could use residential sprinklers in these corridors where would the
> cutoff point be between using quick response in the lobby and the
> residential sprinklers in the corridors when there is no separation between
> them? Would NFPA 13's requirement for quick response to be used throughout
> light hazard occupancies apply requiring quick response sprinklers
> throughout?
> If it does then it seems that all the corridors of the 1st floor of this
> project would require quick response sprinklers.
>
> In my opinion it would require quick response throughout on the first
> floor but I want to bounce this off the forum since my mind is in a fog
> today.
>
> Thanks,
>
> JH
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: BFP on underground supply

[Ron Greenman]

Being semi/mostly out of the game I don't keep as up-to-date as I maybe
should be and so I don't have too many standards left having donated many
to those still in need. So my question is where is the requirement
mentioned? 13, 24, 25, all? That should be a guide as to who is ultimately
responsible for the installation. In Washington, it could be the UG guy
since they have to have special licensure based on a knowledge of 24 but
arguably not the responsible party if it's not a thing in 24 (hence my
question). Regardless there
is a requirement and someone has to provide a method, but your question
seemed to be rhetorical so lots of ways to cook the cat.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 2:49 PM Timothy Goins  wrote:

> AWWA used to NOT recommend BPA upstream of fire hydrants.
>
> Haven’t checked in a few years now.
>
> And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you;
> and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an
> heart of flesh
> Eze 11:19
>
> On Nov 18, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Bob Caputo  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Backflow preventers are actually not always required.  NFPA standards do
> not require them – but where the water purveyor does, NFPA provides
> installation requirements.  When a back flow is required, the type and
> location are the purview of the water district.
>
>
>
> If arranged to allow full forward flow, a hydrant or even the annual fire
> pump test or standpipe flow testing could qualify as the means to perform a
> forward flow test
>
>
>
>
>
> *Bob Caputo, CFPS*
>
> *President*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
>
> c: 760-908-7753
>
> p:
>
> 214-349-5965 ext124
>
> w:
>
> firesprinkler.org
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>
>
> *Stronger Together – We help solve problems with you, at any point in your
> project timeline!*
>
> *Are you a member with a technical question?  *Don't forget one of the
> most valuable resources that AFSA provides is Technical Reviews by our
> Technical Services Department. It’s like having an FPE on your staff. Visit
> www.firesprinkler.org/technicalreview to submit a question today! (Member
> login required.)
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Slaughter 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2022 4:14 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Cc:* e...@bamfordfire.com
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: BFP on underground supply
>
>
>
> FYI,
>
>
>
> A question from an AHJ. In many cases, we receive a dedicated underground
> fire line to serve fire hydrants and the building fire sprinkler system.
> (Domestic if provided through a separate line)
>
>
>
> When this occurs, the local water authorities always require a backflow
> (in an underground vault) to separate the public water supply from the
> private water system.
>
>
>
> With this approach, we do not require a backflow on the riser and use the
> yard hydrant system for the forward flow testing of the backflow.
>
>
>
> Does anyone see an issue with this approach? If so, please advise we can
> revise our procedure.
>
>
>
> Mike Slaughter
>
> Risk Reduction Division
>
> Travis County Emergency Services District 2
>
> Office:(512) 989-4531
>
> mslaugh...@pflugervillefire.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 4:03 PM Bob Caputo 
> wrote:
>
> So, why would it matter where the backflow preventer is located?  NFPA is
> clear in the requirement to provide a forward flow test connection. If the
> backflow is in a vault or a pit, the intent is still clear.  I am the
> current chair of NFPA 24, and I think most members would agree this
> connection is better located on the control riser – but there is no
> restriction on where you place this connection.  NFPA 13, chapter 6 is a
> direct extract of underground installation requirements, provided so
> installer/maintainers don’t even have to purchase a copy of NFPA 24.
>
>
>
> Are we a solution in search of a problem on this one?
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> <~WRD.jpg>
>
> *Bob Caputo, CFPS*
>
> *President*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
>
> c: 760-908-7753
>
> p:
>
> 214-349-5965 ext124
>
> w:
>
> firesprinkler.org
>
> 
> <~WRD.jpg> 
>
> <~WRD.jpg>
> 
> <~WRD.jpg>
>
> 
>
> <~WRD.jpg>
> 
>
>
>
> *Stronger Together – We help solve problems with you, at any point in your
> project timeline!*
>
> *Are you a member with a technical question?  *Don't forget one of the
> most valuable resources that AFSA provides is Technical Reviews by our
> Technical Services 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs design build

[Ron Greenman]

Didn't you say this was a firehouse? Maybe get the fire marshal involved.
If an engineer stamped the plans and gave those out as what to bid on then
if you win the contract you build to what the engineer said. Who are you,
lowly contractor/engineering tech to argue with the mighty PE? But if he's
working outside of his area of expertise (suggested by an inadequate plan
set) then you may want to be having a talk with your state's board of
licensing.

https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/professional-policies-and-position-statements/sfpenspenicetascetncees

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:18 AM Steve Mackinnon 
wrote:

> Hey Kyle,
>
>
>
> I might be getting the terminology incorrect, but this is a sub prime
> project where all trades are equal and work directly with the
> “Client/customer”. The client in this case is the Town and typically the
> Architect becomes the chief amongst the trades… but with only a little more
> say overall.
>
>
>
> On this project the engineering firm can allow or turn away extras at
> their discretion.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately in these parts (Long Island/NYC) the engineering firms tend
> to hire plumbing engineers that know very little about sprinklers. But
> because they have a PE behind their name they try and over extend their
> power or expertise.
>
>
>
> It then becomes the responsibility of the installing contractor to fix the
> mistakes and make a project code compliant. If there’s more work involved,
> then an extra is submitted and normally approved.
>
>
>
> For some reason on this project the engineer is putting their foot down
> and won’t budge.
>
>
>
> We are trying to get the attention of the Town/Architect, but they a slow
> to respond.
>
>
>
> Luckily, this is a one off and we don’t normally have this much trouble.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> *From:* Kyle.Montgomery 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2022 12:27 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs design build
>
>
>
> In your first email, you said the engineer rejected you changer order
> request. Is your contract with the engineer? Or is there a general
> contractor or owner that you should be dealing with?
>
>
>
> If no one can be reasonable, then it will come down to contract language.
> But I wonder how they would justify that the note saying “provide a
> code-compliant system” would take precedence over the notes on the same
> drawings saying specifically what size the pipe should be?
>
>
>
> At the very least, I think I would want to talk to whoever it was (owner,
> architect, GC) that paid this engineer to do such a crappy job in the first
> place. I’m sure I’m not the only one on this forum who is tired of seeing
> “engineers” do preliminary designs that are crap, and they probably got
> paid more to do that then the sprinkler designer who will eventually do it
> correctly.
>
>
>
> -Kyle M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Mackinnon 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2022 6:52 AM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs
> design build
>
>
>
> Good morning Matt,
>
>
>
> We have spoken with the engineers for more than a month, we reviewed their
> calculations and found big errors. We calculated their layout and went over
> the results… we generated a shop drawing showing the correct pipe sizing
> and layout, then had more meetings and conversations… after all this, the
> engineer came back an rejected our extra.
>
>
>
> There are two water flow tests, as the engineers test was over a year old.
> The pressures did drop on the second test making their layout even worse…
> but we tried to work with them on their flow test to show, even with the
> better flow test their calculations don’t work.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately with this type of project, exceptions in a proposal don’t
> hold much weight.
>
>
>
> Thank you everyone for your helpful suggestions, previous experiences and
> comments!
>
>
>
> This group is amazing!
>
>
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> *From:* Matthew J Willis 
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:15 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs design build
>
>
>
> Not sure submitting an inadequate system, with your name on it is a good
> approach. Remember, our drawings are lifelong legal documents.
>
> And you cannot submit a drawing on behalf of the engineer. Besides, it
> should already have been submitted with the Building Plan Package.
>
>
>
> I am assuming we are beyond a phone call…
>
>
>
> If you do not have the “adequate water supply” note on your proposal, you
> can still point to the water.
>
> Especially if the one provided by the Engineer is higher. It had to be
> 

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Center vs Quad

[Ron Greenman]

Travis, I've had that same conversation dozens of times.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:44 PM Brian Harris 
wrote:

> Travis-
>
> I like it….
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> bvssytemsinc.com 
>
>
>
> ** Please “Reply All” To Email Correspondence **
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2022 4:39 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Center vs Quad
>
>
>
> When architects pose this question in a job meeting, I will say to them in
> the meeting.  “Without looking up, does this building have sprinklers?  Are
> they recessed or concealed? What color are they? If it does have
> sprinklers, are they in the center or quarter point of the tile?”  When
> they say they have no idea, then I respond; “Precisely, so why are you
> worried about it when you don’t even look yourself.?”  I’ve been lucky
> enough to win more than a few battles with an architect and GC that way.
> I’ve honestly never had anyone answer those questions correctly in a
> meeting.
>
>
>
> *Please rate our customer service
> *
>
>
>
> *Travis Mack, RME-G, COC, SET*
>
> *Senior Engineering Manager*
>
> *MFP Design*
>
> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
>
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
>
> travis.m...@ferguson.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
> 
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
>
>
>
> *From:* Fpdcdesign 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2022 1:34 PM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Center vs Quad
>
>
>
> You may also have to consider any scoring in the tile
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2022 at 4:24 PM, > wrote:
>
> Did you mean   ?
>
> Quarter Point of ceiling Tile?
>
>
>
> 1' & 1'in a 2' x 4'--- but Architects  are  Artists
>
>
>
> I have negotiated staying 6" from edge of tile and   used concealed
> heads.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:02 PM Brian Harris 
> wrote:
>
> I remember seeing a sketch somewhere that showed heads in the quads
> satisfied the “heads in center” requirement. Am I making stuff up?
>
>
>
> *Brian Harris, CET*
>
> BVS Systems Inc.
>
> Design Manager
>
> bvssystemsinc.com
> 
>
> Phone: 704.896.9989
>
> Fax: 704.896.1935
>
>
>
> ** Please “Reply All” To Email Correspondence **
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> 
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> _ SprinklerForum
> mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> 
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: ESFR Addition

[Ron Greenman]

Is this new addition a "proper" separate building or just another fire
area. If the former your solution of a booster pump for just the EFSR
"building" tapped from the main UG line sounds like a good solution. If
just a fire area Ken's comment about FDC feeds after the pump is spot on.
I'd also think that the design area for the EFSR section would need to
extend into the non-EFSR section. Saying all of that I have to admit I've
been out of the game for some time now and much has changed from when I was
practicing.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 2:08 PM Ken Wagoner 
wrote:

> Bobby,
>
> Yes, I now understand what you're describing, and your description
> clarified it a great deal.
>
> I'm in agreement with Travis on this one, there's no mandate that all four
> risers have to be fed by the pump discharge, and as was pointed out
> providing an separate pump for each riser would certainly not be
> prohibited.  Expensive yes, prohibited no.
>
> And as far as the FDC, I would work out how to have the FDC feed the
> system riser downstream of the pump discharge in order to prevent the FDC
> from supplying the pump.
>
> sincerely,
> *Ken Wagoner, SET*
>
>
> *Parsley Consulting 500 West Mechanic Street Harrisonville, Missouri
> 64701-2235*
> *Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
> *Visit the website
> *
>
> On 10/12/2022 12:39 PM, Bobby Welch wrote:
>
> No there is no existing fire pump the existing risers are feed from the
> city water supply. There is a new addition being added to the building
> which requires a ESFR system my question was is there a code that does not
> allow me to tie in to the bottom of one of the existing risers to feed a
> new fire pump that only supply’s the new addition.
>
>
>
> Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer
>
> *KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY *3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
> P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457
> bobby.we...@koorsen.com | www.koorsen.com
>
> *24x7x365 Service: 937.660.7050* | servic...@koorsen.com
>
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Adding sprinklers to system with mixed SR/QR listing

[Ron Greenman]

Fast response elements do not universally equate to quick response
sprinklers.

https://www.vikinggroupinc.com/sites/default/files/documents/Automatic%20Sprinkler%20Thermal%20Sensitivity.pdf

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:58 AM Matthew J Willis 
wrote:

> Todd,
>
>
>
> What are you protecting?
>
>
>
> The wording for extending one hazard into another is a sufficient heat
> barrier.
>
>
>
> You may be chasing rabbits.
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP*
>
> Design Manager
>
>
>
> *Rapid Fire Protection, Inc.*
>
> 600 E. Carlson St. Suite AB | Cheyenne, WY. 82009
>
> Office (307) 426-4077 ext. 404
>
> Direct (307) 316-6630
>
> Cell (605) 391-2733
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Fpdcdesign 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:04 AM
> *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Adding sprinklers to system with mixed
> SR/QR listing
>
>
>
> Compartment does not apply here.
>
>
>
> The conclusion I and coming to is that we need to closely match the RTI of
> the new sprinklers to the RTI of the EC sprinkler, regardless of how the
> latter is listed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2022 at 8:15 AM,  > wrote:
>
> If the EC sprinkler used is listed as QR in its current application, then
> the new area of work has to use QR unless the area of work is located in a
> separate compartment.   Check the definition of compartment to see if the
> soffit you mention can work for you.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Sean W Conlin
>
> Demand Sprinkler Design Inc.
>
> 37 Summerfield Crescent
>
> Brampton, ON L6X 4K4
>
> P: 905 216-0922
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2022, at 12:42 PM, Fpdcdesign  wrote:
>
> 
>
> I am working on to an addition to an existing system that has Tyco EC-11
> pendent sprinklers. According to the data sheet, these sprinklers may be QR
> in some circumstances and SR in others. The addition I am working on will
> be using standard coverage sprinklers. The space is open to the area with
> the EC-11 sprinklers but separated by a deep soffit. The design of the
> EC-11 is such that they are considered standard response by the listing.
> The obvious question is QR or SR for the new sprinklers? I am assuming QR
> because that is closer to the response time of the EC-11s despite the SR
> listing, but I am being questioned on this. Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
> 860-554-7054  (fax)
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> _ SprinklerForum
> mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

[Sprinklerforum] Re: Adding sprinklers to system with mixed SR/QR listing

[Ron Greenman]

I'm old now so you get a story first, probably with a divergence (and there
it is already and again), but Grinnell made a sprinkler that had
different K-factors depending on the height it was placed at (9.0, 9.2,
9.4, etc.). An AHJ once called me out for using 9.0 in a calculation whose
height fell into the 9.4 range. That;'s where he had stopped reading
because the following paragraph in that datasheet said to always use 9.0 in
the calculations. Once I pointed that out to him all was good. Similarly, I
recall (and I have no reference material to check) someone (likely Grinnell
or Tyco) had/has a sprinkler that is QR to a certain height and SR when
higher. You might want to check. Problems don't always have solutions that
are obvious, simple, and wrong. Sometimes the right answer is simple if not
obvious.

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:05 AM cw bamford  wrote:

> NFPA 13   2019 edition
> 9.4.3 - 9.4.3.6
>
> handbook  also has some comments
> FAQ
> 9.4.3.2
>
> Chuck Bamford SET
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 9:43 AM Fpdcdesign  wrote:
>
>> I am working on to an addition to an existing system that has Tyco EC-11
>> pendent sprinklers. According to the data sheet, these sprinklers may be QR
>> in some circumstances and SR in others. The addition I am working on will
>> be using standard coverage sprinklers. The space is open to the area with
>> the EC-11 sprinklers but separated by a deep soffit. The design of the
>> EC-11 is such that they are considered standard response by the listing.
>> The obvious question is QR or SR for the new sprinklers? I am assuming QR
>> because that is closer to the response time of the EC-11s despite the SR
>> listing, but I am being questioned on this. Thoughts?
>>
>> Todd G Williams, PE
>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>> Stonington, CT
>> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>> 860-554-7054  (fax)
>> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>>
>> _
>> SprinklerForum mailing list:
>>
>> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _
> SprinklerForum mailing list:
> https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

_
SprinklerForum mailing list:
https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org

Re: Vertical Wet Pipes in Dry Attic

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Not directly related but Scott’s answer gave me pause. Just as new
designers should spend a couple of weeks or more with fitters sneaking
questions and getting a handle on what works for them, companies that also
do inspections should have their designers go out with the inspectors. And
often. Actually seeing how age and other trades, even on newer buildings,
affect their systems tends to focus the mind.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:22 AM Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I would not recommend this. It is a sure-fire failure event. The tent has
> to remain intact for the life of the structure and if it can fail it will.
> If any part of that tent isn't properly sealed or falls apart you have a
> failure.
> Exposed inside. Concealed in the heated space with an insulated soffit.
> There are alternatives.
> Good luck.
>
> Scott
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 9:36 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Brian Harris 
> Subject: Vertical Wet Pipes in Dry Attic
>
> Working on a project with a wet system laying on top of the bottom chord
> with tented insulation. What is the best approach to protecting pipe when
> you have to make a vertical jump (3'-4') because of ceiling height change?
>
> Brian Harris, CET
> BVS Systems Inc.
> Design Manager
> 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
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Joining black carbon steel with stainless steel piping

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Food for thought...

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=351636

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:30 AM Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>  The last dielectric joint I saw was a 9” piece of CPVC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2022 at 11:22 AM,   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >  Craig, From literature I have, SS has an anodic index of approximately
> 0.60 V while plain CS has that of 0.85 V. If the environment in which the
> joint is located is 'normal' or 'controlled', you shouldn't have a galvanic
> compatibility issue. If the environment is considered 'harsh', the anodic
> index delta must be smaller (approximately 0.15 V) in which case, some sort
> of dielectric fitting/sacrificial anode would be needed for joint
> longevity. As I am not an expert, I suggest reaching out to someone such as
> www.corrosion-doctors.org for more assistance. Hope this helps, Ryan L.
> Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns  &  McDonnell Senior Fire Protection Engineer O
> 612-900-3755 \ M 763-688-4045 \ F 952-229-2923 rhin...@burnsmcd.com \
> burnsmcd.com 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500 \ Minneapolis-St. Paul,
> MN 55437 *Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX,  &  UT **NICET IV -
> Water-Based Systems Layout -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum
>   On Behalf Of Prahl,
> Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:06 AM To:
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL  <
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com>  Subject: Joining black carbon steel with
> stainless steel piping I've got a engineer asking about the joining of
> grooved stainless to grooved black carbon steel and if there needs to be a
> special dielectric or similar type of assembly used to join the two? I've
> been hunting on the interwebs and haven't found any type of special
> coupling or should the connection be flanged? In all my years this is the
> first time this subject has ever come up. Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group
> Lead/SME - Fire Protection | craig.pr...@jacobs.com |
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacobs.com%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C2d6969ca91d4441ae22908d9fad44781%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637816612359587927%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=ln%2Ffq9qqoz%2FALwILLnsYh4I62399EES0Jp16yw6U%2FvU%3Dreserved=0
> 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 CONTACT BY: email or
> MS TEAMS  NOTICE - This communication may
> contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or
> reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C2d6969ca91d4441ae22908d9fad44781%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637816612359587927%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=1HZ7rCOBMvIGnkxdF6EcTJYOIGN1cnyC8cQHktVKb4c%3Dreserved=0
> ___ 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: Sprinkler in elevator pit.

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

May be helpful. Maybe not.

https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/Blogs-Landing-Page/NFPA-Today/Blog-Posts/2019/11/20/101wednesdays-vertical-opening-protection-in-nfpa-101

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 7:01 AM Ken Wagoner via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Todd, and Matt,
>
> Speculating here.
>
> Some time ago I stayed in a hotel which had a huge multi-story atrium,
> and along two of the four walls were elevators.  Both elevator "shafts"
> were open to the atrium for the length of travel, save for the pit at
> the bottom.
>
> That might be a shaft which is regarded as not being "enclosed." Just my
> thoughts.
>
> sincerely,
> *Ken Wagoner, SET*
> *Parsley Consulting
> 500 West Mechanic Street
> Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235*
> *Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
> *Visit the website
> <
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.parsleyconsulting.com%2f=E,1,Y5zKJKPEh1mBEBqSR-VE9cUKl5y-eyP8BpvmE_5j9ZqW2eJbNphYzrCMBZ-2YuX6d-RRkHI4gQ1FV-cvOeCfRC58uZS9NiToZv2mx7909oCqLvCW_n5hDHeK=1>*
>
>
> On 2/24/2022 9:14 PM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum wrote:
> > Todd,
> >
> > Your question makes me think that you have run across something
> unusual...
> >
> > Have you encountered a "non- enclosed" shaft?
> >
> > Matt Grise
> > Alliance Fire Protection
> > 130 w 9th Ave
> > North Kansas City, MO
> > 913.526.7443
> >
> > sent from mobile device
> >
> >
> >
> >  Original message 
> > From: Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum<
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> > Date: 2/24/22 9:03 PM (GMT-06:00)
> > To: Sprinklerforum
> > Cc: Fpdcdesign
> > Subject: Sprinkler in elevator pit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >NFPA 13 (2013) section 8.15.5.2 says that sprinklers may be omitted
> in elevator pits for “enclosed, non-combustible…” elevator shafts. What
> constitutes an “enclosed” shaft?
> >
> >
> >
> >   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)
> >
> > 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,ExS8p1y0Hr1gez_4FheG_PCYrYK5u7gB3u2dXqKeFW0ElN5FapcOv2AUonWa20Nzx11YndVwKfEQ3bNXV2NYUcMqO0PubiOKaEuqw3sYI-Y4eg6Kww,,=1
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.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: filling a pre-action system with water

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Water hammer occurs when flow is abruptly stopped.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:20 PM Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> The high pressure water in=rush compresses the air in the system.
> The velocity slows as the air pressure is compressed. I don't believe there
> is water hammer potential because the air creates a cushion.
>
> Art Tiroly
> ATCO/Tiroly Fire Protection
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 1:10 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: filling a pre-action system with water
>
> I am curious about how single-interlock pre-action systems get filled up
> with water:
>
> When the detectors activate and open the deluge valve but no sprinkler head
> is open - how quickly does the piping actually fill up with water? Is it
> fast enough that you need to worry about a water hammer if the piping fills
> before the heads start to open?
>
> I did not know if the supervisory air just kind of oozes out and lets the
> water in slowly, or if the valve opens, (maybe kicks the pump on) and
> really
> blasts it in there.
>
> Does anyone out there have experience with this sort of thing? I would
> definitely appreciate some insight into how it actually goes down.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>
> ___
> 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
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

What John said.

