resurrecting an old system
I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air test not show it? On the other side, flushing would create a problem since there is no public water supply. We would probably have to get a fire department pumper involved. Also, you could have an issue if the water finds a leak and water starts spraying down on equipment Thoughts? Flush or air test first? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: resurrecting an old system
Do an air test, fix the obvious stuff that's broken, buy a new pump and flush/test the existing pipe with water. An air test will get most big leaks it's pretty hard to find little pin hole leaks using air if it is a large volume system. My 2 cents. Ron F -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: resurrecting an old system I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air test not show it? On the other side, flushing would create a problem since there is no public water supply. We would probably have to get a fire department pumper involved. Also, you could have an issue if the water finds a leak and water starts spraying down on equipment Thoughts? Flush or air test first? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted?
Scott, you understand my concerns. Unfortunately this is a challenging client and you better have any requirement opinion backed up with documentation otherwise it's just an opinion for what that's worth. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? No code restrictions, but certainly foam systems concerns. 55 gallon drums to second floor with stairs? Bladder tanks? Lay 'em down to replace bladder that gets torn. Craig, am I missing something? If not, I've seen this before and it gets ugly real fast. I've worked on an existing hanger that they buried the big tanks in a corner, tore the bladder and have to cut the roof open to lift them out, to lay it down, to replace it. Scott Futrell (763) 425-1001 x12 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? I've got a real-estate problem. I have an Industrial process structure which requires a second fire protection valve room for a supplementary foam system consisting of 6 deluge risers and foam concentrate tank. Owner says there's no room around the building so stack it on top of the existing fire sprinkler riser room. This is a high hazard operation. While I'm digging through codes I was wondering if anyone here knew off the top of their head any specific code prohibitions to their idea? I need chapter and verse to show them if it's not permitted or recommended. Thanks, Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.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: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted?
Do they have maintenance personnel that can assist you? I really have had the same problem, but when you get the guys that have to work on it involved they can provide some welcome support. Good luck. Scott (763) 425-1001 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? Scott, you understand my concerns. Unfortunately this is a challenging client and you better have any requirement opinion backed up with documentation otherwise it's just an opinion for what that's worth. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? No code restrictions, but certainly foam systems concerns. 55 gallon drums to second floor with stairs? Bladder tanks? Lay 'em down to replace bladder that gets torn. Craig, am I missing something? If not, I've seen this before and it gets ugly real fast. I've worked on an existing hanger that they buried the big tanks in a corner, tore the bladder and have to cut the roof open to lift them out, to lay it down, to replace it. Scott Futrell (763) 425-1001 x12 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? I've got a real-estate problem. I have an Industrial process structure which requires a second fire protection valve room for a supplementary foam system consisting of 6 deluge risers and foam concentrate tank. Owner says there's no room around the building so stack it on top of the existing fire sprinkler riser room. This is a high hazard operation. While I'm digging through codes I was wondering if anyone here knew off the top of their head any specific code prohibitions to their idea? I need chapter and verse to show them if it's not permitted or recommended. Thanks, Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.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 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: resurrecting an old system
I like the replace it all option... How old is the system to start with? You need to replace all the sprinklers, if some have popped you don't know how many others may be damaged. What about gaskets in grooved couplings? Is the water supply now equal to the original pump and pond? If not, pipe size changes, right? You could minimize the liability by replacing everything... Scott (763) 425-1001 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: resurrecting an old system I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air test not show it? On the other side, flushing would create a problem since there is no public water supply. We would probably have to get a fire department pumper involved. Also, you could have an issue if the water finds a leak and water starts spraying down on equipment Thoughts? Flush or air test first? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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
Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction
I am working on a school project where there is a basement that will be used for storage (3300 sqft, 13 ft ceiling). I am basing my design on 10 ft high storage of miscellaneous stuff, which I am calling Class IV. This would be a 0.20/1500 sprinkler density, which is the same as the requirement for OH2. Since I have a marginal water supply and am at the far end of the system, minimizing the design is critical. My question is this; can I use the RA deduction for QR heads in OH2 with the curves for low piled storage? Or does the fact that this is storage negate that reduction? Must be my day for question Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted?