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 6:11 PM Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Doing some commissioning work on a new one for New Balance here in
> Boston.  Building shaped like a peanut, curved walls and roof.  Almost
> every space is OH2, large sprinkler loads, half the place is K=8 heads.  10
> stairways, some only between 2 floors.  Large movable wooden track,
> protection over and below.  55' ceiling above track.  Point is.. The other
> buildings on this site which have Celtic and Bruins practice spaces we did
> a few years ago have a ton of open areas all used as storage of some really
> interesting stuff.  How about 30' of pads in a portable rack.  Retractable
> wooden bleachers never planned for.  They have these 2 small electric
> forklifts to pile mats up 20' to the limit.  New one both levels of garage
> are filled with boxes of stuff going in.  You name it.  I think this
> particular type of building is one I would take a longer look at.  Seems
> every room labeled a multi-purpose will become storage (full or part time)
> as well as the adjacent open areas.  Serious loading and beyond what a
> vanilla modelling might predict.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 9:17 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; Bob Caputo <
> bcap...@firesprinkler.org>; tston...@comcast.net
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE
>
> Take it a step farther.  You need to look at all the various areas within
> the building.  For multi-use buildings, you can have various levels of
> hazards under one roof.  This is one reason why you can't use the annex as
> an end-all of occupancies.
>
>
>
> Tall, open areas need to be looked at differently than standard height
> 8-10 ft areas.
>
>
>
> Look at your sprinkler listings. A sprinkler Listed for LH may have a
> ceiling height limitation.
>
>
>
> Don't ya just love the wild and wooly world of fire protection?  
>
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
>
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:58 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bob Caputo ; tston...@comcast.net
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE
>
>
>
> Not in my opinion.  We should always look at the definitions for each
> occupancy classification as opposed to the list in the annex.  These
> facilities have a lot of plastics and combustibles that exceed the
> definition of light hazard and they are of heights exceeding 8 ft so OH1 is
> probably not adequate.
>
>
>
> When I look at the foam in landing pits of gymnasiums or even the
> bleachers, I'd have a hard time seeing a simple gymnasium as light hazard.
>
>
>
> This is a personal opinion.
>
>
>
> Bob Caputo, CFPS
>
> President
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Sprinklerforum  > On Behalf Of
> tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum
>
> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 7:44 AM
>
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>
> Cc: tston...@comcast.net
>
> Subject: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE
>
>
>
> NFPA does not define Field houses.
>
>
>
> Indoor Track, Basketball Courts, Tennis Courts and Climbing Wall. The new
> building will be 37'-0 high to the peak of a flat roof.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Would it be safe to use Light Hazard Occupancy?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> G. Tim Stone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC
>
>
>
> NICET Level III Engineering Technician
>
>
>
> Fire Protection Sprinkler Design
>
>
>
> and Consulting Services
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452
>
>
>
>  CELL: (802) 373-0638
>
>
>
>    tston...@comcast.net tston...@comcast.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!ST2dG3hqxRkvBw-dzx61kx0gBeM41Dd__thMJ_eFqHAjzCxZygMolAa1ML5_7cG_uA$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!ST2dG3hqxRkvBw-dzx61kx0gBeM41Dd__thMJ_eFqHAjzCxZygMolAa1ML5_7cG_uA$
> >
>
> rg
>
> ___
>
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>

Re: question about Storage height

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Did I miss something? I thought you said 5 groups of 5x5x5 cubes stacked 2
high. That's only 125 sqft. Wouldn't it be cheaper to make a separate
space, either with two hour walls or to just extend the coverage beyond the
area with the higher demand as per NFPA. The solution seems so obvious and
simple but as I believe it was  Twain who said, "For every problem there is
a solution that's simple, obvious, and wrong." so I suspect mine is falling
into that category and believe I must have missed something in the
explanation.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:15 PM Steve Mackinnon via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I'm not sure if attachments are allowed, if yes this is the situation...
>
> I believe the liquid is classified as a low commodity, leaving the plastic
> containers as the driving force... ok, I'm on board with this.
>
> We are trying to reduce the overall plastic height or commodity
> classification... a Group A plastic upgrade at 10 feet is costing them six
> figures in FS upgrades (new underground, fire pump etc).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 2:53 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Mackinnon ; Art Tiroly <
> atir...@atcofirepro.com>
> Subject: RE: question about Storage height
>
> You don't have 5 ft of commodity.  The liquid within the tote is
> irrelevant to the hazard.  You essentially have a plastic hazard that is 10
> ft in height.  Now, there are some schools of thought that derate the level
> of hazard due to the liquid acting as a heat sink and thereby providing a
> reduced potential for fire involvement when compared to that of the empty
> totes.  But, since there are empty as well as full and possibly partially
> full totes, it would be safer to assume the hazard as a Group A plastic at
> 10 ft in height and move on.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Steve Mackinnon via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:46 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Mackinnon ; Art Tiroly <
> atir...@atcofirepro.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: question about Storage height
>
> Thank you everyone who replied, it appears it's not as clear cut as one
> would think lol.
>
> The plastic tote below does have a solid top, but I would assume there
> would be opening in the cover to allow any spillage or leaks to fall into
> the vessel. And allow any sprinkler water to fill the totes... but again,
> these are one time usage only.
>
> Not sure if it helps, but there are only 3-5 of these in the warehouse...
>
> I just find it hard to wrap my head around protecting 10 foot of storage
> for only 5 feet of commodity.
>
> Thank you again!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:35 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Art Tiroly 
> Subject: RE: question about Storage height
>
> Is the spill container open top? That will be an issue. These sound like
> plastic totes. If the liquid is not combustible the empty tote is still a
> lot of plastic
>
> Art
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:32 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Scott Futrell ; Mike Hairfield 
> Subject: RE: question about Storage height
>
> You didn't mention what the liquid is. If it is a hazardous material as
> recognized by the International Fire Code then the 'empty' container is
> still considered full unless completely cleaned.
>
> Scott
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:08 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Mike Hairfield 
> Subject: Re: question about Storage height
>
> It should be 10 feet even though the other container is empty it's still
> plastic.
>
> Mike
> 
> From: Sprinklerforum  on
> behalf of Steve Mackinnon via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:02 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> 
> Cc: Steve Mackinnon ; Peter Howard <
> phow...@hartcorn.com>
> Subject: question about Storage height
>
> Good morning all,
>
> We have a storage situation where the liquid commodity is in a 5 foot
> plastic storage cube, with an equally sized empty plastic container below.
>
> The empty container below is only there to act as a spill collection
> vessel.
>
> The question our office has been banging around, what is the storage
> height???
>
> Would this be 

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Food trucks inside a building

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I can't get over the cooking aspect. If this were a burger stand there
would likely be a deep-fat fryer, a griddle, perhaps a grill, and a range
top. I imagine a taco stand would be similar and so also a taco truck. In
any event greasy vapors for all and a cooking line fire suppression system.
A food truck parked outside will vent those vapors to the outside as would
any stand alone fast food restaurant. Now move six trucks in to a building
and you have a mall food court. The food court booths will each have a hood
 as will the trucks but in the food court the hoods will join in a common
duct that vents to the outside while the trucks will vent ito the building
will be kitchens and seating area. Negative pressure over the cooking lines
will draw the vapors back towards the kitchens thus providing grease laden
make-up air (fuel and oxygen) back over the lines (ignition). Perhaps the
volume of air in the building will be sufficient to dilute the greasy vapor
to below a hazard level but I think it needs to be considered. There's also
the non-fire problem that the customers are essentially sitting in a
non-vented kitchen which has to be against some code or another.


On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:56 AM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> It's always been my understanding that the different hazard
> classifications are based upon the fuel load of a potential fire, not the
> likelihood that there will be a fire. So whether there is a stove in
> operation or not shouldn’t really change the hazard.
>
> So you come back to fuel load, which is present whether you are cooking in
> the truck or the truck is parked. So, are you allowed to park taco trucks
> in a parking garage? In order to call a parking garage Ordinary Hazard
> Group 1, do we need to have signage on the entrance that prohibits taco
> trucks from entering?
>
> My biggest questions would be:
> 1. Since they are likely parked long-term, do the have additional fuel or
> other combustible supplies that wouldn't be present in a vehicle moving
> from location to location?
> 2. Is there a buildup of grease that needs to be considered based on how
> the ventilation air is treated?
>
> I don't think ordinary hazard would be out of the question. I think my
> first attempt would be to go OH 2, and make someone convince me that it
> needed to be more than that.
>
> Full disclosure, I don't have the necessarily letters after my name to act
> as a consultant, and I tend to be a little less conservative than our other
> brothers and sisters on this forum.
>
> -Kyle M
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:30 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Edk 
> Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; Fpdcdesign <
> fpdcdes...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Food trucks inside a building
>
> Shielded fires wouldn't be my primary concern, fuel density and fire
> intensity would be my concerns.  A little fire in a truck can be handled by
> a fire extinguisher. I'm not sure if food trucks are required to have
> anything other than that for fire control.  But a fire in one of these
> units is not going to be shielded for very long if it isn't brought under
> control almost immediately.
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com |
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.jacobs.com__;!!Ba8_KKAT!ZrXP5SK6t5glR-DVUQLAZqoO-M8IgbnbLSNz1_g0q5s8iY5IgvuCyhGm_e3Ao6KYcFE$
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 11:57 AM
> To: Edk ; Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: Fpdcdesign 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Food trucks inside a building
>
>
>
>
>   When I saw this, my knee-jerk reaction was EH2 for shielded fire.
> However, I was on a job site and had a 1:15 ride back to think about it.
>
>
>
> Most automobiles are enclosed and any fire started inside would be
> “shielded”. But a parking garage has been OH1 for a long time (although
> that may be reassessed). Also, the examples in NFPA 13 of shielded
> occupancies are very large (Modular houses). Where is the cut off between
> what OH1 would protect and EH2 be necessary? Who knows? A pick up truck has
> a lot less shielded space that an SUV. It is most likely a function of the
> size of the shielded area but how do you regulate that?
>
>
>
> Most food trucks are little more than delivery vans with kitchens and a
> side window. If 6 regular delivery vans were parked there, how would you
> protect it?
>
>
>
> I would lean toward EH2 because of the combination of the shielded space
> and the kitchen inside.
>
>
>
> To Ron’s point, there are a lot of other health and safety regulations
> (commercial kitchen without 

Re: COMBUSTIBLE CONCEALED SPACE

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

For every problem there is a solution that is obvious, simple, and wrong.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 7:13 AM Ken Wagoner via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Indeed Travis and I have journeyed down this road before, one time in
> particular.
>
> An AHJ, who happened to be a registered PE, AND the state fire marshal
> was insisting that Travis' design would not be accepted using CCS
> sprinklers, and that standard spray QR's be used, even though that use
> was contrary to -13, and their listing.
>
> If I remember the remarks of the AHJ correctly, when politely - VERY
> politely - challenged by Travis, his response was, "Just do what I tell
> you, that would make it so much more simple."
>
> some times I just shake my head,
> *Ken Wagoner, SET*
> *Parsley Consulting
> 500 West Mechanic Street
> Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235*
> *Phone: (760) 745-6181 *
> *Visit the website
> <
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.parsleyconsulting.com%2f=E,1,Y5zKJKPEh1mBEBqSR-VE9cUKl5y-eyP8BpvmE_5j9ZqW2eJbNphYzrCMBZ-2YuX6d-RRkHI4gQ1FV-cvOeCfRC58uZS9NiToZv2mx7909oCqLvCW_n5hDHeK=1>*
>
>
> On 1/11/2022 3:07 PM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum wrote:
> > It says specifically listed.  That means you must use specifically
> listed sprinklers.  How deep is the space?  Is it flat or sloped?  If it
> meets the criteria for the specially listed, then that is what you use.
> Ive been down this road many times.
> >
> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
> > Senior Engineering Manager
> > MFP Design
> > 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
> > travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> > www.mfpdesign.com
> >
> > Send large files to us via:https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
> >
> >
> > From: Sprinklerforum
> On Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design INC via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:05 PM
> > To:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design INC
> > Subject: RE: COMBUSTIBLE CONCEALED SPACE
> >
> > My question is: Are QR uprights listed to be used in those areas or does
> it
> > have to be a CCS sprinkler?
> >
> > Troy
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum  > On
> > Behalf Of Tom Wellen via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: January 11, 2022 3:56 PM
> > To:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> > Cc: Tom Wellen mailto:tgwel...@gmail.com>>;
> Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design INC
> > mailto:trilliumf...@cwisp.ca>>
> > Subject: Re: COMBUSTIBLE CONCEALED SPACE
> >
> > Troy,
> >
> > No. NFPA 13, 2019 edition in 9.3.2 is specific that sprinklers are listed
> > for horizontal combustible concealed spaces. Specifically listed to
> provide
> > protection.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 2:40 PM Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design INC via
> > Sprinklerforum  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> Can someone confirm that it is not mandatory to use CCS sprinklers in
> >> a space 36" or less?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I know it allows for larger spacing, but code wise. I don't believe
> >> they are a must and the space can be protected with QR uprights.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Troy S
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> >>
> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl<
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl>
> >> er.org
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Tom Wellen - May '91
> > Senior Fire Protection Consultant
> > Fire Engineering & Consulting, LLC
> > (972) 355-2159
> > fireeac.com
> >
> > >
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> >
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> <
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> >
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> <
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> >
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >
> 

Re: Food trucks inside a building

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Then there are the greasy vapors the taco trucks, times six fast food
kitchens are spewing out into an enclosed space. I doubt if the trucks are
equipped with any kind of grease scrubbers so the clientele are essentially
eating under a giant coking line hood (the roof) that may or may not even
be vented.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 7:34 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> First off, it needs to be determined based on the CODE or local ordinance
> if this is even allowed.  Forget NFPA 13 for the moment.
>
> The fuel loading within a typical food truck is pretty high considering
> the amount of gasoline and propane in each truck.  If you look at this
> simply from a chemical loading standpoint, Class IB liquids have a limit
> based on the Building and Fire codes before you are in an "H" occupancy
> even in a sprinklered building.  Once you are an "H" occupancy there are
> other numerous requirements and limitations related to the building
> construction, egress, HVAC, life safety, etc., etc.  Access by the public
> is not a typical condition of an "H" occupancy.  Also consider the normal
> firefighting approach for a propane fire is to keep the vessel and
> surrounding area cool but let it burn out.  That's not a good scenario
> within a building.
>
> So before going any further, I'd recommend that you push back on this and
> require whoever dumped this in your lap to hire an architect or FPE to do
> an in depth code analysis and have a discussion with the local fire code
> authority to see if this is even permissible in this jurisdiction.
>
> And, no this is nowhere near the same as a parking garage and EH2 would
> not be out of the question.  It may not even be adequate.  Do some Googling
> for Food truck fires.  They ain't pretty and a fire is the lesser of the
> problem.  Explosions are a real possibility as well.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:16 AM
> To: e...@bamfordfire.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Mike Morey 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Food trucks inside a building
>
> If I, as a non-PE was sticking my neck out on this where it sort of
> doesn't belong, I'd have to go with EH-2: "Spaces where shielding of
> combustibles is extensive" being the key phrase to me.  Parking garage IMHO
> is intended for parking a car and leaving it, not using heat/fire producing
> equipment inside of it.
>
> Mike Morey
> CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677
> Project Manager * Fire Protection Group
> Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
> 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 /
> cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:07 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Ed Kramer 
> Subject: Food trucks inside a building
>
>
> BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.
>
>
> I'm working on a small project  (approx. 7,200 sf) that is a
> noncombustible structure used for parking operating food trucks indoors.
> The plan shows 6 trucks spread out near the perimeter with the middle of
> the building open for pedestrian traffic (maybe tables?).
>
>
>
> Ordinary Group I hazard (parking garage) seems very inadequate.  Extra
> hazard group II (manufactured home assemblies) seems a bit strong.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Ed K
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!L5iDA4qw94TTHadwZuct5Z9Abenek8n_pUDvsqDN3slVvGdRHyMSnnegmWstS_SP$
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If
> you receive this message in error, please  immediately delete it and all
> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
> sender.  You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
> recipient.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!VtJkLj380Usp5dSGSvRp9DBdPBg3cvzxP5x_nwd0Xk-ACkEpJszECvlGvsHthnat1w$
>
> 
>
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and 

Re: Liquor above 20% Alcohol Containers less than 1.3 gallons

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Sometimes the packaging is the “commodity.“ Something you’ll never see but
consider gold ingots individually packed in styrofoam, in cardboard boxes
held together with shrink wrap, stacked on plastic pallets, stored in a
vault. What’s the…?

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 7:33 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Standard box you would see at a liquor store.
>
> Just stockpiling them in one side of a building.
>
> I assume there are both plastic/glass containers, with cardboard dividers
> as usual.
>
> R/
> Matt
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 7:59 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Mike Morey 
> Subject: RE: Liquor above 20% Alcohol Containers less than 1.3 gallons
>
> Maybe I missed it but what is the container material inside the box?  I'm
> guessing not metal as I think there are criteria for metal but
> plastic/glass require rack storage with one of the in-rack "schemes" to
> make most configurations work.  All the ones I've done recently were based
> on rack storage and a quick look doesn't show a lot of solid
> pile/palletized options.
>
> Mike Morey
> CFPS 3229 . NICET S.E.T. 123677
> Project Manager . Fire Protection Group
> Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
> 7614 Opportunity Drive . Fort Wayne, IN . 46825
> 
> direct 260.487.7824 /  cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991 email
> mmo...@shambaugh.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 9:54 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matthew J Willis 
> Subject: RE: Liquor above 20% Alcohol Containers less than 1.3 gallons
>
>
> BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.
>
>
> Guess I should add,
>
> Solid pile of boxes, 10 feet ceiling..
>
>
> R/
> Matt
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 7:50 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matthew J Willis 
> Subject: Liquor above 20% Alcohol Containers less than 1.3 gallons
>
> I think I have ran myself into a circle. Again.
>
> This is in reference to  the 2016 change in 13, from 50% to 20% being the
> max allowed percent alcohol.
>
> I need to protect 15,000 gallons in a Non "M" occupancy.
>
> Now NFPA 13, NFPA 30, And the IFC all tell me they do not apply.
>
> What did I miss?
>
>
> R/
> Matt
>
> Matthew J. Willis
> Design Manager
> 1530 Samco Road, Rapid City, SD 57702
> Office-605.348.2342 /Direct-605.593.5063/Cell-605.391.2733
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!JIkfuAD_DFrdgOTEI8_k30wzwAdtCYIFlu3A2OhccOPnVGfn6ICqAZshPi-V3enD$
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!JIkfuAD_DFrdgOTEI8_k30wzwAdtCYIFlu3A2OhccOPnVGfn6ICqAZshPi-V3enD$
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If
> you receive this message in error, please  immediately delete it and all
> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
> sender.  You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
> recipient.
> ___
> 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
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Clean Agent System

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Totally my opinion and worth every penny you're paying for it, if the
purpose of closing the dampers is to maintain volumetric integrity of the
compartment vis-a-vis the amount of agent I would consider that function to
be art of the suppression system and so controlled by the releasing panel.
If on the other hand closing the dampers is to prevent smoke migration to
other areas of the building I'd consider itb to be part of the building
fore alarm system and so controlled by the FAP. Just thinking out loud.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 3:00 PM James Crawford via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> NFPA 2001 (2018)
>
> We have a clean agent system that is protecting a server room, we have
> gone in to do the electrical connections and the base building electricians
> have connected the ventilation dampers to the base building alarm panel
>
> My understanding is that they should be connected to the release panel for
> the clean agent system as this is how we have always done this.
>
> I have always based it on section 4.3.1.1.4 The clean agent suppression
> system release control panel shall not be dependent or affected by the
> operation or failure of the protected premises building fire alarm panel.
>
> Am I missing something or is this allowed, as I cannot find anything else
> that say otherwise.
>
> Thank You
>
> James Crawford
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
> Phone 604-888-0318
> Cel: 604-790-0938
> Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
> Web: www.phaserfire.ca
>
> ___
> 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: NFPA 13 8.15.7.2 / 8.15.7.5 - Temporary Parking

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Considering all the comments: ",,,the vehicle is parked temporarily and a
fire starts" (Scott). That could be while I'm still in the taxi
settling up with the driver. That would imply stopping is permanent
parking. "Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the ordinarily
accepted meaning." (Matthew). There is a shall directly from the Good Book,
General: 3.1. "...a dictionary which will define temporary as "lasting for
only a limited period of time; not permanent."" (Taylor). "Lasting or
intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely." (from my easy access
dictionary, not from Webster) (Me). Suggests then that all parking is
temporary. "...what if a truck full of fireworks parks here?" (John). As to
"what ifs," Timothy McVeigh intended for his truck to only be parked
temporarily in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:42 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Taylor beat me to it, but here is your verbiage to support Taylor's
> suggestion.
>
> 3.1 General.
> The definitions contained in this chapter shall apply to the terms used in
> this standard. Where
> terms are not defined in this chapter or within another chapter, they
> shall be defined using their
> ordinarily accepted meanings within the context in which they are used.
> 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 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 "lasting for only
> a limited period of time; not permanent." If permanent parking is meant to
> assume parked for the night, it would be a REASONABLE assumption that a
> delivery driver would only ever be parked in a temporary fashion, not
> permanently.
>
> I think the term temporary was chosen in the standard for the sole reason
> of it not having a definite time. Otherwise it would have to be enforced
> and monitored.
>
> I have found that in situations like this, the only resolution is to bug
> the awesome people over at AFSA Technical Services for an informal
> interpretation.
>
> Taylor Schumacher
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 12:26 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Irwin ; Aaron Peck <
> ap...@quickresponsefl.com>; 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 will be parked.  His exact concerns are as
> follows: "Our answer was yes do to deliveries made and not knowing how long
> that vehicle would be sitting in that area...  delivery vehicles would be
> sitting long periods of time and the code does not provide a time table for
> temporary parking. It is my opinion that temporary parking would be of a
> taxi/lift or other type drop off service and not delivery vehicles or any
> other  type of parking. This was explained to you and your staff. How are
> you going to enforce temporary parking? What is the time frame  for
> temporary parking?"
>
> I have not been able to find an unofficial code interpretation for this. I
> believe he's incorporating too many "what if" scenarios. I was going to
> respond what if a truck full of fireworks parks here? Should we protect for
> extra hazard then?
>
> Anyone have anything to help me convince him he's wrong? Should I pursue
> an interpretation from AFSA or NFPA?
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> John Irwin
> Quick Response Fire Protection
> www.quickresponsefl.com
> Office: 844-9QUICKFL
> Cell: 727-282-9243
> Main Office: 20545 Independence Blvd. Unit G Groveland, Florida 34736 West
> Coast: 15201 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 113, Clearwater, Florida 33760
> East Coast:   3133 Skyway Circle, Suite 104, Melbourne, Florida 32934
> 24 Hour Emergency Service Available 1-844-9QUICKFL
>
>
> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> 

Re: Material Prices !!

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

There's also a shortage of port capacity/unlading capability (and I'll
assume loading at the other end). The Suez parking debacle put everything
using that transit days behind schedule and so tying up those containers
and throwing shipping schedules off. Logistics, logistics, logistics. For
lack of a nail, the shoe, the horse, the messenger, the battle, the war...

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:17 AM Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Just a reminder to the forum that this is toeing the line on
> Anti-Trust Policies. Please refrain from further comment on specific
> pricing of products and proposals.
>
> Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE
> *Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> p: 214-349-5971
> w: firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/
> >
>
>
>
> *Get in the (Fitter) Zone!*
>
> AFSA's "Fitter Zone" features live webinars designed specifically for fire
> sprinkler fitters. These live presentations are held on Saturdays whenever
> possible, so you don't have to take your fitters out of the field during
> the workweek. If you cannot attend live sessions, these webinars will be
> recorded and can be purchased for on-demand access.  Learn more *here*
> .
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:18 PM JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > Who all is demanding an escalation clause in contracts right now?
> >
> > Get Outlook for iOS
> > 
> > From: Sprinklerforum  on
> > behalf of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum <
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 10:14:37 AM
> > To: 321 ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> > Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
> > Subject: Re: Material Prices !!
> >
> > Domestic steel prices are through the roof.  Domestic HRB went from
> around
> > $600 per ton around October 2020 to around $1,966 per ton recently, in
> > pretty much a straight line up.  Make sure you are communicating this to
> > your customers.  Wood has pretty much come back to earth from the recent
> > high, but steel seemingly keeps going up.
> >
> >
> > Skyler Bilbo
> > 217-819-6404 Cell
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:44 AM 321 via Sprinklerforum <
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I bought almost exactly the same jobs about 5 months ago for less than
> > > half of that!! Where is the "Choke Point" on this ? Is it steel pipe,
> > Iron
> > > Fittings, availability?
> > > On of my best vendors told me this morning that they cant get pipe and
> > > fittings imported because Walmart bought up all the Sea Can Shipping
> > > containers for their use.
> > > A shipping container shortage is snarling global trade
> > >
> > >
> > > |
> > > |
> > > |
> > > |  |  |
> > >
> > >  |
> > >
> > >  |
> > > |
> > > |  |
> > > A shipping container shortage is snarling global trade
> > >
> > > Nicolás Rivero
> > >
> > > The shortage of shipping containers is yet another symptom of the havoc
> > > the pandemic has wrought on internationa...
> > >  |
> > >
> > >  |
> > >
> > >  |
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't pass these cost thru to customers...we budgeted these jobs 6
> or 7
> > > months ago with some escalation built in...but not 150% !!
> > >
> > > John W. FarabeeCertified Lower Keys Plumbing and FireKey West, Florida
> > > 561-707-5150
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 5, 2021, 11:33:13 AM EDT, Spencer Tomlinson via
> > > Sprinklerforum  wrote:
> > >
> > >  It's this way across the board - lead times are increasing as well,
> for
> > > what used to be pretty standard order items.  I hear there may still be
> > > another 3-5% coming.
> > >
> > > Spencer Tomlinson, PE
> > > Owner, Fire Protection Engineer
> > >
> > >
> > > Ph:  316-202-6412
> > > Fax: 316-202-2346
> > > Cell: 620-955-7293
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Sprinklerforum 
> On
> > > Behalf Of 321 via Sprinklerforum
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 10:31 AM
> > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > > Cc: 321 
> > > Subject: Material Prices !!
> > >
> > > I just received quotes on some steel fab on 2: different systems we are
> > > doing. Try $238.63/head for a center feed, 2 1/2" Cross Main/2" Branch
> > Line
> > > Thin wall/Welded/Galvanized system !! $21,000 for 88 headsheads not
> > > included!!
> > > Anyone else experiencing this insanity?!
> > > ___
> > > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Passed on to me from a friend.

UL IQ. Information for the category VENF - Flexible Sprinkler Hose with
Fittings.

"These products are intended for use in hydraulically design sprinkler
systems."

There's more info around it but you'll need to go see for yourself. As
Steve said, I'm old, but what he didn't say is I'm also cranky and I don't
feel like doing a bunch of typing. I tried to paste the section and a link
but the AFSA rule bots wouldn't let me.

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 4:34 PM Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I agree with JH's logic, but I am struggling with this pressure gain from a
> 20 ft drop idea.  Isn't the net effect due to elevation 0 since the
> pressure gets changed by the same amount at the riser, or wherever it goes
> up in elevation, before it comes back down?  All that matters is the source
> elevation and discharge elevation.  Any elevation changes beyond that will
> net to 0, unless there are outlets discharging at varying elevations, then
> that is another story.
>
> I still think the original argument stands, and it wouldn't matter if the
> 1" pipe were a 20 ft vertical drop, a 20 ft horizontal armover, or 20 ft of
> equivalent piping due to a flexdrop, the net friction loss would all be the
> same, and I think this is the point just about everyone is trying to make.
>
> I still don't want to be the one to remove the heads on the 20 ft drops.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Skyler Bilbo
> 217-819-6404 Cell
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:56 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > Right, which is why I was only allowing a PSI or so as an allowance for
> > the "credit" back from hard piped drops.Apples to apples, you'll have
> > the same Pe for both a hard piped or flexible drop.
> >
> > SL
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise
> > via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 3:16 PM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: Matt Grise 
> > Subject: RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system
> >
> > One thought to your point -
> >
> > A 20 foot hard pipe drop has the advantage of also dropping 20 feet. You
> > will gain a substantial amount of pressure from the elevation change that
> > should more than overcome the flow demand of a light hazard pipe schedule
> > standard coverage pendant.
> >
> > A 20 foot equivalent drop does not have the same hydraulic advantage.
> >
> > It seems like you should be able to use flex drops on a pipe schedule
> > system. The ones that I have surveyed and calculated always come up with
> > plenty of safety. That does not mean I would be ok making substantial
> > changes to the hydraulics without a close examination at a minimum.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum  On
> > Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 5:07 PM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: J H 
> > Subject: Re: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system
> >
> > I'll be devil's advocate. Pipe scheduled systems don't have limits on
> drop
> > lengths and I've seen a few scheduled warehouse systems with 30 to 40 ft.
> > roof decks with sections of office spacing below at 10 ft. with pendents
> > feeding them. So if you can do it per the pipe scheduled method you
> should
> > be able to do it with a shorter 6 ft. flex hose with the same equivalent
> > feet that you might find in a hard piped system.
> >
> > JH
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:07 AM Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum <
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Can flexible hose head connectors (I.E. - "Flexheads") be used on a
> > > pipe scheduled system ? Since calculations were not performed due to
> > > it being a scheduled system, the friction loss would be superfluous,
> > > correct ? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Sean Lockyer
> > > AIT Life Safety
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > >
> > > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> > > .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,yJy0FkmWv
> > > 8kAJnTMsneav8pMYCXQyB51SLZNS6LoNvcWkygfvZGinfj8b8hSd1vKMMaxWK8DPJRtJW1
> > > RinlHD5v5CnYW6HpqRbi2sK9qGsnk8r1tgA,,=1
> > >
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >
> >
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,qqPjQ536SLPWlZ6fljifsKteUsfO-D3vceU1ulLIpavUOfR6x8WCalfKvRdFsgup6SEESABKWeFtBmXyhbjWSbAsnn0BdIMROrZQszUa3x0G5kcfQEhYLKe6Nw,,=1
> 

Re: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Tyson,

While I tend to agree with you and can think of many pipe scheduling rules
going back half a century or more that would suggest that flex heads are ad
were outside of the scope of a pipe scheduled system I'm curious as to what
criteria you're basing your opinion on. At face value, it would seem that
they would be fine as long as no more than two were attached to one-inch
pipe in light and ordinary hazard situations, or only one per length of
one-inch pipe in extra hazard (extra hazard pope schedule systems having
been allowable in times past).

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:32 AM Tyson Sutherland via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Sean,
>
> Because the friction loss of most flex hose assemblies are equivalent to
> 20-30 feet of 1" schedule 40 pipe, in my opinion hydraulic calculations
> would be required.
>
>
> TYSON SUTHERLAND, CET
> NICET Level III Design Technician
> Ohio ASSD #8495
>
> 2900 Newpark Drive
> Barberton, OH 44203
>
> 888-857-2817 x317
> 330-600-0697 Cell
> tyson.sutherl...@comunale.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 2:08 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Sean Lockyer 
> Subject: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system
>
>
> BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.
>
>
> Can flexible hose head connectors (I.E. - "Flexheads") be used on a pipe
> scheduled system ? Since calculations were not performed due to it being a
> scheduled system, the friction loss would be superfluous, correct ? Any
> help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Sean Lockyer
> AIT Life Safety
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!IbjdgPzNvfRo_9I3w-4Lvk3gveGdIerQzFD2VZCAmlHnz67IR63DiQoMZo-O_grDDQEnLDg$
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If
> you receive this message in error, please  immediately delete it and all
> copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
> sender.  You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
> print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
> recipient.
> ___
> 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: FP Suction Control Valve

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I think I’ve preached this before but to my way of think standpipes and
hydrants are the drivers of design when present with sprinklers acting as a
first line of containment, buying time for manual suppression. That they
work so well at suppression so often is an added bonus.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 12:03 PM cw bamford via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I looked at this Question a few times and finally saw -
> "3 hydrants it serves."
>
> my initial thought was 750 gpm pump  x 1.5  = 1125 gpm Max. design
> that's a big for an apartment and 13R
>
> 1125 gpm  60 minute supply  67,500 gallons or double that for 120 minutes
>
> Was pump designed for hydrants?  Does it need a Tank?
> Standpipe Design?
>
> could a "New Controller" that Limits PSI be installed ?
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 4:28 AM Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > Good morning Campers.  Looking for advice and comments.
> >
> > I have an existing diesel driven fire pump in a prefabricated pump house
> > installed in 2012 serving 2 apartment buildings.
> >
> > I first tested this pump in 2017, had 13 hours on it, ran fine but we ran
> > out of water at just about 100% capacity.
> >
> > Spent the day with the water department a few days later checking
> > underground valves, flowing a few street main’s hydrants, basically came
> to
> > the conclusion that this is all we got.  Wrote up a report, suggested
> they
> > hire an FPE to see if the pump’s tested capacity meets requirements, how
> > did
> > this happen, what about the hydrants off this system, stuff like that.  I
> > think I stirred the sleepy caldron a little.
> >
> > Didn’t hear back from the client until this spring.  Apparently they
> > changed
> > ITM contractors and the new one didn’t pan out.  They had a balcony fire
> > May
> > 2021, gas grille, 13R system with no attic protection, non-completed
> attic
> > separations and fire walls, etc.  Fortunately they had a response so
> > quickly
> > it never made it to penetrate the eaves and soffits and was extinguished
> > between the 5th and 6th (top) floors.  Local FD must have had a field day
> > with a Q20 of about 800 and closest city hydrant ¼ mile away.  Waiting
> for
> > incident report to review.
> >
> >
> >
> > So back to my query.  It’s a xy pump house.  All welded sch40 and
> > painted.  Not the greatest build as there’s a 6” BFP vertically installed
> > right off the incoming service with elbows turning it around and down to
> > the
> > floor to feed the pump.  Just a few spacers in the piping so no room for
> > slipping in this device unless something gets removed or moved.  4-15 of
> > #20
> > (2013) says between the pump discharge and check and I get that but also
> > defers to the mfgr. for direction.  Looking at the various offerings most
> > are a little vague on placement and even one says after the pump
> discharge
> > valve.  Without major surgery, I have 2 spots to slip in this 20” long
> > device.  I can remove the relief valve between the discharge increaser
> and
> > pump check and put it there ‘or’ I can remove the tee feeding a 6” storz
> > and
> > check located between the discharge valve and the city bypass.  The
> former
> > will allow me to test through the device but the latter will not.  I
> don’t
> > believe either of these appurtenances are necessary and I will explain
> > (he’s
> > still rambling?  Jeepers….).  The engine is a small JD inline 4 running
> > 3000
> > rpm, single ECM, max. speed is 3300.  Churn is 155 at 3025.  I haven’t
> > physically done it but if I extrapolate to 3300 I get 170 psi.  I’m below
> > 175 so I think the PRV can go.  If I opt to remove the storz I can but
> > testing this pump will have to be via the 3 hydrants it serves, in
> addition
> > to the 2 buildings.  I honestly don’t know why the engineer (small E)
> had a
> > storz included as this house it atop a hill in the woods ½ mile away
> from a
> > city hydrant and these buildings.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, done rambling.  Loose the PRV or keep scratching my head?
> >
> >
> >
> > Let’s go Red Sox!
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Duross
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Location of hydrant valves in CA.

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Not having ever been on any committee making up any rules regarding this
I'm going to take some logic shots at the issue as to the whys. If the
hydrant is along a right of way then the service valve will be in the
street somewhere perpendicular to the direction of the street in a straight
line from the hydrant and so easy to find if the FD finds that the valve is
shut or partially shut, not that uncommon. If a hydrant is in a complex of
some sort then the 20-foot rule in 24 makes sense since the service valve
could be a long way away in any direction. If it's limited to no more than
twenty feet away that would make finding it substantially quicker if
necessary. I think if the local FM is happy with the purveyor's point of
view it must mean he/she feels a shut off service valve could be found and
opened by firefighters on the scene quickly if need be. Just some thoughts
and they may be so far off as to be without any merit at all.

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 8:26 AM John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> NFPA 24 - 2019
>
> 7.1.1.2.2 Valves required by 7.1.1.2 shall be installed within
>
> 20 ft (6.1 m) of the hydrant.
>
> 7.1.1.2.2.1 Valves shall be clearly identified and kept free of
>
> obstructions.
>
> 7.1.1.2.3 Where valves cannot be located in accordance with
>
> 7.1.1.2.2, valve locations shall be permitted where approved by
>
> the AHJ.
>
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> *The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal
> interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee
> Projects. This is provided with the understanding that the AFSA assumes no
> liability for this opinion or actions taken on it and they are not to be
> considered the official position of the **AFSA, and/or NFPA or its
> technical committees.**AFSA cannot provide design or consulting engineering
> services, and this opinion should therefore not be considered, nor relied
> upon, as such.*
>
> 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
> 
> 
> <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/
> >
>
>
> *Our members are at the heart of everything we do*
>
>
> *Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*
>
> By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
> Sprinkler Fitters
> <
> https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Education/Apprentice_Training/WWW/Education/Apprenticeship_Training.aspx?hkey=e88ef09e-d74c-407f-abcd-995aff866149
> >,
> you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
> Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
> productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more
> <
> https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Education/Apprentice_Training/WWW/Education/Apprenticeship_Training.aspx?hkey=e88ef09e-d74c-407f-abcd-995aff866149
> >
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:21 AM David Williams via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > A civil engineer friend of mine is working on a state project in
> > California and there is a fight between the water purveyor and the state
> > fire marshal as to the location of the hydrant valves. The water purveyor
> > wants the valves to be right off the main and does not feel a need to
> keep
> > the valves within 20 feet of a hydrant. The local fire marshal is okay
> with
> > that too, but since this is a state project the state FM is saying the
> > valve must move. (not a private main, all owned by the water purveyor,
> but
> > on state property).
> >
> > Can someone point me to any language that might cede the NFPA’s valve
> > location requirements to the water purveyor? Or the best way to deal with
> > the CA FM.
> >
> > TIA.
> >
> > David Toshio Williams, PE*, FPE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
> > (*Registered in MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, ND, VT)
> > 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
> > Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
> > LHBcorp.com
> >
> > LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.
> >
> > ___
> > 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: Dry System Couplings

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Scott,

Many over the twelve years I worked for a company that specialized in
inspections and repairs. Only the really unusual ones that I remember in
any detail the most memorable one in the Pike Place Market because it
wasn't a leak at all, but excess Crisco dripping on a hot day from a dry
bulk main going through a heated space that the maintenance guy was adamant
that it was wet pipe because it was a heated space and all popes in hated
spaces were wet. Lots of the leaks that developed in older systems
turned out to be bad seams that corroded through at cut grooves. Leaks in
new systems were typically due to installer errors like a poorly done
groove or a pinched gasket. Leaks in older pipes were often not
diagnosable or not worth the time it would take. My earlier point was that
I've seen lots f leaks but never one at a joint with a tri-seal type
gasket. Because of that my policy was when we (the company) fixed a leak
we'd always use a new coupling and a tri-seal type gasket. Since we used
these things a few times a year and could always charge the couple of bucks
more to our already inflated materials pricing it made sense. I suppose if
I were bidding/contracting full jobs I'd not use them as a habit but maybe
spec them as an alternative, especially of cold storage was involved.

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 5:32 AM Taylor Schumacher via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Agreed. I saw the dry system approval in multiple coupling data sheets and
> went looking in the standard as I thought that was a shall requirement.
>
>
> Taylor Schumacher
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott
> Futrell via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:08 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Scott Futrell; Ron Greenman
> Subject: RE: Dry System Couplings
>
> Ron,
> How many did you see corroded and leaking that didn't have a tri-seal or
> flush-seal? I can send you many of pictures of corroded, leaking ends of
> pipe with roll grooves and no tri-seal or flush-seal. Some as early as ten
> years.
>
> Scott
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 3:44 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Ron Greenman 
> Subject: Re: Dry System Couplings
>
> Scott,
>
> My anecdotal experiences as someone that was a troubleshoot and repair
> mechanic when I was doing hands-on work, has been that I can't recall ever
> seeing a leaky tri-seal fitting in a heated, unheated, or cold storage
> facility whether part of a dry or a preaction system.
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:47 AM Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > I'd sure be interested in hearing more on this subject.
> > "Listing" only partially answers the question.
> > Roll groove v. cut groove makes a difference.
> > If the bottom line is as cheap as possible then you go one route.
> > If the bottom line is an effective fire sprinkler system for the life
> > of the building, you go a different route.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> > Cell: (612) 759-5556
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Noble
> > via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:14 AM
> > To: Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> > Cc: Tom Noble
> > Subject: Re: Dry System Couplings
> >
> > NFPA 13 2016 edition section 6.5.3.2 only requires the couplings to be
> > listed for dry system use.  If the coupling is listed for use in dry
> > or precaution systems it is fully acceptable to be used. Some
> > manufactures will suggest to use a “Flush or Tri-seal” gaskets in cold
> > storage or freezer applications to prevent the water build up in the
> gasket itself.
> > Ultimately, not a code requirement.
> >
> > The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal
> > interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing
> > Committee Projects. This is provided with the understanding that the
> > AFSA assumes no liability for this opinion or actions taken on it and
> > they are not to be considered the official position of the NFPA or its
> technical committees.
> > AFSA cannot provide design or consulting engineering services, and
> > this opinion should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as
> such.
> >
> > > On Apr 30, 202

Re: Dry System Couplings

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Scott,

My anecdotal experiences as someone that was a troubleshoot and repair
mechanic when I was doing hands-on work, has been that I can't recall ever
seeing a leaky tri-seal fitting in a heated, unheated, or cold storage
facility whether part of a dry or a preaction system.

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:47 AM Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I'd sure be interested in hearing more on this subject.
> "Listing" only partially answers the question.
> Roll groove v. cut groove makes a difference.
> If the bottom line is as cheap as possible then you go one route.
> If the bottom line is an effective fire sprinkler system for the life  of
> the building, you go a different route.
>
> Scott
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Noble
> via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 8:14 AM
> To: Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> Cc: Tom Noble
> Subject: Re: Dry System Couplings
>
> NFPA 13 2016 edition section 6.5.3.2 only requires the couplings to be
> listed for dry system use.  If the coupling is listed for use in dry or
> precaution systems it is fully acceptable to be used. Some manufactures
> will suggest to use a “Flush or Tri-seal” gaskets in cold storage or
> freezer applications to prevent the water build up in the gasket itself.
> Ultimately, not a code requirement.
>
> The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal
> interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee
> Projects. This is provided with the understanding that the AFSA assumes no
> liability for this opinion or actions taken on it and they are not to be
> considered the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees.
> AFSA cannot provide design or consulting engineering services, and this
> opinion should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as such.
>
> > On Apr 30, 2021, at 7:42 AM, Taylor Schumacher via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm digging through coupling data sheets and I'm seeing that most are
> listed for use in wet and dry systems even when they do not have the gap
> seal. Is there a requirement for using gaskets that have this gap seal
> gasket or is it more of a best practice thing?
> >
> > Taylor Schumacher
>
> ___
> 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: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Consider that if the building was not there and you could meet the required
CFC fireflow for the site you'd be done, just as you would for any land
development project, municipal or private. No pump necessary. Then you
reference 13 as the place with the sticky wicket paragraph about everything
after the pump. Remember that 13 addresses sprinkler systems and associated
hose allowances and if your site system could handle both of those without
a pump you'd also be done. Since you apparently need a pump to meet 13
requirements I'd say your pump needs to be sized for the sprinkler and
associated hose stream allowance from 13 only. But then who the hell am I?
As Craig said, check with the approving authority. And as a bit of learned
advice, didn't ask for a solution but rather give that person your read of
the rules and how you got there, and then ask if that's how they see it.
Your job is to come up with the solution and theirs is to yay or nay it.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:40 AM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> You do not have to prove building system demand and site fire flow
> concurrently. Hard stop.
>
>
>
> Steve Leyton
>
> (Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text
> corruptions.)
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date: 4/21/21 7:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" ,
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
> Subject: RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
>
> Yes.  But our is CFC Section 507.  What I am trying to understand is NFPA
> 13 2016 Edition 11.1.5.3 & A.11.1.5.3 "Where pumps serve some combination
> of sprinklers, inside hose stations or outside hose stations, the pump
> needs to be capable of providing the flow of the equipment that is fed from
> the pump."  The fire pump would be size for the fire sprinkler and any NFPA
> 13 inside and/or outside hose demands, but does it also have to be size for
> the 2000 gpm fire flow demand since 11.1.5.3 & A.11.1.5.3 states pump needs
> to be capable of providing flow that is fed from the pump?
>
> Thanks,
> Gregg Fontes
> Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
> 209-334-9119
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 7:09 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
> Subject: RE: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
>
> Are site Fire Flow requirements (IFC Section 507) what you're referring to
> as "hydrant demand"?
>
> At minimum, the pump should be capable of flowing the sprinkler and
> related hose stream allowance flow rate combined.
>
> BUT, when there have been no municipal hydrants to be used for the actual
> firefighting effort, we've had to be capable of providing the Fire Flow
> rate to area hydrants plus sprinkler demand via the site fire pump.
>
> I've also had AHJs say to only provide the sprinkler flow plus the hose
> stream allowance via the site pump.  So it really depends on the AHJ as the
> Fire Flow requirement is stated in the code as being "by an approved
> method" i.e., per the AHJ.
>
> Have you discussed this with the local fire code official yet?
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 9:57 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
>
> If a fire pump supplies both the fire sprinkler system and the site fire
> hydrants, does the fire pump gpm need to be capable of suppling both?
> (Fire sprinkler demand 900 gpm and site fire hydrant demand 2000 gpm for a
> total of 2,900.  Can the fire pump be size at 750 for the fire
> sprinkler/hose demand or does it have to be a 2000 gpm so it can supply
> both the sprinkler and site fire hydrant flows of 2900 gpm?)  The supply is
> city water and there is a bypass on the fire pump.  The city supply comes
> into the fire pump house and goes out to single loop that supplies both the
> fire sprinkler systems and the site fire hydrants.  (The city flow and psi
> is adequate to meet the site fire flow at 20-psi.)
>
> Thanks,
> Gregg Fontes
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!XLuydu_C5h5U5xoYfFkjhto75Yz1NndsYBhU_-ghPrj9wf496LJOQnnfdGty1B3DAw$
>
> 
>
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> viewing, copying or distribution 

Re: Shop Drawings vs Design Drawings in Florida

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Not just a sprinkler job and sprinklering was not the only piece of
contention, but I worked on a job where the architect argued the work was a
remodel of the existing one-story mid-60s rambler. What he intended to
leave lost in the new work were two e=interior walls and some of the
original foundations. What he was adding was an additional 12,000 square
feet in three stories. One issue he was arguing that it didn't require
sprinklers because it was still under the original year of building code as
a remodel. Letter or spirit?

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 5:32 AM John Irwin via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> John,
>
> I'm also in Florida and we struggle with the same when it comes to sign
> and seal. Project engineer of record doesn't want to sign our shops, AHJ
> demands signed shops ... always a point of contention.
>
> In your instance, I agree with you and Buddy that technically you are
> doing a like for like replacement and no seal should be needed. However, I
> think this stretches the definition of a repair to its limits.
>
> There are some good FPEs around that you can email your plans to for
> review and seal and the cost isn't that great. (I can recommend one if you
> email me). Seems like your client has to choose between gearing up for a
> fight or writing a little check.
>
> John Irwin
> Director of Construction
> Quick Response Fire Protection
> Cell: 727-282-9243
> jir...@quickresponsefl.com
>
>
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten.” – Benjamin Franklin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of 321 via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 2:54 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: 321 
> Subject: Shop Drawings vs Design Drawings in Florida
>
> This is primarily for our Florida Fire Sprinkler Contractors but others
> feel free to comment.
> We have a repair job in an Oceanfront Condo Parking Garage that requires
> the complete replacement of all the original Pipe, Fittings, Hangers and
> Sprinklers due to corrosion. The system was installed in 1988 using black
> pipe, fittings and hangers. Our scope is to remove and replace the entire
> corroded system and replace it in it's original designed position relative
> to head location and type (K Factor/Temp Rating), spacing, elevation, etc.
> The piping is to be exactly the same size and located in the same position
> with the only difference being that all the new pipe, fittings and hangers
> will be galvanized and the new heads will be corrosion resistant. There are
> about 275 heads in this job.
> There are no building drawings or Fire Sprinkler Drawings available for
> this project since the AHJ doesn't keep records and the companies that
> installed the work in 1988 no longer exist. To facilitate our installation,
> and at the request of the Local Fire Department, we physically measured the
> garage and existing system and produced a "Shop Drawing" for our permit
> application. We noted on the plans that this was a "Repair of an existing
> system, did not add, alter or relocate the position of any of the existing
> equipment and was a like for like replacement of an existing severely
> corroded system".
> Our State Statutes states :
> 633.322 County, municipal, and special district powers; effect of ch.
> 75-240.—(1) This chapter does not limit the power of a municipality,
> county, or special district to regulate the quality and character of work
> performed by contractors through a system of permits, fees, and inspections
> which are designed to secure compliance with, and aid in the implementation
> of, state and local building laws or to enforce other local laws for the
> protection of the public health and safety.(2) This chapter does not limit
> the power of a municipality, county, or special district to adopt any
> system of permits requiring submission to and approval by the municipality,
> county, or special district of plans and specifications for work to be
> performed by contractors before commencement of the work, except that a
> municipality, county, or special district may not require a fire protection
> system contractor’s shop drawings to be sealed by a professional
> engineer.(3) An official authorized to issue building or other related
> permits shall ascertain that the applicant contractor is duly certified
> before issuing the permit. The evidence shall consist only of the
> exhibition to him or her of evidence of current certification.(4) The State
> Fire Marshal shall inform each county and municipal building department,
> prior to November 1 of each year, of the names of the certified contractors
> and the type of certificate held. We submitted our Shop Drawings of the
> System along with our Permit Application. The Local Fire Plans Review
> people have rejected our application stating that they require "Signed and
> Sealed Drawings for all "New Designs" of 49 or more Heads. 