Just to reiterate Scott's point: Maintenance is huge and his examples are extremely valid. We were once painted into a corner on our first foam job many years ago. The foam tanks were put on a mezzanine above the risers. But we ensured there was plenty of room on the mezzanine for bladder removal, and double doors on the exterior wall of the mezzanine for better access to remove/replace bladders or tanks (via fork lift). Not ideal, but serviceable. (BTW - my favorite example of lack of maintenance foresight is a foam job (by others) which included a vertical bladder tank located below a second level - with about 2 ft. of clearance above the tank. When the bladder needs replacement, the entire tank will have to be disconnected and removed from the building. There may also be some other piping that needs removal to allow this to happen. Of course, this is a non-issue if you simply blow-off maintenance...). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? I have two possible Aces up my sleeve. IFC 2009 509.2: Equipment Access. Approved access shall be provided and maintained for all fire protection equipment to permit immediate safe operation and maintenance of such equipment. This site has a dedicated fire service who act as first response to all the client facilities who occupy this industrial park. They are the AHJ for the park. They will be contacted to get their input. There is also the State Fire Marshal's office that also has input. Second is the fact that the proposed location provides no way to bring (6) 4 lines into the building. So I've got some ammo to shoot down this concept. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? No code restrictions, but certainly foam systems concerns. 55 gallon drums to second floor with stairs? Bladder tanks? Lay 'em down to replace bladder that gets torn. Craig, am I missing something? If not, I've seen this before and it gets ugly real fast. I've worked on an existing hanger that they buried the big tanks in a corner, tore the bladder and have to cut the roof open to lift them out, to lay it down, to replace it. Scott Futrell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: resurrecting an old system
The owner wants to re-use the system and we have to prove to him that it needs to be replaced, if it does. I'm thinking after a physical inspection and air test, it would tell us if we have something that could be used or not. The building is approximately 30 ft to the peak and 25 to the hip and is wide open for storage and maintenance of large equipment (demolition company). However, working on mains around the perimeter will be difficult at best. My guess is that when the system was shut down, they just opened the 2 drain and didn't bother with low points. I think most of the low stuff will have to be replaced. But it would be helpful if at least the high piping could remain. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On Nov 20, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Scott A Futrell sco...@ffcdi.com wrote: I like the replace it all option... How old is the system to start with? You need to replace all the sprinklers, if some have popped you don't know how many others may be damaged. What about gaskets in grooved couplings? Is the water supply now equal to the original pump and pond? If not, pipe size changes, right? You could minimize the liability by replacing everything... Scott (763) 425-1001 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: resurrecting an old system I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air test not show it? On the other side, flushing would create a problem since there is no public water supply. We would probably have to get a fire department pumper involved. Also, you could have an issue if the water finds a leak and water starts spraying down on equipment Thoughts? Flush or air test first? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction
Todd, Since occupancy classifications are based on quantity and/or combustibility and expected rates of heat release, uhhh...??? -Original Message- From: Todd - Work [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction I am working on a school project where there is a basement that will be used for storage (3300 sqft, 13 ft ceiling). I am basing my design on 10 ft high storage of miscellaneous stuff, which I am calling Class IV. This would be a 0.20/1500 sprinkler density, which is the same as the requirement for OH2. Since I have a marginal water supply and am at the far end of the system, minimizing the design is critical. My question is this; can I use the RA deduction for QR heads in OH2 with the curves for low piled storage? Or does the fact that this is storage negate that reduction? Must be my day for question Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction
Todd, take a peek at 13.2.2 (2) (2013 edition). Ed Kramer Lawrence, KS -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction I am working on a school project where there is a basement that will be used for storage (3300 sqft, 13 ft ceiling). I am basing my design on 10 ft high storage of miscellaneous stuff, which I am calling Class IV. This would be a 0.20/1500 sprinkler density, which is the same as the requirement for OH2. Since I have a marginal water supply and am at the far end of the system, minimizing the design is critical. My question is this; can I use the RA deduction for QR heads in OH2 with the curves for low piled storage? Or does the fact that this is storage negate that reduction? Must be my day for question Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted?