Re: NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4.2

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

That like button would come in handy with Bruce's comment. There is a lot
of misinterpretation because we use the same words for different things.

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 9:10 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> 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 <
> 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 Irwin
>
> Director Of Construction
> Quick Response Fire Protection
> 727-282-9243
>
> Typed on tiny keys, just for you. Please forgive spelling errors,
> typographical transgressions and grammatical gaffs.
>
> 
> From: Sprinklerforum  on
> behalf of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 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 intent of this section.
>
> AFSA will be covering Acceptance Testing is some upcoming AHJ webinars.
>
> 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
> 
> 
> <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/
> >
>
>
> *Our members are at the heart of everything we do*
>
>
> *Expand your business with ITM*
> Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA's ITM Inspector
> Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended
> learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry
> leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling
> for Spring 2021 .
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 8:21 PM John Irwin via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> 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
> > improvement projects to 200 psi if they are over 20 sprinklers. We
> > have a waiver/release form we always get signed from the owner and or
> > GC. It always results in delays and change orders for additional
> > testing time as well as repairs to areas that were not in our scope.
> > So far, none of my clients has wanted to spend the time to argue our
> > case. (Note, I'm in Florida so the Fire prevention code is LAW and
> > locals can't decide on a whim to rewrite code). This particular AHJ
> > focuses on the words "such as relocated drops" as if only drops are
> exempt from pressure.
> >
> > Has anyone gotten a code interpretation from NFPA on this? I'd really
> > love to stop putting 200 psi on these old systems.
> >
> > At this very moment I have 2 guys still on a job making repairs after
> > a failed hydro this morning.
> >
> >
> >
> > John Irwin
> > Director Of Construction
> > Quick Response Fire Protection
> > 727-282-9243
> >
> > Typed on tiny keys, just for you. Please forgive spelling errors,
> > typographical transgressions and grammatical gaffs.
> > ___
> > 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://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: Cleveland Automatic Sprinkler

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I believe Automatics came out with the first Standard Spray Sprinklers in
1953. The SS had the U (upright) of P (pendant) designation and defined
their orientation. The "old-style" sprinklers or conventional sprinklers
manufactured before then could be installed in the upright or the pendant
positions. There are also some vertical sidewalls out there that look like
pendants with bent fins on about a quarter of the circumference. These
could be installed up or down with the bent fins towards the wall. I've
only seen Viking sidewalls like this but I can't say similar ones weren't
made by other manufacturers.

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:24 PM Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> CLEVELAND and 'conventional' head that could be installed as a pendent or
> upright.
>
> On Mar 18, 2021, Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >"Automatic" Sprinkler used to be IN Clevelar.
> >Did you run into one of the old style heads that was installed in the
> >upright or pendent position?
> >
> >On Mar 18, 2021, jaycs7919--- via Sprinklerforum
> > wrote:
> >>Just wondering if anyone is familiar with these sprinklers.  I am
> >>hoping some of the more experienced guys like Ron or Richard dealt
> >with
> >>them.  They are installed in two configurations and trying to verify
> >>which is correct.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Jay Stough
> >>Tilley Fire Solutions
> >>
> >>___
> >>Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >>Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> >
> >-- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing.
> >___
> >Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> -- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing.
> ___
> 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: Smoke Detectors

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I remember something about keeping the detector 12" out and down from the
intersection of a wall and ceiling but that had nothing to do with
sprinklers and may have been an industry practice, or a "Sven and Ollie
we've always done it this way, right-or-wrong" rule.

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:40 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> That was for heat detectors.  2019 NFPA 72, 21.4.2 related to the
> shunt-trip operation of elevators.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:07 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matthew J Willis ; Richard Carr <
> rich...@diboco.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Smoke Detectors
>
> The last time I remember, it was Chapter 6 of NFPA 72. (Not sure which
> chapter it is in the current edition)
>
> It was a requirements for the detector to be located within 24" of the
> sprinkler.
>
> That was for like in an elevator situation where you want the detector
> going before the sprinkler.
>
> That is the only time I recall there being a stipulated distance.
>
> R/
> Matt
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Richard Carr via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 7:12 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Richard Carr 
> Subject: RE: Smoke Detectors
>
> Could be an obstruction issue.
>
> Richard M. Carr, SET
> Project Manager/Design
> Diboco Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
> 325 Jackson Loop Road
> Flat Rock, NC  28731
>
> rich...@diboco.com
> 828-696-3400
> 828-696-2288 Fax
> 828-708-9118 Mobile
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:08 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; Brian Harris <
> bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>
> Subject: RE: Smoke Detectors
>
> I searched NFPA 13, 15 and 72 and couldn't find anything referring to a
> separation between a detector and a sprinkler.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | http://www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:38 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Brian Harris 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Smoke Detectors
>
> Has anyone heard of a minimum distance of 12" required between a smoke
> detector and a sprinkler head? I don't see anything in NFPA-13 and I'm
> admittedly not very familiar with alarm/electrical codes.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Harris, CET
> BVS Systems Inc.
> Design Manager
> bvssystemsinc.com<
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!X1NxgRgX2ARJldcxc0Nfi_w-CX_DSdg143nS5HW1Gnr43E_B0earFo754-vr3LaU9Q$
> >
> Phone: 704.896.9989
> Fax: 704.896.1935
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!X1NxgRgX2ARJldcxc0Nfi_w-CX_DSdg143nS5HW1Gnr43E_B0earFo754-v7AXPT1Q$
>
> 
>
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by
> unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message
> and deleting it from your computer.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!Vhw5vKVIJoDzxocfNbip_v74WPET119eBJw61fi6Luog1W8qUoWIMXPLl8FMa6-6Nw$
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!Vhw5vKVIJoDzxocfNbip_v74WPET119eBJw61fi6Luog1W8qUoWIMXPLl8FMa6-6Nw$
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!Vhw5vKVIJoDzxocfNbip_v74WPET119eBJw61fi6Luog1W8qUoWIMXPLl8FMa6-6Nw$
>
> 
>
> NOTICE - This communication may 

Re: leaving abandoned sprinkler piping in place

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

"Things like this are precisely why AFSA membership is well worth it."


Here is the conundrum on this type of post. I don't need to weigh in as
everyone to the east of me has already answered Travis's questions but I
want to thumbs-up Travis' thank you to those that answered as well, and
mostly, his comment about why the forum is another reason that makes
membership so worthwhile (Churching the Thread, so to speak). Being able to
make such a comment and having several thumbs-ups just might spur a lurker
or two to consider joining. I don't know. There must be statistics
regarding the value of such an option and Roger must know a way to
incorporate such a device. Just another plea for that thumbs-up button
that's easier than the way I went about doing it. Stepping down from the
soapbox. Thank you for listening.

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 7:40 AM Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> NFPA 13, 2019 edition actually addresses this in section 29.2
>
>
>
>
> Bob Caputo, CFPS
> President
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
> p:  214-349-5965 ext124
> w:  firesprinkler.org 
>     <
> https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>   <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>
>  
>
>
> Expand your business with ITM
>
> Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector
> Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended
> learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry
> leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now
> enrolling for Spring 2021 .
>
> > On Mar 17, 2021, at 9:12 AM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > I have a customer that is being asked to cut and cap an existing system
> and leave it in place.  I seem to recall a section of the fire or building
> code that does not permit you to leave abandoned life safety equipment in
> place.  They are being asked to remove the sprinklers but leave all of the
> piping dead in the air.  Is anyone familiar with this section of the fire /
> building code?  If so, would you be able to provide the location in the IFC
> / IBC so that I can forward it on?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for the assistance.
> >
> > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
> > Engineering Manager
> > MFP Design
> > 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> > Gilbert, AZ 85298
> > 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
> > travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> > www.mfpdesign.com
> >
> > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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: Metal Mesh Ceiling tile replacement

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I believe the "less than 1/4"" has to do with the depth of the ceiling
tile. This rule goes back to at least the seventies and was originally for
addressing plastic "egg-crate type tiles."

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:40 AM David Williams via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Thanks for that, but the similar chapter in 2019 first refers to 70% open,
> and I mentioned 61% open so it seems I better chase down any documentation
> from the manufacturer of the ceiling tile to follow the section paragraph.
> (from the picture I have of the product it also appears that the openings
> are less than ¼ inch although I didn’t mention that originally, which would
> throw this out of the first sub-paragraph also).
>
> David Toshio Williams, PE*, FPE
> (*Registered in MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, ND, VT)
> (218) 279-2436 direct | (218) 310-2446 cell
> LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum  on
> behalf of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 11:03 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
> Subject: Re: Metal Mesh Ceiling tile replacement
> Open-Grid Ceilings are addressed in NFPA 13, 2013 edition, section 8.15.14.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Skyler Bilbo
>
> 1700 S. Raney Street
> Effingham, IL 62401
> 217-819-6404 Direct
> 217-347-7315 Fax
>
> sbi...@wenteplumbing.com
> www.wenteplumbing.com
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:54 AM David Williams via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > We have a community college client that wants to replace standard ACT
> with
> > a perforated metal mesh tile that is 60% open. My assumption is that
> change
> > would require installation of heads above the ceiling in the area of the
> > metal mesh, perhaps putting a bulkhead around the area with the mesh
> panels
> > if they choose not to install them everywhere.
> >
> > I also assume that the heads located at the tile face should still be
> > there.
> >
> > Of course the spray pattern would be really disrupted by the mesh so I
> > wonder about adjusting the spacing.
> >
> > Any other thoughts and are my assumptions sound?
> >
> > David Toshio Williams, PE*, FPE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer
> > (*Registered in MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, ND, VT)
> > 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
> > Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
> > LHBcorp.com
> >
> > LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.
> >
> > ___
> > 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: Group III Aircraft Hangar

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I'm tempted to look at the actual hazard rather than what the commodity is
called. Airplane house/garage usually means hanger with the associated
hazards, but if you just have aluminium tubes with appendages...?
Presumably less activity than a typical warehouse, no combustible liquids
like in a parking garage and far less transients. Shielding of the floor by
the wings but private planes suggests A size aircraft so minimal, and
what's the likelihood of a hugely hazardous build-up of debris? I
think they may be right. I think it needs questioning but the final say is,
as usual, the AHJ. And the usual admonitions to CYA. Defining the hazard is
not your call. From
SFPE/NSPE/NICET/ASCET/NCEES Joint Position on the Engineer and the
Engineering Technician Designing Fire Protection Systems4.2.1 Engineering
Documents
The Engineer is responsible for the preparation of engineering documents
that establish the objectives and design criteria of the system(s). "Identify
occupancy type(s), areas to be protected (or omitted), and hazard
classification(s)"


On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:21 PM Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I have been informed that a design team has classified a Group III hangar
> as an S-1 occupancy.  As such, they have indicated this to be designed to
> OH1.  For the life of me, I can't see an aircraft hangar being anything
> less than EH1.  This hangar is about 60k sq ft.
>
> Has anyone ever found a situation to design an aircraft hangar to OH1.
> This will only house unfueled aircraft and no maintenance will be performed
> in the hangars.  This it to house "personal" aircraft as I understand it.
>
> What is the collective thought on this?
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> ___
> 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

Activity

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Seems like there's been a resurgence in activity in the list recently.
Makes me happy and I know it would have made George Church happy. So in the
spirit of George, or perhaps channeling George's spirit, if you are an
active participant or a lurker that finds value in this exchange and you're
a member, good on you for recognizing the wealth of good AFSA does for you
and for supporting the organization. If you're not a member then good on
you too for recognizing the value offered here and wanting to enhance your
knowledge and professionalism. And if not a member please consider joining
AFSA and also your local chapter. Thank you George. You're missed.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Multiple System Calculation

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

This sounds like a job for more sheetrock. Oh, and more cowbell is always
good.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:57 AM Sean Conlin via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> See NFPA-13, 23.4.4.1.1.4 and 23.4.4.1.1.5.
>
>
>
> This should help you with the engineer.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean W. Conlin, A.Sc.T.
> Director
> Demand Sprinkler Design Inc.
> 37 Summerfield Crescent
> Brampton, ON L6X 4K4
> T: 905-216-0922
> C: 416-317-0028
> E: scon...@demandsprinklerdesign.ca
>
> This message, including any attachments is considered confidential and for
> use only by the intended recipient(s).
> Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
> Please delete this communication and notify
> Demand Sprinkler Design Inc. if you are not the intended recipient or have
> received this message in error. Demand
> Sprinkler Design Inc. accepts no responsibility or liability for any loss
> or damage from use, including damage from viruses.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Burtell 
> Sent: February 11, 2021 1:47 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Multiple System Calculation
>
>
>
> I have a situation where an engineer is telling me I have to calculate a
> wet and dry system together because neither space meets the 1500 s.f
> minimum. I have a penthouse mechanical room OH 1 (WET) of 1014 s.f. and an
> adjacent room OH1 (DRY) of 469 s.f. I have calculated each room separate of
> each other. There is a full-height wall with a door that separates the
> rooms. The wall and door are not fire rated, so the large room method is
> out. This does not make any sense to me. Any sections that would require
> this to be done. He is saying 11.1.2 of NFPA 13 2016 requires it. I argue
> exception #2 says it does not apply.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
>
>
>
> [image: Burtell Fire_Small]
>
>
>
> Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*
>
>
>
> 116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101
>
>
>
> Email: j...@burtellfire.com
>
>
>
> Web Site: http://www.burtellfire.com
>
>
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten.**”*
>
>
>
> *NOTICE:*  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is
> intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  This e-mail
> transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or
> other information attached to it, may contain confidential information that
> is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
> e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it
> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this transmission or
> any of the information contained in or attached to this e-mail is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please
> immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission and destroy the
> original e-mail transmission as well as its attachments without reading or
> saving it in any manner.  Thank you.
>
>
> ___
> 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: Townhome - Common Areas

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

A clause in the sales contract that that owner of the adjacent unit is
responsible, or that all owners that use that common area are equally
responsible as in the maintenance assessments associated with HOAs. This is
my opinion for a solution way out of the purview of the sprinkler
contractor, and not being a lawyer I may be suggesting something that can't
be done in a contract, but just a thought for legally
assigning responsibility that could be explored.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:41 AM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I get it, but the "fee simple unit" extends beyond the fee simple unit
> so...
>
> SL
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Irwin [mailto:jir...@quickresponsefl.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:33 AM
> To: Steve Leyton ; Kyle.Montgomery <
> kmontgom...@aerofire.com>; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> And if some random person breaks a sprinkler inside the mail room, who's
> responsible for the repair? This is my issue with having sprinklers outside
> the fee simple unit.
>
> John Irwin
> Director of Construction
> Quick Response Fire Protection
> Cell: 727-282-9243
>
>
> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Leyton 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 1:31 PM
> To: Kyle.Montgomery ;
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Irwin 
> Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> Yes.  You have living space associated with a particular unit over the
> subject utility occupancy, so I would protect it with the system from that
> particular unit.
>
> Steve L.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kyle.Montgomery [mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:26 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin <
> jir...@quickresponsefl.com>
> Subject: RE: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> Are you saying to just extend the system from the adjacent home into that
> area to protect it? As opposed to providing another lead-in? Is that an
> option?
>
> -Kyle M
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton ; John Irwin <
> jir...@quickresponsefl.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> That last part made it easy for me to firm a quick opinion. If you have
> living space over a utility space like a garage or trash enclosure, I would
> say that accessory structure becomes a part of the dwelling unit associated
> with that terrace or patio space.   Protect the trash enclosure as you
> would a garage. If you are in a state or jurisdiction that doesn't require
> protection of garages per the exception in13D, then protect as for a garage
> in 13R.
>
>
> Steve Leyton
>
> (Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voice-to-text
> corruptions.)
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: John Irwin via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date: 1/27/21 6:48 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Irwin 
> Subject: Townhome - Common Areas
>
> We're protecting (4) rows of townhomes per NFPA 13D. Between buildings are
> small common areas such as trash storage (132sqft) and mail room
> (260sqft).  Providing protection in these rooms would come at an additional
> expense because the units being protected are fee simple and each has it's
> own lead-in. Adding sprinklers to these small common rooms would require
> additional lead ins, meters, light hazard and combustible concealed
> protection. Do these rooms need to be protected?
>
> As an added twist, the townhomes that immediately abut these rooms have
> exterior terraces on the ROOFs of these rooms. Is this a factor?
>
>
>
> John Irwin
> Quick Response Fire Protection
>
>
> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=faLC6Gr2aXcLulFYub3ZQSbhFvUDwniBMdSL2deInFQ=HfI4Lqejjh6B80Gz6TCV8T5UsQAvWcPuFsupz6bJO14=
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=faLC6Gr2aXcLulFYub3ZQSbhFvUDwniBMdSL2deInFQ=HfI4Lqejjh6B80Gz6TCV8T5UsQAvWcPuFsupz6bJO14=
> 

Re: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I think I'd try to get the building designer to put the UPS into a
dedicated enclosure and use an inerting system.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:48 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> So, I'll assume this battery assembly will be in some type of occupiable
> enclosure which will have environmental control.
>
> I would definitely not extend or try to tie it into any existing PreAction
> system.
>
> I would be looking at a stand alone suppression system, either clean agent
> or aerosol depending on the battery chemistry.
>
> I'd also be sure to run my idea past the local fire code official.
>
> Depending on the unknowns, there may be Code requirements for separation
> to adjacent occupied buildings.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:18 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton ; Matt Grise <
> m...@afpsprink.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design
>
> No idea, but I'll ask.   Looking for wide-tooth comb here.   Are wet-chem
> systems the "usual" go-to or is it more nuanced than that?
>
> SL
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise
> via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:17 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: Re: Stand-Alone UPS protection design
>
> What is the battery chemistry?
>
>
>
> Matt Grise
> Alliance Fire Protection
> m 913 526 7443
> o 913 888 0647
> f 913 888 0618
>
> Sent from mobile device
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Date: 1/14/21 12:15 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" ,
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton 
> Subject: RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design
>
> I can't tell you the exact dimensions for specifications because it's in
> pre-design.   It's right next to the building, but several hundred feet
> from the existing preaction areas and riser.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Prahl, Craig/GVL [mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:02 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton 
> Subject: RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design
>
> Steve,
>
> Can you provide a better description of this unit?  How far from the
> building will it be located?
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | http://www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:58 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stand-Alone UPS protection design
>
> I'm engaged in a conversation with a project team where an Uninterrupted
> Power Supply is being added to a local small-scale broadcast facility (NPR
> affiliate).   The control rooms and studios are already protected by
> preaction and this battery stack is being added outside the building and a
> ways away from the existing preaction areas.   The two candidate designs
> are to extend the preaction or use a pre-engineered wet-chem system and I'd
> love for any and everyone who has experience with this type of hazard to
> chime in on whether there is a preferred or "best" practice.   My feeling
> is that a wet-chem system is the way to go and the most common practice -
> can anyone verify or do I have that wrong.
>
> Fire away please...
>
> Steve L.
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https*3a*2f*2furldefense.com*2fv3*2f__http*3a*2f*2flists.firesprinkler.org*2flistinfo.cgi*2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__*3b*21*21B5cixuoO7ltTeg*21RBqeKKjG60wNEVmjtlo8VtJ_60JAV9CUPjj0pGiQ2Zgf2T3xTnT90OKuOqUcJqL9Og*24=E,1,BShkYLUD1RLgiLgDZGfVDk05i6BwISef9l7ExjaBxbFy7ewEqpj8ib6K71px8n-sK6S7gUdeT6GDk8c14yvp5IoHcjSWkVv9opvRudfz_gA,=1__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!WnEdr_kQ8BS7DlJAQTQDpT_Nk7E_rYIwlR9sVT1JgeBai3CzHDiG10rasN00-3g2aA$
>
> 
>
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by
> unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify us 

Re: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I'm pretty sure that the increase of 30% goes all the way back to pipe
scheduling where the increase in area was added because of the time-delay
inherent in dry pipes from fusing to water delivery and the likelihood of
extra unnecessary heads fusing across the ceiling even if the fire itself
wasn't spreading to require those extra heads. I think that any requirement
for including a design area larger than the building was never the intent.
My read would be the size of the actual demand area from the tables, either
the portion of the building or the building itself if smaller than the
tabular area plus a 30% increase. Consider that in an otherwise ordinary
hazard building with an extra hazard area the initial increase is 15 feet
all around the EH area unless it backs up to a firewall or exterior wall,
and then an extra 30% if the system is dry. Or maybe I've been thinking
about this wrongly for a long time.


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 Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:39 AM Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I've heard it explained that the intent was to drive up the size of the
> main feeding the smaller area in case it was ever expanded in size, but in
> my personal opinion the standard should NOT be in the business of
> addressing the future. If the area gets added onto we can deal with it then
> by replacing the main or bringing another main to the area, like we would
> have done before this "phantom" flow requirement was added. Unless there is
> another driving reason...this section should be torpedoed!
>
>
>
> Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services
> Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc.
> 1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC  29657
> Tel: 864-843-5161
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:33 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; James Litvak <
> jameslit...@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it
> apply?
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> Very good question.  I've read discussions on this issue recently as well
> and really wonder what was the thought process behind including a
> non-existent flow value in the system design and calculations.
>
> I would love to hear the rationale for this section.
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com |
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacobs.com%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7Ce791ae6338e848f54a0d08d89d2942ec%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637432148122644145%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=o0k5BzpuHWbBfTNE0lqjJypgJwBD7cs%2BBO0IbXwk3Tc%3Dreserved=0
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of James Litvak via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: James Litvak 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?
>
> I've just been introduced to section 23.4.4.2.5 (2016). In my particular
> situation, I have an EH2 refueling building (0.4 / 2,500) that is 2,268
> sq.ft. in its entirety. The flow from my calc came out to 998 gpm, so I was
> told by my coworker who reviewed my plans not to worry about the extra 2
> gpm that would need to be added to meet the 0.4 * 2,500 = 1,000 gpm minimum
> requirement. However, this is a dry system. So I asked my coworker if
> 23.4.4.2.5 applies to the 2,500 sq.ft. minimum per Figure 11.2.3.1.1, or
> if it applies to 3,250 sq.ft. after I increase 30%, which would require a
> minimum of 1,300 gpm. Not only are we unsure of that, but that got us
> wondering what the exact purpose of this section is, and how it would apply
> to other situations. If I have an EH2 building that is 300 sq.ft. and
> protected with 3 sprinklers on a dry system, do I need to design the riser
> and cross main to handle 1,000 (maybe 1,300) gpm? That seems insane.
>
> I've read through some threads on this forum, and also some websites, and
> the example often given is that of a paint booth. One example considers a
> paint booth protected by 6 high temp. sprinklers with a demand of 250 gp

Re: Event Center Floors

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

This may or may not be helpful:

IBC 2018 (see exceptions below)


*507.4 Sprinklered, One-Story Buildings*

The area of a Group A-4
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/3/occupancy-classification-and-use#303.5>
building
not more than one story above grade plane
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#story_above_grade_plane>
of
other than Type V construction, or the area of a Group B
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/3/occupancy-classification-and-use#304>,
F, M or S building no more than one story above grade plane
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#story_above_grade_plane>
of
any construction type, shall not be limited where the building is provided
with an automatic sprinkler system
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#automatic_sprinkler_system>
throughout
in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/9/fire-protection-and-life-safety-systems#903.3.1.1>
and
is surrounded and adjoined by public ways
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#public_way>
 or yards
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#yard> not
less than 60 feet (18 288 mm) in width.


*Exceptions:*

   1. Buildings and structures of Type I or II construction for rack
   storage facilities
   <https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#facility>
that
   do not have access by the public shall not be limited in height, provided
   that such buildings conform to the requirements of Sections 507.4 and
   903.3.1.1
   
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ifc-2018/chapter/9/fire-protection-and-life-safety-systems#903.3.1.1>
and Chapter 32
   
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ifc-2018/chapter/32/high-piled-combustible-storage#32>
of
   the *International Fire Code <https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ifc-2018>*.
   2.
   The automatic sprinkler system
   
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#automatic_sprinkler_system>
shall
   not be required in areas occupied for indoor participant sports, such as
   tennis, skating, swimming and equestrian activities in occupancies in Group
   A-4
   
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/3/occupancy-classification-and-use#303.5>,
   provided that all of the following criteria are met:
   1. 2.1. Exit
  <https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#exit>
doors
  directly to the outside are provided for occupants of the participant
  sports areas.
  2. 2.2. The building is equipped with a fire alarm system
  
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#fire_alarm_system>
   with manual fire alarm boxes
  
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#manual_fire_alarm_box>
installed
  in accordance with Section 907
  
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/9/fire-protection-and-life-safety-systems#907>
  .
  3. 2.3. An automatic sprinkler system
  
<https://up.codes/viewer/wyoming/ibc-2018/chapter/2/definitions#automatic_sprinkler_system>
is
  provided in storage rooms, press boxes, concession booths or other spaces
  ancillary to the sport activity space.



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 Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:11 AM Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I seem to recall something in the I-codes that states you are not required
> to protect over an event center floor if the ceiling/roof is "x feet" above
> the floor level.  However, of course, I can't locate the reference section
> today.  Does anyone happen to know where that reference may be at in the
> I-codes?
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
>
> ___
> 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: Diesel Fuel Tank - Leak Protection

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I'm in the Bruce V. camp on this one. If your customer is worried about
spillage at any point in the system then why not curb the entire pump room
and raise the batteries, the pump, and all the ancillary stiff that might
be on the floor above the level of a full spill as you'd do with the
threshold (or I guess in this case the oilhold)?


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 Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:07 PM BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I’m mostly impressed you have an owner who cares.
>
> Best.
>
> Bruce Verhei
>
> > On 11/20/2020 4:19 PM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Our standard for diesel fire pumps is to provide a double-wall fuel tank
> with leak detection, steel supply and return fuel lines, and of course the
> connection at the diesel engine is generally a flexible connection provided
> with the diesel engine from the manufacturer.
> >
> > Anybody doing anything different?
> >
> > Any particular problems with leaks?
> >
> > I've got a client who is particularly concerned about mitigating fuel
> leaks, but in my experience there is little reason to be concerned about
> leaks with this arrangement. The client is asking me to look at using the
> special Kynar double wall pipe made by Flexworks. I guess the advantage is
> that you would have less connections because it would bend rather than use
> fittings (90s), but it looks like it would be more easily-damaged than
> steel pipe. Anyone have experience with this or something similar?
> >
> > We've also discussed possibly adding a curb below the fuel tank to catch
> leaks, but what if the leak occurs in the line closer to the diesel engine
> (outside of the curb)? The curb is useless at that point.
> >
> > I feel like the standard method is pretty effective and that any of this
> other stuff has seriously diminished return value, but I'd be interested to
> hear from the audience.
> >
> > -Kyle M
> > ___
> > 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: Domestic Demands 13R

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

My understanding of this is that the complex would have had a total fire
flow and domestic flow calculated into the main loop by the Civil Engineer
(his job) and the complex loop is tied into the city grid at two points.
Then only dead ends need to be calculated with the domestic being added at
the junction/split with the domestic and then out to the loop.


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 Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:03 AM Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> It is a new complex.  I agree with #1 for sure.  #2, while I see the
> logic, it just seems like that is way overkill for a project.  Including a
> 2500 gpm domestic demand in a site loop really seems excessive.  If it were
> a 13 system, you would include a 100 gpm and wouldn't even consider the
> other buildings on the site.  That is where the rationale of including all
> seems to escape.
>
> Again, we have AHJ's requesting both ways.  I am wondering how others
> handle it and what you have run up against.
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
> Send large files to us via:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
> LinkedIn:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten.”
>
> Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material
> quote?  Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
> *If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click
> https://www.ferguson.com/account-registration to register.*
> **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access
> to your favorite ferguson.com features.
> http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12/external?email=true=6=2591775=517003
>  or
> http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/n1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12/external?email=true=6=2591775=517003**
>
> From: Hinson, Ryan 
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 9:59 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Travis Mack 
> Subject: RE: Domestic Demands 13R
>
> Is this entire complex brand new or existing? Your answer will determine
> mine:
> 1. Taking a water flow test on an existing looped water main supplying
> both FW and domestic demands already accounts for the domestic demands of
> the other buildings, no? On the single main feeding all the way into the
> building in question, one only needs to include the domestic demand for
> that building where the domestic is not provided with a valve preventing
> domestic flow in the event of a sprinkler activation therein. NFPA 13R
> (2016) Section 9.6 states, "Domestic Demand. Domestic demand for the
> building being calculated shall be included as part of the overall system
> demand for systems with common domestic/fire mains where no provisions are
> made to prevent the domestic waterflow upon sprinkler system activation."
> Key words here are "for the building" and "where no provisions are made".
> 2. If the entire loop system supplying both FW and domestic demands is new
> and yet to be completed, then provision must be made for anticipated
> domestic flows of the other, yet to be occupied buildings as you indicate.
>
> My too scents,
>
> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
> Senior Fire Protection Engineer
> O 952-656-3662 \ M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
> mailto:rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
> *Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
> **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On Behalf Of Travis Mack
> via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:34 AM
> To: mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> Subject: Domestic D

Re: Clearance around all pump equipment

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Pretty much, Ben.


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 Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Ben Young via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> If you have a backflow in the pump room the local water authority may
> require a set clearance for testing. 3 feet around everything seems a
> little extreme but it's not like clearance is a bad thing. Does that mean
> you can't have system risers closer than say 4 feet on center too?
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:48 PM Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > In one local jurisdiction here there is a requirement for three feet all
> > around major equipment, font, sides, and back. It would good if they
> would
> > inform the architects that continue to provide smaller and smaller pump
> and
> > riser rooms.
> >
> >
> > 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 Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:12 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via
> > Sprinklerforum  wrote:
> >
> > > Travis,
> > >
> > > NFPA 20 only requires that the room be sized "to fit" with clearance
> for
> > > access.  While that clearance is required, there is no set amount of
> > > clearance defined.
> > >
> > > From the 2019 edition:
> > > "4.14.1.1.7 The pump room or pump house shall be sized to fit all of
> the
> > > components necessary for the operation of the fire
> > > pump and to accommodate the following:
> > > (1) Clearance between components for installation and maintenance
> > > (2) Clearance between a component and the wall for installation
> > > and maintenance
> > > (3) Clearance between energized electrical equipment and
> > > other equipment in accordance with NFPA 70 (this one has requirements
> > that
> > > you've already met.)
> > > (4) Orientation of the pump to the suction piping to allow
> > > compliance with 4.16.6.3 (this would be the '10 pipe diameter rule' for
> > > certain suction piping.)
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't have any other substantiation for ya.
> > >
> > > It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the
> > > NFPA, 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.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > >
> > > Cecil Bilbo
> > > Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
> > > Champaign, IL
> > > 217.607.0325
> > > www.sprinkleracademy.com<http://www.sprinkleracademy.com>
> > > ce...@sprinkleracademy.com<mailto:ce...@sprinkleracademy.com>
> > >
> > > OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Sprinklerforum 
> on
> > > behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum <
> > > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:38 PM
> > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> > > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> > > Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> > > Subject: Clearance around all pump equipment
> > >
> > > Is there anything in any fire code or standard that requires a 3'
> > > clearance around ALL pump room equipment.  We are maintaining 3' clear
> of
> > > controllers.  It is being brought up he wants 3' clear of everything.
> We
> > > asked for a reference.  The response was "in the book."
> > >
> > > Any help or guidance?
> > >
> > >
> > > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> > > Engineering Manager
> > > MFP Design
> > > 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> > > Gilbert, AZ 85298
> > > NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> > > NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> > > travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> > > www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>
> > >
> > &g

Re: Clearance around all pump equipment

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

In one local jurisdiction here there is a requirement for three feet all
around major equipment, font, sides, and back. It would good if they would
inform the architects that continue to provide smaller and smaller pump and
riser rooms.


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 Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:12 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo via
Sprinklerforum  wrote:

> Travis,
>
> NFPA 20 only requires that the room be sized "to fit" with clearance for
> access.  While that clearance is required, there is no set amount of
> clearance defined.
>
> From the 2019 edition:
> "4.14.1.1.7 The pump room or pump house shall be sized to fit all of the
> components necessary for the operation of the fire
> pump and to accommodate the following:
> (1) Clearance between components for installation and maintenance
> (2) Clearance between a component and the wall for installation
> and maintenance
> (3) Clearance between energized electrical equipment and
> other equipment in accordance with NFPA 70 (this one has requirements that
> you've already met.)
> (4) Orientation of the pump to the suction piping to allow
> compliance with 4.16.6.3 (this would be the '10 pipe diameter rule' for
> certain suction piping.)
>
> Sorry, I don't have any other substantiation for ya.
>
> It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the
> NFPA, 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.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Cecil Bilbo
> Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
> Champaign, IL
> 217.607.0325
> www.sprinkleracademy.com<http://www.sprinkleracademy.com>
> ce...@sprinkleracademy.com<mailto:ce...@sprinkleracademy.com>
>
> OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!
>
>
> 
> From: Sprinklerforum  on
> behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:38 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
> Subject: Clearance around all pump equipment
>
> Is there anything in any fire code or standard that requires a 3'
> clearance around ALL pump room equipment.  We are maintaining 3' clear of
> controllers.  It is being brought up he wants 3' clear of everything.  We
> asked for a reference.  The response was "in the book."
>
> Any help or guidance?
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten.”
>
> Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material
> quote?  Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
> *If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click here to
> register.*
> **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access
> to your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android
> devices**
>
> ___
> 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: pharmacy

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I think the OH2 designation with mercantile has as much to do with a
transient population being unfamiliar with the layout, limited sight
distance created by the gondolas, long paths of egress to get to the
entrance/exit (remember most people don't even see the emergency exits and
head back in the direction they entered), limited exiting, and anything
else one can think of regarding the stupidity of the customers, as much as
the types and amounts of commodities.


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 Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 10:08 PM Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>  I tried to make an argument once that a jewelry store could be OH1 (rocks
> and metal in metal and glass cases) and got nowhere.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Oct 9, 2020 at 5:20 PM,   sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >  Is there any world where a small pharmacy - say 1000 sq ft - could be
> considered light hazard? The plans show racks for the storage of the meds /
> pill bottles. Dealing with some issues on a pre-engineered job that the FPE
> did it as LH. The problem compounds when the water supply is very marginal
> and the jurisdiction does not all QR reduction for OH areas. Travis Mack,
> CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298 NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700 NEW MOBILE:
> 480-272-2471 travis.m...@mfpdesign.com www.mfpdesign.com Send large files
> to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign LinkedIn:
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack “The bitterness of poor quality
> remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.” Need/Want a
> faster way to check material pricing? Build a material quote? Check
> availability ? Searching for an invoice? *If you do not already have an
> account with ferguson.com, click here to register.* **Have a Ferguson
> account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to your favorite
> ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android devices**
> ___ 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: pharmacy

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

My Big Book of Building Occupancies says drugstores are Group M-Mercantile
and Sprinkler Installation Bible says mercantile is ordinary hazard.


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 Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:20 PM Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Is there any world where a small pharmacy - say 1000 sq ft - could be
> considered light hazard?  The plans show racks for the storage of the meds
> / pill bottles.  Dealing with some issues on a pre-engineered job that the
> FPE did it as LH.  The problem compounds when the water supply is very
> marginal and the jurisdiction does not all QR reduction for OH areas.
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten.”
>
> Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material
> quote?  Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
> *If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click here to
> register.*
> **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access
> to your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android
> devices**
>
> ___
> 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: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe System Air Compressor

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

A switch that looks like a light switch would be legit for a small motor.
If the compressor is on a dedicated 20A circuit it would need to be a 20A
rated switch. You wouldn't be able to tell a 20A from a 15A (common light
circuit rating) without looking at the rating. If it's a 20A/230V
compressor the switch would need to be a Double Pole/Single Throw. Again.
you can't tell from just the lever.


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 Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:02 PM Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Like the one for a light switch, there is breaker in the electrical panel
> with a lock-out
>
> Mike
>
> 
> From: Sprinklerforum  on
> behalf of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 3:00 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: John Denhardt 
> Subject: Re: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe System Air
> Compressor
>
> You are required to have a disconnect switch. What kind of “On/Off” switch
> are you seeing?
>
> John
>
> John August Denhardt, P.E.
> Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
> American Fire Sprinkler Association
> 301-343-1457
>
> > On Sep 24, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > Made a inspection to one of my jobs today and found that the electrical
> contractor installed a On/Off
> > switch to the air compressor which I know isn't allowed.
> >
> > Where does it state in NFPA that this isn't allowd?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
> > ___
> > 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: On/Off Switch in the Electric supply to a Dry Pipe System Air Compressor

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I think you'd find that in the electrical code, but, and if my
memory serves me from many, many years ago, and if it hasn't changed in the
several iterations of NFPA 70 since the 1970s when I was an electrical
inspector any motor over 1/8th HP requires a disconnect within sight of
that motor or one capable of being locked out if out of sight.


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 Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:50 AM Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Made a inspection to one of my jobs today and found that the electrical
> contractor installed a On/Off
> switch to the air compressor which I know isn't allowed.
>
> Where does it state in NFPA that this isn't allowd?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
> ___
> 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: Non-Combustible Concealed Space

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Sounds to me like the unit is in the ductwork (a separate compartment of
non-combustible construction), it is surrounded by an inaccessible
concealed space of limited combustible construction), and opens to another
separate compartment by removing the grill that visually conceals it from
that latter, occupied compartment that is protected.


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 Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:58 PM rix rixford via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Pete by chance did you live in Crested Butte Co
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:27 PM
> To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: Pete Schwab ; travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> Subject: RE: Non-Combustible Concealed Space
>
> Better clarification should be in the 2022 edition…… Subject to ballot,
> nitmams, etc.
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
> via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 2:25 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> Subject: RE: Non-Combustible Concealed Space
>
> Mike:
>
> Check into the AFSA informal interp archives regarding VTACs. I had one
> from them in a hotel project recently. The spaces did not contain fuel
> fired equipment so did not require protection.
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>
>
> Send large files to us via:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
> <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
> >
> LinkedIn:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0
> <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0
> >
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low
> price is forgotten.”
>
> Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material
> quote?  Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
> *If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click
> https://www.ferguson.com/account-registration<
> https://www.ferguson.com/account-registration> to register.* **Have a
> Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to your
> favorite ferguson.com features.
> http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12/external?email=true=6=2591775=517003
> <
> http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12/external?email=true=6=2591775=517003>
> or
> http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/n1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12/external?email=true=6=2591775=517003**
> <
> http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/n1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12/external?email=true=6=2591775=517003**
> >
>
> From: Sprinklerforum  <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of
> Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:59 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: Mike Hairfield mailto:fsl...@msn.com>>
> Subject: Non-Combustible Concealed Space
>
> Here is my situation: Hotel Rooms that have a 3'-6" x 2'-6"
> Non-Combustible Concealed space that has a heat pump unit inside this
> space. There is not a door into this space only a discharge grill that can
> be removed by the m

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Testing of existing systems

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Craig brings up an interesting thought. Perhaps a requirement to do a hydro
before a job of this magnitude is embarked upon would shift the onus from
contractor to owner, it then being HIS responsibility to correct HIS
existing system before the contractor modifies it. The likelihood of a leak
on the existing system after the work was done would be significantly
reduced if a pre-test were done and if that test was mandated by the AHJ
(per code). Any leaks during a post-work hydro would likely be in the new
work which is why that requirement is in the book in the first place.
John's point about being blamed for any problems even if the problem and
the work were at opposite ends of the building would thereby be mitigated
to perhaps a more bearable risk.


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, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:38 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Sometimes it's not about how good of a job your fitters did but the
> unknown age and condition of the existing system piping you're tying into.
> There are times when a 200 psi test is all it takes to open up pinholes and
> create leaks.  Now the owner looks at you as being responsible and you're
> on the hook for repairs and loss of their production or product if
> something gets wet.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of tfscolorado via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:02 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Mark Phillips <
> philli...@pyebarkerfire.com>
> Cc: tfscolorado ; John Irwin <
> jir...@quickresponsefl.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Testing of existing systems
>
>
> John, you have probably spent more time and effort fighting this issue
> versus just doing a test.  200 add and relocates is a lot and I would think
> you should put a test on it even if it is not code required (which I
> believe it is) for your benefit and warranty.  If your guys did a good job,
> a 200 # test should not be a big deal.  As they say choose you battles
> wisely.Jim AdamsSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>  Original message From: John Irwin via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Date: 8/19/20  7:11 AM
> (GMT-07:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org, Mark Phillips <
> philli...@pyebarkerfire.com> Cc: John Irwin 
> Subject: Re: Testing of existing systems I included this reference in my
> response. From 4 different editions of 13. As well as a half dozen informal
> interpretations from AFSA and explanatory comments from the handbook.John
> IrwinWest Coast Branch ManagerQuick Response Fire
> Protection727-282-9243Typed on tiny keys, just for you. Please forgive
> spelling errors, typographical transgressions and grammatical
> gaffs.From: Mark Phillips <
> philli...@pyebarkerfire.com>Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:07:24
> AMTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>Cc: John Irwin <
> jir...@quickresponsefl.com>Subject: RE: Testing of existing systemsI
> would be arguing the point of 25.2.1.4.2 of NFPA 13 2016How are you
> isolating relocated drops?Mark PhillipsBranch ManagerFire Sprinkler Design,
> Install, InspectionsService, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections832-101
> Purser DriveRaleigh NC 27603Phone: 919-779-4010Fax: 919-779-4014Cell
>  : 919-268-7587Email : PhillipsM@pyebarkerfire.comWeb   :
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.pyebarkerfire.com__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!TRXWHQ-e_usaUH4VcdQhIOn_24PD8P61popS_t8IMDorh4B4s36QJ-LCAtqitwpgDg$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.pyebarkerfire.com__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!TRXWHQ-e_usaUH4VcdQhIOn_24PD8P61popS_t8IMDorh4B4s36QJ-LCAtqitwpgDg$
> >-Original Message-From: Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On Behalf Of John Irwin
> via SprinklerforumSent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:16 PMTo:
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orgCc: John Irwin <
> jir...@quickresponsefl.com>Subject: RE: Testing of existing
> systems[EXTERNAL]Nobody has an informal code interpretation on this? I
> don't believe we're all just putting 200 psi on other people's pipe.
> Anything saved from AFSA, NFSA or NFPA would be great. ThanksJohn
> IrwinQuick Response Fire Protection"The bitterness of poor quality remains
> long after the sweetness of low price is forgott

Re: Flexible assembly for Novec 1230 at seismic separation joint

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I'm guessing the architect's solution to HIS mistake for not researching
the need for adequate space is to put the bottles on the "wrong" side of
the seismic wall. I just looked at a website for this stuff and from the
photos on the home page concluded that a lot of space might be required and
had I been him maybe sought the advice of someone familiar with the
requirements, someone like the manufacturer. also, looking at that webpage
I saw each bottle being fed into piping held together with grooved
couplings. This led me to the simplest of solutions, which I suspect you
looked into and rejected, but I've been around the block enough times to
know that sometimes the simple solutions tp problems just elude us, so
could you use the multi-joint seismic connection from NFPA 13? And when you
think, "Of course I have you moron," I'll not take offense. 樂



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 Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:18 AM Shawn Foor via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> What kind of pressure are you talking about?  I think the fireloop is only
> rated to 300 psi
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:10 AM Jeff Normand via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > http://www.metrafire.com/fireloop/
> >
> > Think they can be mounted horizontally and vertically.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:44 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum <
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone had to provide a flexible assembly on a NOVEC 1230 system
> > where
> > > the piping has to pass through a seismic separation joint?
> > >
> > > Looking for options.  Architect gave us no space for cylinders in the
> > > rooms, contractor says they can't make it happen.
> > >
> > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 864.676.5252
> |
> > > craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> > > 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> > > information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> > > viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by
> > > unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> > > message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
> message
> > > and deleting it from your computer.
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Shawn Foor, SET
>
> *FOOR DESIGN, LLC*
> *10208 E 98TH ST*
> *TULSA, OK 74133*
> *P:918-237-1400*
> ___
> 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: 13 R in a single family home

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

In Washington, there was a guy that required conformance to 24 in
stand-alone 13D installations even though it isn't referenced. He was fine
with poly, PVC, CPVC, or orange CPVC if it was any type of system that was
a combination of plumbing or fire.


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 Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:31 PM Ken Wagoner via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Adding a few logs to this fire I have to share that the comment by Matt
> is very accurate.
>
> I've dealt with many AHJ's here in California who when pushed over some
> issue on a single family home have responded with, "Just do a 13R
> system," without truly understanding the difference.  Here are a few
> notes which come to mind:
>
>   * 13R requires an FDC, where 13D does not
>   * 13R requires conformance with NFPA 25, and 13D does not
>   * 13R requires a 30 minute water supply, 13D requires only 10 minutes
> of water
>   * 13R requires any pump provided to meet NFPA 20 conditions, as Matt
> noted below.
>   * 13R requires any pressure tank to be both listed, and conform to
> NFPA 22, 13D only requires conformance to ASME standards, and makes
> no reference to NFPA 22 in any portion of the text
>   * 13R requires the total number of fixture units to be addressed in
> the hydraulic calculations, if the supply serves both the fire
> sprinkler and domestic water systems, 13D has no such requirement.
>   * 13R requires a hydrostatic test conforming to NFPA 13 if more than
> 20 sprinklers are provided, and at 50 psi higher than the maximum
> system pressure if less than 20 sprinklers are in the system, 13D
> requires hydrostatic testing at system pressure if no FDC is provided.
>
> I've almost run out of breath preaching to various AHJ's - if you wish
> to have calculations flowing up to four sprinklers, rather than the 2
> sprinklers routinely called for in 13D, just say so.
>
> sincerely,
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting*
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *
>
> **
> On 8/13/2020 11:57 AM, Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum wrote:
> > Common theme seems to be Townhomes.
> >
> > Just wanted throw this out..,
> >
> > Beware the subtle shift from 13D to 13R. It is more than just going from
> a 2 head calc to a possible 4 head calc and larger pipe.
> >
> > 13D is very careful to use the word "Pump" only. NFPA 20 is not
> referenced in Chapter 2.
> >
> > 13R..., Not so much.
> >
> > Happy hunting!
> >
> > R/
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
> > Design Manager /3-D Specialist
> > Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
> > 1530 Samco Road
> > Rapid City, SD 57702
> > Office-605.348.2342
> > Direct Line-605.593.5063
> > Cell-605.391.2733
> > Fax:-605.348.0108
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:53 AM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: Steve Leyton 
> > Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home
> >
> > We're working on a project right now in San Diego with four 4-story
> townhomes in a row and it's been code classified as R2; we're designing per
> NFPA 13 on that one.
> >
> > Steve L.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark.Phelps
> via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:29 AM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: Mark.Phelps 
> > Subject: RE: 13 R in a single family home
> >
> > San Francisco.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 8:06 AM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 13 R in a single family home
> >
> > Out of curiosity, where are people building single family homes that 4+
> stories? I don't think I've ever seen one.
> >
> > -Kyle M
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 202

Re: Missing hydraulic data plates

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

If this is due to inspection the procedure per  NFPA 25 would be: The owner
is responsible to inspect his system. He may hire you as the professional
to do this for him. During the inspection, your responsibility is t
report the deficiency to the owner and to any AHJ that has legal
requirements that they are reported to by an inspection and testing agent.
The owner is responsible;e to correct the deficiency and may hire you again
to help them. Your job at that point would be to recommend possible
methods of correction. In this case it could be trying to find the
information or recreating it, and the associated cost involved. The same
process would apply for a modification to the system. Ultimately, if the
information is required it os the owner's responsibility to provide it. How
that is accom[lished is the owner's decision.