Ok just to follow up with the outcome. Had our meeting with the client, explained access issues and Code requirement of Approved access. Our 2nd foam room will be at grade level in one of two decent locations. They may even push Process guys out of the way for this FP system. That's a huge thing in the industrial world. A win for fire protection this early in the day has me cautious about the rest of the day. ;) Thanks guys for all the shared input and insight. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? Just to reiterate Scott's point: Maintenance is huge and his examples are extremely valid. We were once painted into a corner on our first foam job many years ago. The foam tanks were put on a mezzanine above the risers. But we ensured there was plenty of room on the mezzanine for bladder removal, and double doors on the exterior wall of the mezzanine for better access to remove/replace bladders or tanks (via fork lift). Not ideal, but serviceable. (BTW - my favorite example of lack of maintenance foresight is a foam job (by others) which included a vertical bladder tank located below a second level - with about 2 ft. of clearance above the tank. When the bladder needs replacement, the entire tank will have to be disconnected and removed from the building. There may also be some other piping that needs removal to allow this to happen. Of course, this is a non-issue if you simply blow-off maintenance...). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? I have two possible Aces up my sleeve. IFC 2009 509.2: Equipment Access. Approved access shall be provided and maintained for all fire protection equipment to permit immediate safe operation and maintenance of such equipment. This site has a dedicated fire service who act as first response to all the client facilities who occupy this industrial park. They are the AHJ for the park. They will be contacted to get their input. There is also the State Fire Marshal's office that also has input. Second is the fact that the proposed location provides no way to bring (6) 4 lines into the building. So I've got some ammo to shoot down this concept. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? No code restrictions, but certainly foam systems concerns. 55 gallon drums to second floor with stairs? Bladder tanks? Lay 'em down to replace bladder that gets torn. Craig, am I missing something? If not, I've seen this before and it gets ugly real fast. I've worked on an existing hanger that they buried the big tanks in a corner, tore the bladder and have to cut the roof open to lift them out, to lay it down, to replace it. Scott Futrell ___ 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: resurrecting an old system
I would air test first but I think you will need the water test to find leaks Sent from my Galaxy S®III Original message From: Scott A Futrell sco...@ffcdi.com Date: 11/20/2013 9:06 AM (GMT-05:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: resurrecting an old system I like the replace it all option... How old is the system to start with? You need to replace all the sprinklers, if some have popped you don't know how many others may be damaged. What about gaskets in grooved couplings? Is the water supply now equal to the original pump and pond? If not, pipe size changes, right? You could minimize the liability by replacing everything... Scott (763) 425-1001 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: resurrecting an old system I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air test not show it? On the other side, flushing would create a problem since there is no public water supply. We would probably have to get a fire department pumper involved. Also, you could have an issue if the water finds a leak and water starts spraying down on equipment Thoughts? Flush or air test first? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted?
Push Like button now. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:24 AM, craig.pr...@ch2m.com wrote: Ok just to follow up with the outcome. Had our meeting with the client, explained access issues and Code requirement of Approved access. Our 2nd foam room will be at grade level in one of two decent locations. They may even push Process guys out of the way for this FP system. That's a huge thing in the industrial world. A win for fire protection this early in the day has me cautious about the rest of the day. ;) Thanks guys for all the shared input and insight. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? Just to reiterate Scott's point: Maintenance is huge and his examples are extremely valid. We were once painted into a corner on our first foam job many years ago. The foam tanks were put on a mezzanine above the risers. But we ensured there was plenty of room on the mezzanine for bladder removal, and double doors on the exterior wall of the mezzanine for better access to remove/replace bladders or tanks (via fork lift). Not ideal, but serviceable. (BTW - my favorite example of lack of maintenance foresight is a foam job (by others) which included a vertical bladder tank located below a second level - with about 2 ft. of clearance above the tank. When the bladder needs replacement, the entire tank will have to be disconnected and removed from the building. There may also be some other piping that needs removal to allow this to happen. Of course, this is a non-issue if you simply blow-off maintenance...). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? I have two possible Aces up my sleeve. IFC 2009 509.2: Equipment Access. Approved access shall be provided and maintained for all fire protection equipment to permit immediate safe operation and maintenance of such equipment. This site has a dedicated fire service who act as first response to all the client facilities who occupy this industrial park. They are the AHJ for the park. They will be contacted to get their input. There is also the State Fire Marshal's office that also has input. Second is the fact that the proposed location provides no way to bring (6) 4 lines into the building. So I've got some ammo to shoot down this concept. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? No code restrictions, but certainly foam systems concerns. 55 gallon drums to second floor with stairs? Bladder tanks? Lay 'em down to replace bladder that gets torn. Craig, am I missing something? If not, I've seen this before and it gets ugly real fast. I've worked on an existing hanger that they buried the big tanks in a corner, tore the bladder and have to cut the roof open to lift them out, to lay it down, to replace it. Scott Futrell ___ 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 -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose