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 Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 7:03 PM BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> You might find the local fire marshal’s office has copy of test cert, and
> original plans.
>
> Best.
>
> Bruce Verhei
> > On 08/06/2020 8:07 PM Mark Phillips via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello forum friends
> > I would like to get some other professionals methods on how they handle
> missing data plates for customers.
> >
> > Assume no asbuilts are available
> > Assume no current fire test available
> > Assume no existing design information
> >
> > Thank you in advance
> >
> > Sent from my mobile device
> > Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.
> >
> > Mark Phillips
> > Branch Manager
> > Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections
> > Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections
> >
> > 832-101 Purser Drive
> > Raleigh NC 27603
> > Phone: 919-779-4010
> > Fax : 919-779-4014
> > Cell : 919-268-7587
> > Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com
> > Web : www.pyebarkerfire.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: Pump or Fire Pump

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

You might want to put a handwashing sink in the pump room downstream of the
pump. It seems like adding one toilet to an otherwise stand-alone sprinkler
system, to make it a flow-through system to alleviate the need for a
backflow, at least in Washington, turns it into a plumbing system.



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 8, 2020 at 11:25 AM Mike B Morey via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I would say your own assessment if I understand it, of "it could be a
> private waterworks system if the AHJ approves" is correct.  There is in my
> mind one big caveat beyond approved/not approved by the AHJ and that's the
> reliability of the pump if it is equipped with mechanical seals rather than
> gland packing since it may not being regularly run now that there is no
> domestic usage.  In an ideal world you'd probably put a red pump in, but
> that's obviously not the ideal solution from the owner's perspective.  In
> this situation I'd probably want to sit the owner and AHJ and maybe
> insurance down in a room with yourself.  Arguably whether explicit or
> implicit there's some degree of "it's already there and works" to lend
> credence to it being a "private water supply" but that's above our
> collective pay grade.
>
> --
>
> *Mike Morey*
> *CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677*
> *Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group
> * Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company*
> 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825
> *direct *260.487.7824* /  cell *260.417.0625* /  fax *260.487.7991
> * email *mmo...@shambaugh.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:"Reed A. Roisum, SET via Sprinklerforum" <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> To:"sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org" <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc:"Reed A. Roisum, SET" 
> Date:07/08/2020 01:01 PM
> Subject:RE: Pump or Fire Pump
> Sent by:"Sprinklerforum" <
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> --
>
>
>
> BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.
>
>
> There is a couple of small additions to the building and domestic water
> was removed from the system.
>
> That is one question that came up, should the original system have been
> designed with a fire pump as it was for domestic and fire?  The AHJ has not
> approved the system and seems to be questioning whether this should be a
> listed fire pump installed per NFPA 20 or if this is can be looked at as
> though it is like a municipal system until you hit the backflow.
>
>
> Reed A. Roisum, SET *|* *KFI Engineers* *|* Senior Fire Protection
> Designer *|* Fargo, ND *|* *direct:* 701.552.9903* | **mobile:*
> 701.388.1352 *|* *KFIengineers.com*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.kfiengineers.com__;!!FaxH778!NNQ74vO_AftLU_0fnsW8tEIL5qDr5TcoABvnMoFeDuWupg2vjijtkR_YlUOoYgpK$>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> * Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:44 AM
> * To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> * Cc:* Matt Grise 
> * Subject:* Re: Pump or Fire Pump
>
> what kind of changes are you making to the system? Is this a case where a
> previously approved application is still approved?
>
> Matt
>
> --
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum <*sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org*
> > on behalf of Reed A.
> Roisum, SET via Sprinklerforum <*sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org*
> >
> * Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:33 AM
> * To:* *sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org*
>  <
> *sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org*
> >
> * Cc:* Reed A. Roisum, SET <*raroi...@kfi-eng.com* >
> * Subject:* Pump or Fire Pump
>
> I have a project where there is an existing domestic pump and water
> storage tanks.  They used to serve both domestic and fire protection in a
> group of buildings but are no longer being used for domestic but fire
> protection only.  The pump is not a fire pump.  Does it need to be?
>
> There is a building 1,000 feet from the protected buildings that houses
> the pump and tanks.  The pump charges a 3” underground that supplies
> multiple buildings that each have their own backflow assembly and riser.
> In my mind, it is basically the same set up as a municipal system, but
> instead of doing a flow test at the hydrant outside of the building to find
> my water supply, I look at the 

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

You never can tell when office workers will be storing a thousand gallons
of flammable methyl ethyl death floor to ceiling in styrofoam containers.


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, Jun 17, 2020 at 6:24 AM Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I would caution throwing all us engineers into the same stereotypical
> group...kind of like saying all Americans are racist.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:35 AM, Dennis Wilson via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Don’t you just love them engineers!!!
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2020 6:50 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Bob Knight 
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required
>
>
>
> The spec is demanding 8.0K for the LH areas.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> Fire by Knight, LLC
>
> 208-318-3057
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:48 PM
> *To:* b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required
>
>
>
> *4.2k or even 2.8k can be your friend – if applicable.*
>
>
>
>
> <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C4e204a301e5a4d4d2d4808d812bad89b%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637279941001900811=2fx2SbPij%2BUbM%2FPYD4o0asSSIIXpwHBmCKLGWCCyWgI%3D=0>
> 
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> Engineering Manager
>
> MFP Design
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
>
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> travis.m...@ferguson.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
> <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C4e204a301e5a4d4d2d4808d812bad89b%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637279941001900811=2fx2SbPij%2BUbM%2FPYD4o0asSSIIXpwHBmCKLGWCCyWgI%3D=0>
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C4e204a301e5a4d4d2d4808d812bad89b%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637279941001910805=GnTZ2ciqfnw2aSHh%2BUWwlRdoO7okq8KdJYcTlIamnKw%3D=0>
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C4e204a301e5a4d4d2d4808d812bad89b%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637279941001910805=4t1G%2FrDTqAVAdI1h0W8qpiOvF4hYbxa3UHSOUTwLxhI%3D=0>
>
>
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of
> low price is forgotten.**”*
>
>
>
> *Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material
> quote?  Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?*
>
> *If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click *here*
> <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ferguson.com%2Faccount-registration=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C4e204a301e5a4d4d2d4808d812bad89b%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637279941001920800=MyAXeGvwKenGVFS1gv9Y1F2mpHJ8Hp5NgSqps5R7HtE%3D=0>
>  to register.*
>
> **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access
> to your favorite ferguson.com features. *Apple iOS devices*
> <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com%2Fhq7bgesq7f%2F1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12%2Fexternal%3Femail%3Dtrue%26a%3D6%26p%3D2591775%26t%3D517003=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C4e204a301e5a4d4d2d4808d812bad89b%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637279941001920800=6ks5dq7nd4P6zULHMBF8eIjhZd6sxr6KolhTIj2MPKw%3D=0>
>  or *Android devices*
> <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com%2Fhq7bgesq7f%2Fn1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12%2Fexternal%3Femail%3Dtrue%26a%3D6%26p%3D2591775%26t%3D517003=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C4e204a3

Re: mattress storage

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

When it comes to high hazard furnishings I always ask, "What would IKEA
do?" Giant buildings full of plastic and kindling.



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 Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 6:49 PM Steele, Andrew via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Also consider looking at the applicable fire code.  If the ICC fire code,
> then this might be a high-piled combustible storage situation beginning at
> six feet (see high-piled storage definition in ICC Fire Code Chapter 2, and
> then Chapter 32).  Pillows and mattress are in section 3203.6, further
> classified as a “high-hazard commodities” presenting special fire hazards
> beyond those of Class I, II, III or IV…
>
>
>
> Andrew Steele
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Fpdcdesign
> via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2020 9:44 AM
> *To:* Sprinklerforum
> *Cc:* Fpdcdesign; Matt Grise
> *Subject:* Re: mattress storage
>
>
>
> I am actually working on a foam mattress manufacturer right now. Expanded
> Group A plastic. You would have to check if they are exposed or in
> cardboard boxes. Some mattresses are compressed and put into boxes. I’m not
> sure how a compressed foam mattress would behave in a fire situation when
> the box burns away. Ceiling height plays a big role in design requirements.
>
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
> 860-554-7054  (fax)
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2020 at 9:33 AM,  > wrote:
>
> Group A (not 1)
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:32 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Matt Grise 
> *Subject:* RE: mattress storage
>
>
>
> Usually exposed, expanded group 1 plastic. NFPA 13 and FM have some
> protection criteria.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:00 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
> *Subject:* mattress storage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I need opinions on mattress storage warehouse in furniture store. I have a
> furniture store with a 8000sqft storage area with mattresses stacked on the
> floor to a maximum height of 12 feet.
>
>
>
> Mostly foam mattresses.
>
>
>
> Any idea where I would start to look for the design criteria?
>
>
>
> Any guidance would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> Troy
>
> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing
> list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> *Web <http://www.daytonohio.gov/>*   | *Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/cityofdayton>*  |  *Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dayton-OH/City-of-Dayton-Ohio/47806554955>*
> |  *YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/cityofdaytonohio>*  |  *Nixle
> <http://www.nixle.com/>*  |  E-mail Newsletters
> <http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?m=1101627103042=oi>
>
>
>
>   ­­
> ___
> 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: Structural Load

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

And remember the building does not belong to you and it is NOT your
responsibility to come up with a solution. The owner, via his
representatives (the GC, the structural engineer, and ultimately, the
architect) is responsible for building a code-compliant building that
includes supporting any live or dead loads, including the sprinkler system.
And I'm guessing that in California insufficient point loading for hanging
would the least of your concerns regarding structure.



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, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:26 AM John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I agree with Ken. I have been down this road before.  The structure needs
> to support the piping plus 250 pounds at the point of hanging.  If the
> structure can handle this load, then the structure has an issue.
>
> 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
> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>
><https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>
>
> *Help AFSA “Sound the Alarm” about sprinklers!*
>
> AFSA’s charitable partner the American Red Cross is educating millions
> through its Home Fire Preparedness Campaign. Help us support the inclusion
> of fire sprinklers in their messaging.  Donate today!
> <https://www.redcross.org/donate/cm/afsa-pub.html/>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:18 PM Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Although I'm slightly unclear over what you're being told I would make
>> sure that whoever is providing that information to you has read 9.2.1.3.1
>> of the '16 edition of -13:
>>
>> 9.2.1.3.1 Sprinkler piping shall be substantially supported from the
>> building structure, *which must support the added load of the
>> water-filled pipe plus a minimum of 250 lb (115 kg) applied at the point of
>> hanging*, except where permitted by 9.2.1.1.2, 9.2.1.3.3, and 9.2.1.4.1
>>
>> 9.2.1.1.2 deals with toggle hangers supporting pipe 1½" and smaller,
>> 9.2.1.3.3 covers flexible hose fittings, and 9.2.1.4.1 covers branch
>> hangers into a metal deck.
>>
>> It's pretty clear that the structure has to be able to support at least
>> the load noted in 9.2.1.3.1.
>>
>> As I am a principal member of the hanging and bracing committee, please
>> see the disclaimer below.
>>
>> sincerely,
>>
>> *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting*
>>
>>
>>
>> * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone
>> 760-745-6181 Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *
>>
>> *IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation
>> issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal
>> opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the official
>> position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this
>> correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, to
>> provide professional consultation or services*
>>
>> *It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA
>> Automatic Sprinkler System Hanging and Bracing Committee 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 or its
>> Committees*
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/2020 8:25 AM, Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum wrote:
>>
>> I have a building where they are telling me the structural point loading
>> on the framing less than 250lbs. (140lbs)
>>
>>
>>
>> Advice?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jerry Van Kolken
>>
>> *Millennium Fire Protection Corp.*
>>
>> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
>>
>> Oceanside, CA 92058
>>
>> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing 
>> listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://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: NFPA 13, 2013 ed - hangers and pressures above 100psi

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

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 the intent is met when using flex drops but since there is no stated
exception it is now enforcing the letter because that's the mandate, or
even merely a CYA.


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 Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:40 AM John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> 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, Engineering and Technical Services*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> m: p: 301-343-1457
> 214-349-5965 ext 121
> w: firesprinkler.org
> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>
><https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>
>
> *Help AFSA “Sound the Alarm” about sprinklers!*
>
> AFSA’s charitable partner the American Red Cross is educating millions
> through its Home Fire Preparedness Campaign. Help us support the inclusion
> of fire sprinklers in their messaging.  Donate today!
> <https://www.redcross.org/donate/cm/afsa-pub.html/>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:28 AM Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 N2830 Paul Rd.
>> Pewaukee, WI  53072
>>
>> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
>>
>> Ph:  262-522-7110
>>
>> Cell: 414-406-5208
>>
>> http://www.total-mechanical.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

Dust Collection

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Does anyone know the NFPA references for dust ducting and collection for
compressed paper laminate production? I am home (of course) and my books
are 75 miles away. Thanks.


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-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I'm going to do a stupid thing and pretend to be logical. Does the plan or
spec anywhere call for rated cable in these spaces? Would rated cable
reduce the amount of combustibles enough to obviate the need for the
sprinklers? If either of these hold true then I would think the fight is
with the electrical or alarm or data or some sparky contractor. If adding
sprinklers is just the band-aid for a problem that shouldn't have been
allowed to exist in the first place...


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 Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:39 AM Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> It’s one of the unintended consequences of government - at any level.
> Unfortunately, the only way to possibly effect improvement is to present
> grievances to superiors, then to the city council if necessary.  Good luck
> and keep us updated.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:46 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; 'John Drucker' <
> john.druc...@verizon.net>
> *Cc:* Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ;
> Mitchell, Scott 
> *Subject:* RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>
>
>
> *Here is the latest on this:*
>
>
>
> *Inspector is going to require a data cabling drawing showing all of the
> cables dispersed through the school.  He then wants an FPE to sign off that
> the amount of cabling is not an issue to trigger the requirement to
> sprinkler the concealed space.*
>
>
>
> *A bit more was learned.  It is not plenum rated cable and the inspector
> wanted plenum rated cable, as I understand it.  So, by forcing sprinklers,
> it makes the issue of plenum rated cable go away.  I may not have that
> fully understood as it was a 4th party conversation relay.  But, it seems,
> as usual, there is a lot more to the story.  The inspector is still really
> pushing that the concealed space needs sprinklers.*
>
>
>
> *However, if this all goes away as not being required, this is where I
> feel that the AHJ should be held for monetary damages they cause.  For all
> that have been involved and the man hours dedicated to it, they have cost
> several thousands of $$ with zero repercussions.   This is one of my major
> pet peeves.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:26 AM
> *To:* John Drucker 
> *Cc:* Travis Mack ;
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Mitchell, Scott <
> scott.mitch...@cns.doe.gov>
> *Subject:* Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>
>
>
> The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the sprinkler
> contractor is being threatened with liquidated damages if the inspector
> won’t allow cover today in a particular area.
>
>
>
> This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The inspector
> states he will accept only 3 options:
>
>
>
> 1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles in the
> area.
>
>
>
> 2 - He will allow ABS and data cabling if a FPE will provide the maximum
> quantities of combustibles in the space since NFPA is vague. He wants a way
> to quantify the quantities. The contractor is arguing it is impossible for
> the sprinkler to police the quantities of other trades and to quantify
> them.
>
>
>
> 3 - provide full upright protection across the 280k sq ft space above the
> ceiling, including redesign and calculations.  Beams are about 10’ on
> center and 28” deep plus fireproofing. So, the best they can get is 150 sq
> ft per sprinkler. It will likely average out at 100 or so. The GC is trying
> to state the sprinkler contractor would have to absorb the added costs.
>
>
>
> All of this for some ABS vent piping and typical data cabling you see in a
> school.
>
>
>
> I have a feeling this one is going to get pretty ugly.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> Engineering Manager
>
> MFP Design
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> travis.m...@ferguson.com
>
> 480-505-9271 x700
>
> NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On

Re: Air Venting

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

When say sprigs do you mean the sprinklers are on sprigs as defined in 13
or do you mean the branch lines are are of risers that some folks sometimes
call sprigs? And as a fun FYI for everyone, autocorrupt changed sprigs to
spirirs in one place, springs in another, and sprints in another.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:03 AM Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> In this case, the branch lines are all located beneath the trusses.  The
> trusses are shallow open web wood two feet on-center.  The elevation is
> 11’8” everywhere, so the sprigs are actually the highest points.  That
> said, it sounds like the air vent just needs to be at the furthest point
> that it can be.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> Fire by Knight, LLC
>
> 208-318-3057
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2020 10:52 AM
> *To:* b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Steve Leyton
> *Subject:* RE: Air Venting
>
>
>
> I’d put it on a branch along the highest part of the building to which
> piping is attached, assuming that the piping more or less follows the roof
> contour.
>
>
>
> SL
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Knight
> via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2020 9:21 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Bob Knight
> *Subject:* RE: Air Venting
>
>
>
> Thanks Steve.  I get the high point part.   This system is all one
> elevation, but sprigs are being used.  Do I put the air vent on one of the
> sprigs, and is the most remote branch line the appropriate location?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> Fire by Knight, LLC
>
> 208-318-3057
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2020 10:17 AM
> *To:* b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Steve Leyton
> *Subject:* RE: Air Venting
>
>
>
> Usually - and I mean to say, almost always – that’s going to be the high
> point of the system.  Trapped are generally migrates to the high point
> eventually.  There are exceptions and some piping configuration can trap
> air in pockets that aren’t at the highest point of the system, but that’s
> usually where it is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Knight
> via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2020 9:11 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Bob Knight
> *Subject:* Air Venting
>
>
>
> Not being an air venting expert, when NFPA 13 (2016 ed.) says “The air
> venting valve should be located where it will be
>
> most effective. System piping layout will guide the designer in choosing
> an effective location for venting. In order to
>
> effectively accomplish venting, it is necessary to choose a location where
> the greatest volume of trapped air is vented
>
> during the first fill and each subsequent drain and fill event (A.8.16.6).”
>
>
>
> No other guidance is provided, so would this be at the most remote branch
> line, or at the end of a dead end main, or somewhere else?
>
> Is there a “best practice” that is being used?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> Fire by Knight, LLC
>
> 208-318-3057
>
> [image: FBK-LOGO-EMAIL]
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

3000 sqft rule

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Does anyone know what edition of 13 the 3000 sqft rule was introduced?


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-)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Combustible dust collector

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Is the "dust collector and associated ductwork" combustible or is it all
made of metal and the dust combustible? Sorry, I couldn't help myself. You want
to look at *NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of
Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Particulate Solids.*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bp9hGxPRlc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXHkmUWTwkA

Fagus/Grecon also manufactures a system for pneumatic conveyance systems.

https://www.fagus-grecon.com/en/solutions/fire-protection/areas-of-application/pneumatic-conveying-systems/

And you definitely want to follow every bit of Skyler's advice on this
matter.


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 Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 7:46 AM Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I am trying to figure out the proper design criteria for a combustible
> dust collector and associated duct work.
>
>
>
> NFPA 654-2020ed section 9.3.5.2
>
> NFPA 652-2019ed section 9.8.5.3
>
> Both refer you back to NFPA 13
>
>
>
> There is no section on NFPA 13-2013 for dust collectors.  The closest I
> can find is section 22.4 – spray applications using flammable or
> combustible materials.
>
> Anyone else have experience with this?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Dewayne Martinez
>
> Fire Protection Design Manager
>
>
>
> *TOTAL* *Mechanical*
>
> *Building* *Integrity*
>
>
> W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
> Pewaukee, WI  53072
>
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
>
> Ph:  262-522-7110
>
> Cell: 414-406-5208
>
> http://www.total-mechanical.com/
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image003.png@01D4F47B.AA7F2100]
>
>
> ___
> 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: TYCO RM-1

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

That sounds like the real number to me.

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 11:06 AM Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via
Sprinklerforum  wrote:

> *That is what I have always used.  Just friction loss through length plus
> the 3 psi.*
>
>
>
> [image: MFP_logo_F] 
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> 
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 
>
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> 
>
>
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of
> low price is forgotten.**”*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2020 11:54 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Richard Mote 
> *Subject:* TYCO RM-1
>
>
>
> Anybody else working today? Trying to fine the friction loss through a 2"
> TYCO RM-1 Riser Manifold. Don't see it on the data sheet, but that could be
> because I'm on my 10th hour. I was thinking of just using the length of
> pipe 13" plus 3 psi for the flow switch and calling it a day but would like
> the real number if anyone knows what it is.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Richard L. Mote, CET*
>
> *Rimrock Design Services, LLC*
>
> P.O. Box 36
>
> Middleburg, PA 17842
>
> Ph. 928.821.8725 & 570.541.2685
>
> Email: rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com
>
> Web: https://rimrockdesignservices.com
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Hazard Group?

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I'm presuming the gas in appropriate containers in an appropriate cabinet,
although at the school where I worked the maintenance guys would leave the
gas cans outside or on top of the cabinets.


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 Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:01 AM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> That’s about right in terms of the mix, but with measurably lower
> quantities.
>
>
>
> SL
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Maneen [mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 17, 2019 8:57 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Steve Leyton
> *Subject:* RE: Hazard Group?
>
>
>
> It’s been forever since I bid one but would you start a Lowes Garden
> Center and work your way down?
>
>
>
> *Nick Maneen, SET *
>
> *c* 704.791.7789
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:51 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Steve Leyton
> *Subject:* Hazard Group?
>
>
>
> We’re working on a maintenance warehouse for a community college, set on a
> very large campus with lots of landscape.  They are combining landscape and
> maintenance departments, so supplies range from grounds-keeping to whatever
> they need in the built environment, from fertilizers and athletic field
> marking paints to asphaltic coatings to sanitizers and clarifiers for
> landscape (higher volumes of pool chems for aquatics center not to be
> stored here), adhesives, solvents, lubricants, and low grade stuff like
> construction materials and hardware.  There will also be 5 gallon latex
> paint buckets (“a few”), and 7-10 containers of gasoline and pre-mixed
> fuels not exceeding 35 gallons total.   Only fertilizers and seed are in
> larger quantities, bagged on pallets with a pallet here and a pallet there,
> otherwise products are in consumer-sized packaging.Commodities will
> only be present in exempt amounts and while a few are highly reactive,
> except for fuels and solvents none are flammable liquids.
>
>
>
> Individually, there’s not any one compelling hazard that defines the
> storage but taken together we have some kinda’ fire load and would value
> opinions on what kinda’ fire load that is.   I’m leaning toward EH2 because
> …  well, because I’m lazy.   Water pressure’s okay, building isn’t that
> very big (less than 8,000 sq. ft.) and max roof height is 17’.   We’re
> assuming rack storage (since they aren’t going to have a fixture plan
> before we have to submit) and a max height of 15’.If anyone’s got the
> time to throw a dart at this equation, I’d appreciate the input.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Detached Garage

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

There is a jurisdiction in Washington that has a similar requirement for
private garages as Owen described when attached (maybe detached too but
I've not needed to ask). The AHJs argument is that although Washington
State does not require SFD garages sprinklered he wants them sprinklered in
his jurisdiction. He falls back on the building code and argues that an SFD
is a parking structure and so an S2 occupancy requiring OH1 coverage.
Another jurisdiction requires detached garages to be sprinklered to a 13D
design (arguing that such doesn't exist falls on deaf ears) depending on
the number of cars that can fit in it. Other jurisdictions have varying
rules regarding densities, sprinkler location, and whether the garage needs
to be fully covered or partially covered. Often these requirements are
codified and applied uniformly and sometimes they aren't.


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 Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:20 AM Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Tagging on to the point Travis raised regarding the potential cost of a
> meter upsize.
>
> There is a water purveyor in San Diego County which has established a
> *minimum* meter size of 2" for a sprinkler system designed to NFPA 13,
> with the potential for even larger devices should the demand exceed the
> listed capacity of the 2" model.
>
> The following are their published cost of the meter to their customers:
>
>- 1" $2,200
>- 1¼" $4,500
>- 1½" $8,000
>- 2" $22,000
>
> So taking into consideration the increased minimum meter upsize cost the
> system has just been made $20K more expensive.
>
> That's worth some discussion with the AHJ in my thinking.
>
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting*
>
>
>
> * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone
> 760-745-6181 Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *
> On 12/06/2019 3:25 AM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum wrote:
>
> Owen:
>
> Weren’t you the one complaining that a couple hundred dollar flow test was
> causing significant problems.
>
> Now you want to make a detached garage in a 13D system to have NFPA 13
> densities. Wouldn’t that require a full flow test there?
>
> That meter upsize is likely far more expensive than the flow test.
>
> 13D is about making the systems cost effective to get them into homes with
> less resistance.
>
> Pure 13D says no sprinklers in the garage when it is attached. By making
> it detached, there would be a more solid argument for not putting
> sprinklers in it.
>
> To the original question: If you have to protect the detached garage, I
> would follow the requirements of 13D as modified by the local fire code
> when applicable.
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> 480-505-9271 x700
> MFP Design, LLC
> www.mfpdesign,com
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 5, 2019, at 11:29 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> 
>  wrote:
>
> 
> Owen:
>
>1.  Because it could trigger a meter up-size that might cost
>$$thousands.
>2.  Because there's no statistical substantiation for over-protecting
>a freestanding garage with dead attic space above,   If it was a dwelling
>unit above it would be a .05, so why would a "basic" garage require more?
> According to NFPA, fewer than 3% of home fires started in the garage,
>nearly all of those from hot work.
>3. Because it's not required by the code and referenced standards.
>4. The reason it's not required is that the intent of home fire
>sprinkler protection is life-safety and not property protection.
>
> Now, if you're willing to subsidize the cost impact of a higher density,
> I'm sure both the contractor and owner of the subject property would love
> to hear from you.   But why stop there - if you look at it as a detached
> parking structure, the correct density is .15.
>
> Steve L.
>
> --
> *From:* Sprinklerforum 
>  on behalf of firstin---
> via Sprinklerforum 
> 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2019 9:02 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> *Cc:* firs...@aol.com  
> *Subject:* Re: Detached Garage
>
> The thinking being why not spend a few extra bucks and protect the
> structure and contents with greater density. Makes no sense to buy time for
> escape with .05.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforu

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Before you can develop a tactical plan of attack, you need a strategy. Who
is the perceived enemy? The purveyor and his "unnecessary requirement."
What is his rationale? Water safety (within his parvenue as the responsible
party)? Does this stratagem of his increase the water quality or safety?
He'd have a tough time 'splainin' that one Lucy. Does it increase life and
property safety? Nope, and not in his area of jurisdiction.anyway. And you
have the numbers to demonstrate that flow data is unimportant for SFDs. Has
the community recently been derated for insurance purposes because of a
lack of data regarding water availability? This may be a way to get someone
else to pay to gather this info. Has he recently been denied a rate
increase or the ability to apply standby fees to residential? Again, a way
to increase revenue. If these last two reasons have been approved by the
overseers of the utility district and depending on the laws of your state,
you may have already lost the battle.


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 Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 1:12 AM firstin--- via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting
> for it to get done.
>
> We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different
> positions come and go. Since 1991, up until now, the procedure was the
> water purveyor provided the static pressure at the proposed job site. This
> was the third party verification for the development of the calculations by
> the installing contractor.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > Do you have to perform the test or do they do it?
> >
> > Mark at Aero
> > 602 820-7894
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:57 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Need advice on the best way  to fight a non required requirement.
> >> Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to
> require a full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler systems
> at a cost of $600 each. The vast majority of water mains that run down
> residential streets are 6”. There are a few 4” and that’s the smallest. Who
> on Gods green earth thinks that two residential heads flowing could
> over-run the municipal water supply, therefore, a flow test is required to
> develop supply curve, really?
> >> Am I missing something or is this requirement BS and nothing but a
> money grab?
> >> Owen Evans
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> ___
> >> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwIGaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=iTziAtPF_lY685hJJ1vizDq1HKIibaCtX8p-L4yPSn0=RhKF9rf4aehsyLX_SomSwPubAxSKV3Vg9T4eFISBSDw=
> > ___
> > 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 Dry system testing- chapter 25

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Doesn't 13-13 25.2.1.6 exempt "Just you [sic] basic arm-over relocates."
from a hydrostatic test above system working pressure?


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 Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> NFPA 13 – 2013 ed
>
>
>
> We have a multi-tenant building that is entirely fed off one dry system.
> We are doing some work on in one tenant.  Just you basic arm-over
> relocates.  The AHJ wants us to hydrostatic test and air test the entire
> building.  Since we can’t isolate the area of work we would be responsible
> for hydrostatic testing at system working pressure (in the spring time now)
> but I am concerned with taking the dry system out of service for an
> occupied building for the 24hr air test.  Is there any way around this that
> I am missing?  Does code require a fire watch for this 24hr period or is it
> up to the AHJ?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dewayne Martinez
>
> Fire Protection Design Manager
>
>
>
> *TOTAL* *Mechanical*
>
> *Building* *Integrity*
>
>
> W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
> Pewaukee, WI  53072
>
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
>
> Ph:  262-522-7110
>
> Cell: 414-406-5208
>
> http://www.total-mechanical.com/
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image003.png@01D4F47B.AA7F2100]
>
>
> ___
> 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: Hotel washroom & closets

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I’m trying to figure out how length of stay would effect the fire hazard.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 6:02 PM Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> We had an Extended Stay America that had commonly had units rented long
> term. It was a hotel for our purposes.
>
> People may have been gone on weekends, but some stuff was in the room.
>
> Best.
>
> Bruce Verhei
>
> On Oct 15, 2019, at 17:15, Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> I don’t recall anything in 13 about duration of stay in a hotel.
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2019 at 5:18 PM,  > wrote:
>
> NFPA 13 does not require sprinklers in washrooms & closets (depending on
> size) of hotels and motels. If a hotel has long term rooms do they still
> qualify for the exception? The hotel I'm looking at has both long term and
> short term rooms on the same floors.
> Thanks, Tony
>
>
> ___ 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
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Upright Sprinkler

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

>From the 2016 Handbook

8.11.5.2.2 Branch Lines. Upright sprinklers shall be positioned with
respect to branch lines
in accordance with one of the following:
(1) Upright sprinklers shall be permitted to be attached directly to branch
lines less than or
equal to 4 in. (100 mm) nominal in diameter.
(2) Upright sprinklers shall be permitted to be offset horizontally a
minimum of 12  in.
(300 mm) from the pipe.
(3) Upright sprinklers shall be permitted to be supplied by a riser nipple
(sprig) to elevate the
sprinkler deflector a minimum of 12 in. (300 mm) from the centerline of any
pipe over
4 in. (100 mm) nominal in diameter.
Research conducted by FM Global has demonstrated that sprinklers will
operate properly as long as the
sprinkler is located within the required vertical distance between it and
the ceiling above. In addition,
testing has demonstrated that there is not a sizable reduction in actual
delivered density when upright
sprinklers are installed in the presence of a 4 in. (100 mm) wide object
located directly below them. Sprigs
or riser nipples are not necessary for upright sprinklers as long as the
diameter of the pipe does not exceed
4 in. (100 mm).
When an upright sprinkler is installed directly on the branch line, the
branch line becomes an obstruction.
As the branch line pipe size is increased, the “pipe shadow,” or area below
the sprinkler that is affected,
increases. Because CMSA sprinklers attack the fire, this obstruction can
have a significant impact if the fire is
located directly below the sprinkler and is a concern when the branch line
piping is larger than 2 in. (50 mm).
Many systems require larger piping to meet the hydraulic design
requirements of the CMSA sprinkler.
Raising the sprinkler on a riser nipple reduces the angle of obstruction by
limiting the area affected by the
obstruction to no more than would be created by a smaller branch line.
Another approach to the problem is taken in 8.11.5.2.2(2). If the sprinkler
is offset at least 12 in. (300 mm),
the discharge from the sprinkler can flow under the branch line. This
position eliminates the obstruction or
limits the impact of the obstruction caused by the branch line so that it
does not pose a significant problem.


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 Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:17 AM Bruce Hermanson via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Did NFPA remove the requirement where upright sprinklers attached to pipe
> 3” or larger needs to be on a sprig?
>
> I remember seeing it in past editions but cannot find it in 2016.
>
>
>
> Bruce Hermanson
>
> President
>
>
>
> TSFP
>
> 47810 Galleon Drive
>
> Plymouth, MI 48170
>
> (734) 454-1350
>
>
> ___
> 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: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Mike, that would be a non-functional fire protection device that has the
appearance of functioning as described in 901.4.5 and would be required to
be removed as proscribed therein. This DPV though it would no longer
operate as a DPV would still function as a fire protection device, allowing
water to flow through it to open sprinkler heads. In fact it would perform
better than originally designed as the dry pipe trip and delivery time lag
would be eliminated and the design area would be at 30% larger than a wet
system would need and based on a lower C-Factor. Plus failure due to
problems only encountered in dry systems would be eliminated.


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 Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:00 PM Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> While it seems trivial to us who deal with it for a living, imagine the
> building caught fire and there were fire/smoke/water damages. I bet an
> insurance company lawyer could convince others that if the existing dry
> pipe valve was modified, there is no way of telling what else “didn’t meet
> code” with the system. Why take a chance. What about removing power to a
> fire pump but leaving it in place and connected to the water supply. Where
> would you draw the line.
>
>
>
> Mike Hill
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Ron
> Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:54 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Ron Greenman 
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Mark, I think that you're referencing 901.4.5 (in the 2012 edition of the
> IFC) but that is addressing systems that appear to be life safety or fire
> protection systems but don't function as such. A common example is a camera
> disguised as a sprinkler head. In John's case it would still function as a
> fire protection device.
>
>
>
> Don, As to listing, it would definitely no longer meet its listing, but
> since it was turned into just a fancy piece of pipe would it matter?
>
>
>
> John, As to the FM, would ne be satisfied if were strip down of obvious
> DPV like the air line and the water motor line, have the holes plugged, and
> have it marked as no longer being any kind of valve?
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re
> not allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as
> what it appears to be.
>
>
>
> Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are
> trying to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is
> a “prohibited” procedure.
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
>
> Silco Fire and Security
>
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
>
> F-614-449-2007
>
> C-614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mark.Phelps
> via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Mark.Phelps 
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve
> with a spool?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Paulsen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
> *To:* Sprinklerforum 
> *Subject:* Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Good Day Everyone!
>
>
>
> A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of
> a dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe.
> We have had local AHJ’s demand tha

Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Mark, I think that you're referencing 901.4.5 (in the 2012 edition of the
IFC) but that is addressing systems that appear to be life safety or fire
protection systems but don't function as such. A common example is a camera
disguised as a sprinkler head. In John's case it would still function as a
fire protection device.

Don, As to listing, it would definitely no longer meet its listing, but
since it was turned into just a fancy piece of pipe would it matter?

John, As to the FM, would ne be satisfied if were strip down of obvious DPV
like the air line and the water motor line, have the holes plugged, and
have it marked as no longer being any kind of valve?


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 Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re
> not allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as
> what it appears to be.
>
> Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are
> trying to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is
> a “prohibited” procedure.
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
>
> Silco Fire and Security
>
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
>
> F-614-449-2007
>
> C-614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mark.Phelps
> via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Mark.Phelps 
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve
> with a spool?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Paulsen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
> *To:* Sprinklerforum 
> *Subject:* Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
>
>
> Good Day Everyone!
>
>
>
> A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of
> a dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe.
> We have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid
> confusion for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the
> forum knew of a specific code reference that would prohibit removing the
> clapper and leaving the DPV in place?
>
>
>
> Thanks in Advance,
>
>
>
> John Paulsen – SET
>
> Sprinkler System Design & Sales
>
> Silco Fire and Security
>
> 2345 Southwest Blvd.
>
> Grove City, OH 43123
>
> P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
>
> F-614-449-2007
>
> C-614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw=
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org=DwICAg=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=Qi814SskoS25kTQqZ9f7KTPoINGV9-DI2T9Mn7AeIHU=1jfyWhJmiYjADoWN3yFQwnXw-W3Uj_mVkEEZrYWqXcE=
>
> ___
> 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: COMBUSTIBLE CEILING SPACE

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I like this discussion. What about the dreaded perimeter opening 9n an
otherwise non-combustible ceiling? Does a spacing ruling from the opening
apply?


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 Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:21 PM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Ummm,
> Almost 2 different animals.
> Clouds are obstructions,  not rated ceiling assemblies.
>
> When in doubt,  follow the heat.
>
> Meat
>
> On the road..
>
> --
> *From:* Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 20, 2019 6:10:04 PM
> *To:* 'Phillips, Mark' ;
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>; vi...@wtfp.net 
> *Cc:* Matthew J Willis 
> *Subject:* RE: COMBUSTIBLE CEILING SPACE
>
>
> *I think with cloud ceilings, you will need to go from the floor.  With
> full ceilings, you can use the ceiling as the floor level.  That may be a
> good one for an AFSA interp.*
>
>
>
> [image: MFP_logo_F] <http://www.mfpdesign.com/>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0>
>
>
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of
> low price is forgotten.**”*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Phillips, Mark 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 20, 2019 5:00 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; vi...@wtfp.net
> *Cc:* Matthew J Willis ; Travis Mack, SET, CFPS,
> CWBSP, RME-G 
> *Subject:* Re: COMBUSTIBLE CEILING SPACE
>
>
>
> Is there any code reference because I lost the argument several times.
>
>
>
>
>
> Let's say you have an area with a cloud ceiling with interstitial. Deck is
> 15' between floors with beam construction and the ceiling cloud is 8' with
> a gap requiring interstitial.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my cell phone. Please excuse spelling etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Mark**​*
>
>
>
> *Phillips*
>
> Vice President of Fire Protection
>
> ,
>
> Kirlin Carolinas, LLC
>
> t: *919-526-1584* <919-526-1584>
>
>  |
>
> m: *919-610-0490* <919-610-0490>
>
> *mphill...@jjkllc.com* 
>
>  |
>
> *https://kirlingroup.com* <https://kirlingroup.com/>
>
> 8000 Brownleigh Dr
>
> ,
>
> Raleigh
>
> ,
>
> NC
>
>
>
> 27617
>
> <https://twitter.com/KirlinGroup>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/kirlinllc>
>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/133201/>
>
>  Original message 
>
> From: Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>
> Date: 9/20/19 7:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org, vi...@wtfp.net
>
> Cc: Matthew J Willis , "Travis Mack, SET, CFPS,
> CWBSP, RME-G" 
>
> Subject: Re: COMBUSTIBLE CEILING SPACE
>
>
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
> Concur.
>
> Works in an attic as well.
>
> Matt
>
> On the road..
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum 
> on behalf of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 20, 2019 5:47:17 PM
> *To:* vi...@wtfp.net ;
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Cc:* Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
> *Subject:* RE: COMBUSTIBLE CEILING SPACE
>
>
>
> *It is my understanding you can use the ceiling with the pe

Re: N1.85 graph paper

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Hey Travis. Everything good out there for you?


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, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:32 PM Travis Allen- Allen Engineering via
Sprinklerforum  wrote:

> Scott,
>
> You might try this one:
> https://www.meyerfire.com/blog/fire-suppression-n185-supply-graph-now-in-si.
> It’s an online form unless you pay the subscription fee.
>
>
>
> *Travis E. Allen, PE*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Allen Engineering, PLLC*
>
> (425) 954-2050
>
> *www.AllenFPE.com <http://www.allenfpe.com/> *
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Futrell 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2019 11:14 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Scott Futrell 
> *Subject:* N1.85 graph paper
>
>
>
> Does anyone have an electronic metric/imperial N1.85 graph that they would
> be willing to share with me offline?
>
>
>
> I need it for hydraulics seminars and all I have are jpegs with one or the
> other.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Scott Futrell
>
>
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
>
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
> ___
> 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: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't need access to low points. You do,
and you need to put the sign on them or next to them, but you also need to
note where they are on the general info sign. Too many low points drain get
lost in the insulation. I think it was Bob that said inspections per 25
only had to be made from the floor (or that's what he meant ), but Scott
makes some good points about the difficulty that might be encountered for
other activities.


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 Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:41 PM David Williams via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Nope I think 6/12 top surface 4/12 lower..
>
>
>
> *David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer*
>
>
>
> *LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Travis Mack 
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:40 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* b...@firebyknight.com; David Williams 
> *Subject:* Re: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>
>
>
> What is your attic slope? Is <2:12 then you need specially listed
> sprinklers for the areas <36” deep.
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> www.mfpdesign,com
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:02 PM, David Williams via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks.. I didn’t see it  either but I wanted to see if there were other
> opinions/options.
>
>
>
> *David T Williams – Lead MEP/FP Engineer*
>
>
>
> *LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:59 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Bob Knight 
> *Subject:* RE: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>
>
>
> NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces,
> so that should not be an issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> Fire by Knight, LLC
>
> 208-318-3057
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *David
> Williams via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* David Williams
> *Subject:* Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>
>
>
> I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic
> that tapers from 2’ to 4 ‘ without being filled to within 2 inches of the
> deck with insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard
> heads as the design of the attic does not allow the effective use of
> special application attic sprinklers.
>
>
>
> The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided,
> is it prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on
> the gypsum mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.
>
>
>
> TIA
>
>
>
> *David T Williams, PE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer*
>
> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
>
> Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
>
> *LHBcorp.com* <http://www.LHBcorp.com>
>
>
>
> *LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.*
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Do note that NFPA 13 requires that the locations of low point drains be
identified on the "General Information Sign" as well as the drain itself.



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 Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:58 AM Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> NFPA 25 does not require the inspection of sprinklers in concealed spaces,
> so that should not be an issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
>
> Fire by Knight, LLC
>
> 208-318-3057
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *David
> Williams via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:43 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* David Williams
> *Subject:* Attic/Concealed space access to sprinkler heads
>
>
>
> I have a project intended to be fully sprinkled with a combustible attic
> that tapers from 2’ to 4 ‘ without being filled to within 2 inches of the
> deck with insulation. So I am planning on a dry pipe system with standard
> heads as the design of the attic does not allow the effective use of
> special application attic sprinklers.
>
>
>
> The questions are: whether inspection access is required to be provided,
> is it prudent to do so at the heads, or can the locations just be noted on
> the gypsum mounted to the bottom chord of the open web trusses.
>
>
>
> TIA
>
>
>
> *David T Williams, PE – Lead MEP/FP Engineer*
>
> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500, Duluth, MN 55802
>
> Direct 218.279.2436 | Cell 218.310.2446
>
> *LHBcorp.com* <http://www.LHBcorp.com>
>
>
>
> *LHB, Inc. | PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.*
>
>
> ___
> 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: Captive Aire Systems

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

Travis,

Like Bruce, I may be a few years out of date also but I've never seen one
of these connected to a sprinkler system. They are for a special hazard and
so independent of the life safety and building protection definition for a
sprinkler system. These are designed to smother the fire with the
saponifying agent and then use the water to cool down the appliances to
avoid reflash. Way back in the nineties, this system was a way that Ansul
came up with to meet the new requirements of UL 300. requirements that
commercial cooking operations had to comply with even in unsprinklered
buildings (think stand-alone McDonald's, Red Robins, etc, under 5000 or
6000 sqft that weren't required to be sprinklered then). Note that NFPA 13
isn't even referenced as an applicable code/standard.

CODES AND STANDARDS
The PIRANHA hybrid wet agent system and its components meet the following
codes, standards and recommended practices:

1. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 300 – Fire Testing of
Fire Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas.

2. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL): Standard 2092 – Pre-Engineered Wet
Chemical Extinguishing Units.

3. Underwriters Laboratory of Canada (ULC): Standard ORD-C1254.6 –
Pre-Engineered Wet Chemical Extinguishing System Units.

4. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 17A – Wet Chemical
Extinguishing Systems.

5. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): Standard 96 – Ventilation
Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.

6. American Society of Sanitary Engineers (ASSE): Standard 1001 – Cross
Connection Protection Devices: Guidelines for Selection of the Proper Type
of Backflow Preventor – Piped Applied Atmospheric Vacuum Breakers.

7. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO):
Installation, Material and Property Standard PS 108-98 – Grease Fire
Suppression Systems.


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 Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:21 AM Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> The purpose of a “hood” in this application is to direct and capture
> grease laden stuff…
>
>
>
> Re: NFPA 96.
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis, **CWBSP*
>
> *Design Manager /**3-D** Specialist*
>
> *Rapid Fire Protection Inc. <http://rapidfireinc.com/>*
>
> *1530 Samco Road*
>
> *Rapid City, SD 57702*
>
> *Office-605.348.2342*
>
> *Direct Line-605.593.5063*
>
> *Cell-605.391.2733*
>
> *Fax:-605.348.0108*
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D159E8.1A3A2D00]
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Jonathan Mote via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:15 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Jonathan Mote 
> *Subject:* RE: Captive Aire Systems
>
>
>
> Those hoods meet the definition of a draft curtain, added in 2013 edition,
> I would think they could be considered independently of the regular system.
>
>
>
> *Jonathan Mote,* WBSL NICET II
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Bruce
> Verhei' 
> *Subject:* RE: Captive Aire Systems
>
>
>
> *Get this.  They are concerned of the domestic system robbing the hood of
> the water.  So this is why they are pushing it to the sprinkler system.
> We’ve seen these attached to both domestic and fire.  I always push for
> domestic because I don’t want to deal with them.  I find it funny that the
> hood supplier will say it has to connect to the sprinkler system but they
> won’t do anything to prove it will work.  They throw that all back to the
> sprinkler guys.  Just been one of those days.*
>
>
>
> [image: MFP_logo_F] <http://www.mfpdesign.com/>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http

Re: CBC / CFC vs NFPA 13

[Ron Greenman]

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...   wrote:

> 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 contract specifications are next in precedence (unless these conflict
> with laws or 'common sense regarding safety'.  Note: if the specifications
> come from a government contract, you will have a hard time contradicting
> these specifications).
> 2.  The LOCAL building code.  Some building codes are made in lands far
> away from where the construction is happening, and don't have a sensitivity
> to local environmental or cultural conditions.  I have found most local
> Building Codes have amendments that embody local tolerance to risks and
> environmental conditions.  Besides, the local building code is the document
> enacted by the local government: making it statutory law.
> 3. Standards (and "Codes-by-title [e.g.  NFPA 101 is a *Code * that is
> not a building code{1}] which in actuality are not Codes with precedence or
> par to that of the local Building Code) legally cited by either the
> specifications or the references in the local Building Code.  Legal
> reference requires full name and number of the standard as well as its
> edition-year of adoption.
>
> Regarding year of adoption, if it is after the contract sign date, it is
> not applicable as the General Contractor can not be held responsible for
> clairvoyantly divining what new prescriptions will be adopted after they
> sign a contract.  One exception to this is ' Best Available Technology'
> when there is a clear-and-present' danger posed by an existing prescription
> which is remedied by a design guide adopted after the contract sign date.
>
> Note 1:  Generally there is one Code.  This would be the local Building
> Code.   The word Code should infer "alpha status".  The word "Standard"
> usually infers a subordinate status to a "Code".  Sometimes documents names
> are changed from "Standard"  to " Code" to signify in the eye of the
> publisher, that the document has achieved a certain "status" worthy of
> being now titled a "Code".  It also helps sell such design guides, but it
> can create confusion for readers whom are not familiar with the nuanced
> vernacular.
>
> Note 2:  On January 19 there was *general agreement* that the most
> conservative guidance ruled in case of a conflict between design guides.  I
> am not convinced of that *general agreement*.  I think when conflict
> exists between specific guidance given by different guides, the hat tip
> initially goes to the guide with the most precedence--but a *transparent*
> discussion and common-sense *open* judgment from multiple stakeholders is
> warranted.  I think transparency and openness with the judgment is
> essential, so that the judgment may be evaluated by all stakeholders on its
> own merits, and so that junior stakeholders can observe the judgment
> process for refining their growing judgment skills.  Transparency also
> encourages suggestions from tangential stakeholders who can be identified
> for greater inclusion in future decisions.  Often, senior stakeholders will
> silo their judgments to prevent questioning the logic used; it also
> prevents advancement of the next generation's decision skills (i.e. Cronus
> complex).
>
> If construction design-build were simple, then the contract, the design,
> and permit compliance process could be codified into " if then statements",
> uploaded to a triple-entry cryptographic ledger with stakeholder witnesses
> to vote on resolution of RFIs and contract payments (payments of which
> are escrowed into the original crypto-contract and ready at the press of
> a button by this quorum, for release).  With a bit of work, this process
> could then be escalated to an Artificial Intelligence platform.   But,
> there are too many designers that will protect their professional stakes,
> and Mother Nature is still far too complex for AI to account for all its
> nuances.  We should start worrying about whether AI will take our
> construction stake once autonomous vehicles are no longer considered an
> anomaly among us.  But the crypto-contract, it is a thing for those that
> want to bring transparency and fairness to a business that has its sh

Re: Hazard

[Ron Greenman]

In addition to Travis’ comment if you don’t have an engineer define the
occupancy and hazard you may need a long chat with the FM, the
building/zoning folks and the owner.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:47 AM Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G <
tm...@mfpdesign.com> wrote:

>
>
> *Owner information certificate is your friend.  Have them fill out
> specifically what is used for.  You may fall into EH criteria.Don’t you
> love the kind of stuff we all seem to fall into?  Happy July 4th to all.*
>
>
>
> [image: MFP_logo_F] 
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> 
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> 
>
>
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of
> low price is forgotten.**”*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *John Irwin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 9:45 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Hazard
>
>
>
> So … every day is a new adventure.
>
>
>
> We have a client who purchased a 30,000 sqft industrial building with the
> intent to convert it in to an open, craftsperson’s type market. Vendors
> will work on crafts, and sell them from stalls. I’ve got a feeling that
> this is more than just a mercantile occupancy. Thoughts and opinions are
> welcome …
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Irwin
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Multi-Level Ducts

[Ron Greenman]

And before we go off on a "that's crazy" line of postings regarding my
previous post: I know. It's crazy thinking. But it complies with the rules.