RE: resurrecting an old system
You are on the right track. Test and repair as needed, then flush. I had a similar situation in an aircraft hangar about 15 years ago. System froze and there were lots of issues. The occupant's first indication of a problem was falling debris, broken fittings. We went in and fixed the obvious issues. We then put air on the system and found several large leaks. Put air on it again and still had leaks but the pressure drop took much longer, so we felt confident to put water on the system (street pressure). Found several small leaks and repaired them. When system held street pressure, we pumped it up gradually to 200 psi. I think the whole process took 3 days. If I remember correctly, we also separated the system into smaller sections before we started testing, so as to help us locate leaks. I would try to salvage as much of the existing system as possible, if only to help the owner save some money. Why discard the system because of what you think might be wrong. Find out what is actually wrong. System may be easily and confidently repaired or you may find enough issues or concerns spread out through the entire building to warrant total replacement. By proving this one way or the other you will be helping out the new owner. Mike Hill -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: resurrecting an old system I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air test not show it? On the other side, flushing would create a problem since there is no public water supply. We would probably have to get a fire department pumper involved. Also, you could have an issue if the water finds a leak and water starts spraying down on equipment Thoughts? Flush or air test first? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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: resurrecting an old system
Mike, I would respectfully urge flushing prior to full 200# test, simply because this system contains mud and other debris, that could, still in place, allow pinhole leaks to remain undetected. Flush to eliminate debris that could be allowing a successful pressure test. Once flushed, the system may still show leaks resulting from the debris removal internally. John -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hill Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: resurrecting an old system You are on the right track. Test and repair as needed, then flush. I had a similar situation in an aircraft hangar about 15 years ago. System froze and there were lots of issues. The occupant's first indication of a problem was falling debris, broken fittings. We went in and fixed the obvious issues. We then put air on the system and found several large leaks. Put air on it again and still had leaks but the pressure drop took much longer, so we felt confident to put water on the system (street pressure). Found several small leaks and repaired them. When system held street pressure, we pumped it up gradually to 200 psi. I think the whole process took 3 days. If I remember correctly, we also separated the system into smaller sections before we started testing, so as to help us locate leaks. I would try to salvage as much of the existing system as possible, if only to help the owner save some money. Why discard the system because of what you think might be wrong. Find out what is actually wrong. System may be easily and confidently repaired or you may find enough issues or concerns spread out through the entire building to warrant total replacement. By proving this one way or the other you will be helping out the new owner. Mike Hill -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: resurrecting an old system I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air test not show it? On the other side, flushing would create a problem since there is no public water supply. We would probably have to get a fire department pumper involved. Also, you could have an issue if the water finds a leak and water starts spraying down on equipment Thoughts? Flush or air test first? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6352 - Release Date: 11/20/13 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction
Todd, I completely agree with Ed. 13.2.1 (5) would let it qualify as miscellaneous storage, and use Table 13.2.1, and Figure 13.2.1. 13.2.2 (2) tells you that the same, except you can apply Chapter 11 for OH 1 2, and EH 1 2 So, if you apply 13.2.2(2), and Table 13.2.1, class IV to not more than 10'-0requires OH2. The QR reduction in 11.2.3.2.3.1 (2) applies to OH design. Looks to me like you can apply that area reduction per NFPA 13. * PARSLEY CONSULTING * Ken Wagoner 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax website: www.ParsleyConsulting.com http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com On 11/20/2013 7:15 AM, Ed Kramer wrote: Todd, take a peek at 13.2.2 (2) (2013 edition). Ed Kramer Lawrence, KS -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction I am working on a school project where there is a basement that will be used for storage (3300 sqft, 13 ft ceiling). I am basing my design on 10 ft high storage of miscellaneous stuff, which I am calling Class IV. This would be a 0.20/1500 sprinkler density, which is the same as the requirement for OH2. Since I have a marginal water supply and am at the far end of the system, minimizing the design is critical. My question is this; can I use the RA deduction for QR heads in OH2 with the curves for low piled storage? Or does the fact that this is storage negate that reduction? Must be my day for question Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction
As long as you are in Chapter 13, Chapter 11 modifiers apply as applicable. John It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 13 Technical Committee on Sprinkler Discharge Criteria, 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 AFSA nor the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction Todd, take a peek at 13.2.2 (2) (2013 edition). Ed Kramer Lawrence, KS -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Misc storage and QR sprinkler deduction I am working on a school project where there is a basement that will be used for storage (3300 sqft, 13 ft ceiling). I am basing my design on 10 ft high storage of miscellaneous stuff, which I am calling Class IV. This would be a 0.20/1500 sprinkler density, which is the same as the requirement for OH2. Since I have a marginal water supply and am at the far end of the system, minimizing the design is critical. My question is this; can I use the RA deduction for QR heads in OH2 with the curves for low piled storage? Or does the fact that this is storage negate that reduction? Must be my day for question Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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: resurrecting an old system