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 Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL 
wrote:

> I’d have to agree.  Putting sprinklers between layers of general HVAC
> ducts serves no purpose.  Provide sprinklers at the roof above the ducts
> and below the lower most level and be done.  I see no hazard
> justification nor any code language that would require the extra sprinklers
> in between.
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
>
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Sean.VanGaal
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 1:52 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Multi-Level Ducts
>
>
>
> I want to switch this thread to Multi-level ducts.
>
>
>
> Why would you provide sprinklers at the intermediate levels?  There is no
> hazard to protect at these levels.  Obviously I am going under the
> assumption there is not a mid-level mezzanine/catwalk/etc.  So with no
> combustibles and no occupancy, there is just open air and nothing
> specifically to protect.
>
>
>
> You already have sprinklers at the roof level protecting everything in the
> space except the floor area obstructed by the ducts over 4ft wide.
> Sprinklers should be located under the lowest level of ducts to protect the
> hazard that the ceiling sprinklers are obstructed from.  In my opinion,
> anything beyond this is excessive even if the standard doesn’t specifically
> exclude it, because the same can be said in reverse that the standard
> doesn’t explicitly require it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sean VG
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:48 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Multi-Level Conveyors
>
>
>
> We’ve done the same for multiple layers of ductwork. I just don’t see in
> the standards where I can eliminate because they are multiple levels. I
> don’t calc all levels.
>
>
>
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> www.mfpdesign,com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign-2Ccom=DwMGaQ=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=0NxwrLm2hhmPFwIzyQzJ6VD-lluYDVF4VIpCSxRVkxA=d_lbbhczalPQMQ5RrnXDPkybXj8DsfKnXbtHKLnh49A=>
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=ingy4PBqYPOuUwDLQ4lfaaXSkWsABUV4vTdnAfCdBvU=h2a6Ll_6WFL8YiL2bzr5wrZoU1jKivF5Vyu0mMUVaSc=>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Kyle.Montgomery 
> wrote:
>
> What if it was two levels of ductwork rather than conveyors? Would you
> protect in between the upper and lower ducts, based on that logic?
>
>
>
> I’m not saying I disagree with protecting under the upper conveyors in
> this case. I’m just saying that there are always going to be gray areas in
> the code, and that automatically defaulting to the most conservative
> scenario is generally bad for the consumer.
>
>
>
> *-Kyle M*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:21 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: Multi-Level Conveyors
>
>
>
> As I read NFPA 13, it states to place sprinklers under obstructions >48”
> in width. I don’t see anywhere that is states states to place sprinklers
> only under the lowest level of obstructions.
>
>
>
> We just finished an addition to a similar facility. It is an FM property.
> We had to do under all of the conveyors (greater than 24” AFF), not just
> the lowest ones.
>
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> www.mfpdesign,com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign-2Ccom=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjb

Re: Multi-Level Ducts

[Ron Greenman]

On the flip side, according to the rules, if you have the proper distance
above the ducts you can have multiple ducts on the same horizontal plane
running the length of a compartment that have a space between them (1 inch,
less?) running parallel across the entire compartment and not have to
sprinkler under them.


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 Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:52 AM Sean.VanGaal  wrote:

> I want to switch this thread to Multi-level ducts.
>
>
>
> Why would you provide sprinklers at the intermediate levels?  There is no
> hazard to protect at these levels.  Obviously I am going under the
> assumption there is not a mid-level mezzanine/catwalk/etc.  So with no
> combustibles and no occupancy, there is just open air and nothing
> specifically to protect.
>
>
>
> You already have sprinklers at the roof level protecting everything in the
> space except the floor area obstructed by the ducts over 4ft wide.
> Sprinklers should be located under the lowest level of ducts to protect the
> hazard that the ceiling sprinklers are obstructed from.  In my opinion,
> anything beyond this is excessive even if the standard doesn’t specifically
> exclude it, because the same can be said in reverse that the standard
> doesn’t explicitly require it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sean VG
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis Mack
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:48 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Multi-Level Conveyors
>
>
>
> We’ve done the same for multiple layers of ductwork. I just don’t see in
> the standards where I can eliminate because they are multiple levels. I
> don’t calc all levels.
>
>
>
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> www.mfpdesign,com
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=ingy4PBqYPOuUwDLQ4lfaaXSkWsABUV4vTdnAfCdBvU=h2a6Ll_6WFL8YiL2bzr5wrZoU1jKivF5Vyu0mMUVaSc=>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Kyle.Montgomery 
> wrote:
>
> What if it was two levels of ductwork rather than conveyors? Would you
> protect in between the upper and lower ducts, based on that logic?
>
>
>
> I’m not saying I disagree with protecting under the upper conveyors in
> this case. I’m just saying that there are always going to be gray areas in
> the code, and that automatically defaulting to the most conservative
> scenario is generally bad for the consumer.
>
>
>
> *-Kyle M*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:21 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: Multi-Level Conveyors
>
>
>
> As I read NFPA 13, it states to place sprinklers under obstructions >48”
> in width. I don’t see anywhere that is states states to place sprinklers
> only under the lowest level of obstructions.
>
>
>
> We just finished an addition to a similar facility. It is an FM property.
> We had to do under all of the conveyors (greater than 24” AFF), not just
> the lowest ones.
>
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> www.mfpdesign,com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign-2Ccom=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=XSIweKhAHHhyB-d63TCLaTQ55VHpbhIhFOxEPFjbNpg=ingy4PBqYPOuUwDLQ4lfaaXSkWsABUV4vTdnAfCdBvU=hbawIux7nF3YFtPXdh7S0lfpkJYIZqa82FcCkQChGFQ=>
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hightail.com_u_MFPDesign=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A=4oFxlHzjd2d3tMHDTTqbhV7X4Ph3N-I-mON3NVEwxxw=xXObiCohsTy-0eYfuDyWmaha2rXEf_XXC0K2ReK2KHs=>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 5:00 AM, John Irwin  wrote:
>
> We’re protecting a UPS transfer facility and has multi-level conveyors in
> some areas. We have sprinklers under all of the lower level belts but we
> have a questions as to whether we need sprinklers in between the upper
> levels of conveyors. Some UPS facilities have them, some don’t. They don’t
> have an insurance re

Re: Where to fine lowest mean temp info

[Ron Greenman]

If you’re looking for lowest mean go here and replace tacoma, wa with the
city you want.

https://www.weather-us.com/en/washington-usa/tacoma-climate


On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:15 PM Ben Young  wrote:

> I can't figure out how to get 'here' for other regions, but this data is
> kind of what I'm looking for, I believe.
>
>
>
> Benjamin Young
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:59 PM Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G <
> tm...@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>
>> *Use the tables in Chap 10.  That is what the NFSA people told me back in
>> the day when figuring temps to use for anti-freeze and DW calcs.*
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: MFP_logo_F] 
>>
>> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>>
>> MFP Design, LLC
>>
>> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>> 
>>
>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>> 
>>
>> 480-505-9271
>>
>> fax: 866-430-6107
>>
>> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>>
>> www.mfpdesign.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>> 
>>
>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of
>> low price is forgotten.**”*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
>> Behalf Of *Ben Young
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 1:22 PM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> *Subject:* Where to fine lowest mean temp info
>>
>>
>>
>> Where does everyone go to find information on lowest mean temperature for
>> use in determining if a dry system is needed, etc?
>>
>>
>>
>> I tried google searching but nothing came up that looked...
>> authoritative? It was mainly websites like weatherspark, or some non .GOV
>> type site.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was hoping to find something that would be handy to use moving forward
>> as I work on more projects around the country. NOAA looks like it has the
>> data, I just can't seem to find where they keep it in laymen's terms!
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the old isothermal line map from the annex of chapter 10 (2013 and
>> earlier) of NFPA 13 still a good starting point?
>>
>>
>>
>> And I already looked on google maps to find above ground backflows or
>> risers and didn't see any in this particular location.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Benjamin Young
>> ___
>> 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
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Attic sprinklers

[Ron Greenman]

*From the ICC:*
*ATTIC*. ... In order to fully clarify that portion of a building *defined*as
an *attic*, Section 202 identifies an *attic* as that space between the
ceiling beams at the top story and the roof rafters. An *attic*designation
is appropriate only if the area is not considered occupiable.
DEFINITIONS


On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:43 AM Roland Huggins 
wrote:

> Bullseye
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE
> *Senior Vice President, Engineering & Technical Services*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> p: 214-349-5965 ext121
> w: firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> 
>
>
> *4 days. 1,500+ attendees.*
> AFSA38: Convention, Exhibition, & Apprentice Competition is North
> America's largest fire sprinkler trade event. Join us at the Manchester
> Grand Hyatt in beautiful San Diego, California October 1-4, 2019.
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G <
> tm...@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>
> *Better ammo:  Chap 5 – Light Hazard.  Annex says unused attics are light
> hazard.  So, an attic used for storage would not be unused, nor light
> hazard.  *
>
> *Page 6 of 28 of the tyco data sheet says light hazard.  Seems like the
> AHJ missed the target on this one.*
>
>  
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> 
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> 
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of
> low price is forgotten.**”*
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Fpdcdesign
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 10:49 AM
> *To:* Sprinklerforum 
> *Subject:* Re: Attic sprinklers
>
> I agree with you, but I have an AHJ who is allowing a church to store in
> an attic protected by Viking Attic Sprinklers (The occupancy was not part
> of the original plan). Looking for some ammo and was hoping I could find
> something specific in the literature.
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019 at 1:46 PM, >
> wrote:
> *Based on talks I have had with Globe and Tyco reps on this issue, I think
> you are in a losing battle.  These are specially listed for attic fire
> loads.  These are not for any pitched roof that fits the slope
> requirements.*
>
>  
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> 
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> 
>
> *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of
> low price is forgotten.”*
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Fpdcdesign
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 10:44 AM
> *To:* Sprinklerforum 
> *Subject:* Re: Attic sprinklers
>
> I have looked in both the Viking and Tyco literature and it just says
> “attic”. No reference to anything beyond that.
>
> The dictionary definition of attic makes no reference to what is in the
> space.
>
> Todd G Williams, 

Re: [EXTERNAL] Welded outlets - Equivalent feet

[Ron Greenman]

https://www.engineersedge.com/fluid_flow/fluid_flow_table_content.htm


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, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:57 PM Steve Leyton 
wrote:

> My point exactly.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Prahl,
> Craig/GVL
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 12:54 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] Welded outlets - Equivalent feet
>
>
>
> Very possible but that would be kind of worthless info since your greatest
> friction loss is going to be making the turn.
>
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
>
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Leyton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 3:12 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] Welded outlets - Equivalent feet
>
>
>
> I’ll bet a friendly fiddy cent that the .05 ft. value is on the run.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Prahl,
> Craig/GVL
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 12:08 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] Welded outlets - Equivalent feet
>
>
>
> OK, so a quick look shows that for a 1” tee with flow turning 90 degrees,
> NFPA 13 gives that an equivalency of 5 ft.
>
>
>
> Looking at one of the mechanical tee manufactures (strap on tee) they are
> showing a 1” outlet as being equal to 0.5 ft. of pipe.  (I would have
> thought it to be much higher)
>
>
>
> I could not find any EQ L on a thread-o-let.  I figure a mech tee probably
> has similar friction coefficient to a thread-o-let since the only
> difference between the two is welded versus strapped on.
>
>
>
> Things that make you go h.
>
>
>
> Now if we only had a resident mathemagician who could give us the formulae
> needed to solve this kind of conundrum.
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
>
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:30 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] Welded outlets - Equivalent feet
>
>
>
> *Yes.  With regard to this particular question.*
>
>
>
> [image: MFP_logo_F]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com_=DwMFAg=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=KJHRFG_rnxzKtj49uCz3wwtL_jZ2FseV_8y_W1HsBQs=v6mckuUsFPUZlbR3nrBKtKH9WpvfAf9C_QnJ20BNe00=>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>
> 480-505-9271
>
> fax: 866-430-6107
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> www.mfpdesign.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mfpdesign.com=DwMFAg=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=JiNFMUwhrGpuKQUdEGxDN2OUDByRHLkEJ2g0BGUrZSg=VUUuWqcZpNqJUrqCqzVwQtuteK_BJDO7mui8WJJp-aA=>
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.hightail.com-252Fu-252FMFPDesign-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77-257C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511-257C0-257C0-257C636379016677342180-26sdata-3DeGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5-252BAZvlHhABSexWY-253D-26reserved-3D0=DwMFAg=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=KJHRFG_rnxzKtj49uCz3wwtL_jZ2FseV_8y_W1HsBQs=e7BTtHrtfCVCuOVnKCN1AJlgySlV0-8uwo2zf6xBrDQ=>
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.linkedin.com-252Fin-252Ftravismack-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77-257C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511-257C0-257C0-257C636379016677342180-26sdata-3DtT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN-252BZodi-252FhbeCbHNRijI-253D-26reserved-3D0=DwMFAg=OgZOSER8c1RLeytEexU279Q2qk0jVwkrOdYe5iSi-kk=_w721WvezJkWUVteY4FMhecHAoDqOn85ooHi6vIkMag=KJHRFG_rnxzKtj49uCz3wwtL_jZ2FseV_8

Re: Outer Obstructions @ Porte-Cocheres

[Ron Greenman]

What purpose do they serve? What extra fire protection do they provide?
What will set them off? I see someone misunderstanding obstruction rules
and their purpose and an AHJ allowing it because it is "in addition to" and
not "less than" the standard requires. But I haven't been keeping up with
changes well as i could (should?).


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 Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:24 PM J H  wrote:

> I've got a question about the arched exterior portions of a porte-cochere.
> Please reference image link below. Most of the time I see sprinkler
> coverage stopping at the upper portion of porte-cocheres when they have
> dropped areas, arches, what have you, at the exterior. This particular
> project has sprinklers dropped in the arches (circled in white in the
> image) and it seemed a bit odd to me. I do not doubt the original design
> but I'm used to seeing these areas without sprinklers. So my question is
> where do the boundries stop for a porte-cochere and do you guys usually see
> full sprinkler coverage like in he image?
>
> image link below:
> https://ibb.co/RQsXjFk
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
> <#m_5107267128548265169_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> 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: Bags to Protect Sprinklers from Overspray

[Ron Greenman]

https://www.nashvillewraps.com/cellophane/biodegradable-bags/p-54


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 Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:38 AM Ron Greenman  wrote:

> https://www.nashvillewraps.com/cellophane/biodegradable-bags/p-54
>
>
> 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 Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:59 AM John Denhardt <
> jdenha...@stricklandfire.com> wrote:
>
>> In the past, I bought small thin paper bags that you would in the “old
>> days” for “penny” candy.  I bought these from Amazon.  Inexpensive, thin
>> and lightweight.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> John August Denhardt, P.E.
>>
>> Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated
>>
>> 4011 Penn Belt Place
>>
>> Forestville, Maryland 20747-4737
>>
>> 301.474.1136 - Office
>>
>> 301.343.1457 - Mobile
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
>> Behalf Of *Spencer Tomlinson
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:33 PM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> *Subject:* RE: Bags to Protect Sprinklers from Overspray
>>
>>
>>
>> U-Line has an actual cellophane baggie that meets the thickness
>> requirements.  To back up Skyler’s point – I did burn a cello (mix) bag on
>> a sprinkler versus a pure cellophane, and they acted entirely differently
>> with the cello mix melting to the sprinkler.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Spencer Tomlinson*
>>
>> Principal, PE
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: red logo]
>>
>> Ph:  316-202-6412
>>
>> Fax: 316-202-2346
>>
>> Cell: 620-955-7293
>>
>> www.tomlinsonfire.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
>> Behalf Of *Skyler Bilbo
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2019 11:27 AM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Bags to Protect Sprinklers from Overspray
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't believe you should be using plastic sandwich bags (I would love
>> to be wrong on this).  Should use paper bags or cellophane bags.  I had a
>> heck of a time finding cellophane bags a while back.  Most of the ones you
>> can find say "cello", but if you read more, they are polyethylene, which
>> I'm pretty sure you don't want to use (they will possibly melt to the
>> sprinkler, causing it to malfuction).  After searching for a *while*, I
>> got a bunch for our shelf at www.clearcellobags.com.  Keep them out of
>> the light while storing them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Skyler Bilbo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:05 AM  wrote:
>>
>> Larry,
>>
>> Nothing Special.
>>
>> Sandwich Baggies work well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> *G. Tim Stone*
>>
>>
>>
>> *G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC*
>>
>> *NICET Level III Engineering Technician*
>>
>> *Fire Protection Sprinkler Design*
>>
>> *and Consulting Services*
>>
>>
>>
>> *   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452*
>>
>> *CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968*
>>
>>  tston...@comcast.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
>> Behalf Of *Larry Keeping
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2019 11:54 AM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> *Subject:* Bags to Protect Sprinklers from Overspray
>>
>>
>>
>> Can someone please provide a name/location for a supplier of the
>> cellophane bags or the thin paper bags, used to protect sprinklers in spray
>> booths from overspray.
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember from years gone by, small bags, just big enough to cover a
>> sprinkler, with a thin draw string, to secure the bag in place, but now, at
>> least in the Toronto area, no one seems to have a source for them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry Keeping
>>
>> ___
>> 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: Ammo Production

[Ron Greenman]

I know in the UBC there was a chapter about explosives storage. Mostly
about about quantities, distance from building and whether it was protected
by berms or not. I'd assume a similar chapter exists in the IBC but my IBC
is far from here so I can't confirm that. In my experience the Navy keeps
conventional munitions (nukes too) in underground bunkers. At Bangor, in
the building where torpedoes are armed and fueled the maximum number of
occupants (read acceptable number of casualties) is seven and the building
was originally "protected" by an ultra high-speed deluge system with
rate-of-rise pneumatic detection, so in reality ultra low-speed. Over the
years the open sprinklers were replaced with closed sprinklers and finally
it was converted to a wet system. So in realty, there is no fire protection
at all. It does have a sacrificial wall adjacent to a large, off-limits
woodlot. The ammunition factory in Tenino, WA is all by itself in a small
canyon outside of town. If I recall of the several building there only the
administration building has a sprinkler system. All of that was probably no
help at all to your problem, but protecting against explosions requires an
ultra high speed deluge system (1/200th of a second or less from detection
to water application) in a darkened area with light safe entries, and spark
detectors everywhere.


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 Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:49 PM Ed Vining  wrote:

>  Years ago there was a US Army ordnance safety manual. Ordnance as opposed
> to ordinance. It, or it’s equivalent may still exist.
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:14 AM JD Gamble 
> wrote:
>
>> Anyone have some insight / guidance on Fire Sprinkler concerns for areas
>> dedicated to ammo production.
>>
>>
>>
>> TIA
>>
>>
>>
>> JD Gamble
>>
>> 307-763-3361
>>
>> [image: LSS Logo for Adv]
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>
> --
> Ed Vining
> 4819 John Muir Rd
> Martinez CA 94553
> 925-228-8792
> fpe...@gmail.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: fire hydrant

[Ron Greenman]

Look in the IBC. There is a chapter on explosives that deals with distances
from buildings based on type, quantity, and beamed or not termed. I would
suggest determining the criteria per that chapter and placing the hydrants
at least as far away from the explosives as you would need to place the
explosives from a building.

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 Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:51 PM Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo <
prodesigngr...@msn.com> wrote:

> Tim,
>
> I want to make sure that I am understanding your question.  Are you
> concerned that the hydrant is permitted to be located that close?  Or, are
> you thinking that it must be located no more than 40 feet from the building?
>
> The 40' from the building is an old rule of thumb for wall collapse.  At
> one time things like PIV's and hydrants could be NOT closer than 40' to a
> building in case of collapse.
>
> The rule allows you to move it farther away, just not closer.  And as
> always discussed, there are often practicalities that call for an exception
> to every rule.
>
> It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the
> NFPA, 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 the
> NFPA, nor any of their technical committees.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Cecil Bilbo, president
> Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
> Champaign, IL
> 217.607.0325
> www.sprinkleracademy.com
> ce...@sprinkleracademy.com
>
> OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!
>
>
> --
> *From:* Sprinklerforum 
> on behalf of Easter, Tim (Contractor) 
> *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2019 1:33 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* fire hydrant
>
>
> NFPA 24
>
> 7.2.3
>
> Hydrants shall be located not less than 40ft from the buildings to be
> protected.
>
>
>
>
>
> This seems awfully close if you have an explosive building. What is usual
> distance for a fire hydrant from an explosive building? The fire brigade
> does not fight fires here.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Timothy M. Easter
>
> Fire Protection Engineer
> ___
> 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: Bulb type vs link type sprinklers

[Ron Greenman]

Maybe he's thinking they aren't the same because bulbs and links have
mildly different nominal operating temperatures. As Travis says, educate
him.



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 Mon, May 20, 2019 at 7:44 AM Travis Mack  wrote:

> As Matt said. You won’t find anything to back your position because link
> vs bulb is not addressed. It simply says to match response. Educate the
> inspector.
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> 480-505-9271
> MFP Design, LLC
> www.mfpdesign,com
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 20, 2019, at 7:42 AM, Matthew J Willis 
> wrote:
>
> NFPA makes no distinction as to how the response is achieved.
>
>
>
> Only that it meet the tables.
>
>
>
> However, if it is a food or healthcare type facility, there may be
> extenuating circumstances..
>
>
>
> R/
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew J. Willis, **CWBSP*
>
> *Design Manager /**3-D** Specialist*
>
> *Rapid Fire Protection Inc. <http://rapidfireinc.com/>*
>
> *1530 Samco Road*
>
> *Rapid City, SD 57702*
>
> *Office-605.348.2342*
>
> *Direct Line-605.593.5063*
>
> *Cell-605.391.2733*
>
> *Fax:-605.348.0108*
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *John Irwin
> *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2019 8:38 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Bulb type vs link type sprinklers
>
>
>
> We have completed a relocate project and the fire inspector says that we
> need to match link type sprinklers with the existing link type sprinklers.
> We installed standard response GBs to match the standard response link type
> that are currently installed. Is there any documentation to support my
> belief that this should be acceptable?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Irwin
>
>
>
> ___
> 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