I would suggest a slightly modified approach. Test and repair as needed until tight. Flush and then retest. You really need to flush and retest due to the leaks that might be uncovered after proper flushing. I agree with Scott on cost. Given the total cost in the end, it might be wiser for the owner to spend the money on replacing the system. John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: resurrecting an old system Mike, I would respectfully urge flushing prior to full 200# test, simply because this system contains mud and other debris, that could, still in place, allow pinhole leaks to remain undetected. Flush to eliminate debris that could be allowing a successful pressure test. Once flushed, the system may still show leaks resulting from the debris removal internally. John -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hill Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: resurrecting an old system You are on the right track. Test and repair as needed, then flush. I had a similar situation in an aircraft hangar about 15 years ago. System froze and there were lots of issues. The occupant's first indication of a problem was falling debris, broken fittings. We went in and fixed the obvious issues. We then put air on the system and found several large leaks. Put air on it again and still had leaks but the pressure drop took much longer, so we felt confident to put water on the system (street pressure). Found several small leaks and repaired them. When system held street pressure, we pumped it up gradually to 200 psi. I think the whole process took 3 days. If I remember correctly, we also separated the system into smaller sections before we started testing, so as to help us locate leaks. I would try to salvage as much of the existing system as possible, if only to help the owner save some money. Why discard the system because of what you think might be wrong. Find out what is actually wrong. System may be easily and confidently repaired or you may find enough issues or concerns spread out through the entire building to warrant total replacement. By proving this one way or the other you will be helping out the new owner. Mike Hill -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: resurrecting an old system I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air test not show it? On the other side, flushing would create a problem since there is no public water supply. We would probably have to get a fire department pumper involved. Also, you could have an issue if the water finds a leak and water starts spraying down on equipment Thoughts? Flush or air test first? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.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 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus
RE: resurrecting an old system
The other benefit to the owner with replacement is a warranty. If the system is patched back together, then it could end up being a source of constant headaches and expense if leaks start to show up. Replacing the system could end up being a faster option depending on how many rounds of testing, flushing, and patching are needed. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: resurrecting an old system I would suggest a slightly modified approach. Test and repair as needed until tight. Flush and then retest. You really need to flush and retest due to the leaks that might be uncovered after proper flushing. I agree with Scott on cost. Given the total cost in the end, it might be wiser for the owner to spend the money on replacing the system. John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: resurrecting an old system Mike, I would respectfully urge flushing prior to full 200# test, simply because this system contains mud and other debris, that could, still in place, allow pinhole leaks to remain undetected. Flush to eliminate debris that could be allowing a successful pressure test. Once flushed, the system may still show leaks resulting from the debris removal internally. John -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hill Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: resurrecting an old system You are on the right track. Test and repair as needed, then flush. I had a similar situation in an aircraft hangar about 15 years ago. System froze and there were lots of issues. The occupant's first indication of a problem was falling debris, broken fittings. We went in and fixed the obvious issues. We then put air on the system and found several large leaks. Put air on it again and still had leaks but the pressure drop took much longer, so we felt confident to put water on the system (street pressure). Found several small leaks and repaired them. When system held street pressure, we pumped it up gradually to 200 psi. I think the whole process took 3 days. If I remember correctly, we also separated the system into smaller sections before we started testing, so as to help us locate leaks. I would try to salvage as much of the existing system as possible, if only to help the owner save some money. Why discard the system because of what you think might be wrong. Find out what is actually wrong. System may be easily and confidently repaired or you may find enough issues or concerns spread out through the entire building to warrant total replacement. By proving this one way or the other you will be helping out the new owner. Mike Hill -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: resurrecting an old system I am working with a company that bought a building where the sprinkler system had been turned off about 10 years ago. The fire department is requiring that a system be turned on. The existing system was fed from a pump taking suction from a pond (disconnected and removed). There has been some cracking and splitting of fittings at low points and some heads have popped. The first step was to have a contractor come in and made a detailed visual inspection of the system, including internal. That showed that all of the pipe up high appears to be in good shape and could possibly be re-used. However, there was some mud (not scale) that had collected in some of the mains. My thought was that the next step would be to fix or cap off the broken areas and do an air test to see what the integrity of the system really is, then flush the system if all looks good. However, would you want to flush out the mains before you do an air test? If there is a problem with the mains in the area covered by the mud, would the air
