Re: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

[Douglas Hicks]

No chance the door will be removed after the inspection?


From: Fox, Duane T. (FireMarshal) 
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 7:54 AM
To: mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
Subject: RE: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

That is quite clear – thanks.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Taylor Schumacher
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 10:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

 

NFPA 13 3.3.2 “two bathrooms can be adjacent to each other and are considered 
separate rooms, provided they are enclosed with the required level of 
construction.”

 

 

Taylor Schumacher

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fox, Duane T. (FireMarshal)
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:48 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'
Subject: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

 

I have a hotel project where the designer has placed a door inside the bathroom 
between the sink and toilet/shower.  The bathroom is over 55 sqft, however, 
with the placement of the door inside the bathroom each area on either side of 
the door is less than 55 sqft.  NFPA 13 – 8.15.8.1 states bathrooms under 55 
sqft are exempt (with other criteria met) and the appendix for that section 
states a door is not required in order to omit sprinkler as long as the 
bathroom complies with the definition for compartment. I assume the door in the 
appendix is between the bathroom and the living space.  My question: is adding 
a door inside the bathroom, making two areas within the bathroom, a viable 
design to allow the sprinklers to be omitted?

 

In my opinion the bathroom square footage is the entire area within the 
bathroom space no matter how many doors are used. Therefore, the space would 
need coverage.

 

Duane T. Fox, Jr., CFPS, CFI, CFPE

Asst Chief, Technical Services

DE State Fire Marshal’s Office

302-856-5298

 

 




___
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: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

[Fox, Duane T. (FireMarshal)]

Given the sink area has no door it is unlikely this door will be removed.  I 
have had others that were removed before I did the final inspection.

Duane

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Douglas Hicks
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:42 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

No chance the door will be removed after the inspection?


From: Fox, Duane T. (FireMarshal)
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 7:54 AM
To: mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

That is quite clear – thanks.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Taylor Schumacher
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 10:52 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

NFPA 13 3.3.2 “two bathrooms can be adjacent to each other and are considered 
separate rooms, provided they are enclosed with the required level of 
construction.”


Taylor Schumacher

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fox, Duane T. (FireMarshal)
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:48 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'
Subject: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

I have a hotel project where the designer has placed a door inside the bathroom 
between the sink and toilet/shower.  The bathroom is over 55 sqft, however, 
with the placement of the door inside the bathroom each area on either side of 
the door is less than 55 sqft.  NFPA 13 – 8.15.8.1 states bathrooms under 55 
sqft are exempt (with other criteria met) and the appendix for that section 
states a door is not required in order to omit sprinkler as long as the 
bathroom complies with the definition for compartment. I assume the door in the 
appendix is between the bathroom and the living space.  My question: is adding 
a door inside the bathroom, making two areas within the bathroom, a viable 
design to allow the sprinklers to be omitted?

In my opinion the bathroom square footage is the entire area within the 
bathroom space no matter how many doors are used. Therefore, the space would 
need coverage.

Duane T. Fox, Jr., CFPS, CFI, CFPE
Asst Chief, Technical Services
DE State Fire Marshal’s Office
302-856-5298



___
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: Exposure protection of large windows.

[Steve Leyton]

This is a perfect example of where the owner and architect need to step up and 
establish what the CODE requires before they ask the sprinkler designer to 
prepare plans according to the referenced standard(s).   One of the reasons I 
started my firm was to address this kind of insidious scope creep.   You are 
NOT the code consultant of record and they’re trying to get you do figure out 
how to meet the fire resistive construction criteria that’s required by code or 
subjectively by the building official for free.   There is obviously not a 
prescriptive solution here (at least not that you or I can see, right?) so I 
would throw back to the architect via an RFI that states, “No prescriptive 
solution exists for this condition in referenced codes and standards.   Please 
specify design criteria for window opening protectives.”

Just my grumpy 2¢ …

SL

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

Some of each. Example: 15 ft wide window with center 5 ft operable (tilt). I 
believe original window. Building circa 1920 (I believe).

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)



On Sep 24, 2018 at 12:39 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> 
wrote:
Fixed glazing or operable windows?

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Exposure protection of large windows.

I am looking at a project which is the conversion of an old mill. The spec 
calls for exposure protection on the windows in some areas. One issue I am 
running into is that the exposure protection table (7.8.8.4 - 2010) only covers 
up to 12’-0” wide windows. I have several that range from 12-6” to 15’-0” wide. 
Any thoughts or experience on protecting wider windows?


Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)
___ 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

Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects

[Micah Davis, SET]

I received the following comment on a review in Ohio.  This is a new one for 
me.  Does anyone have some insight into the kind of protection for the piping 
we would need to provide?  Are we talking about a dielectric union or something?


[cid:41790331-4138-4996-9fae-dbe66e8d51b3]


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IVDynamic Fire Designs

Mail: micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com
Mobile: 931-242-1299
www.dynamicfiredesigns.com


Dynamic Fire Designs • 247 Winthrop Dr. • Spring Hill • FL • 34609

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected 
by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by 
mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you 
may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and 
security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.

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

RE: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects

[John Paulsen]

Micah:

They just want to make sure you are using non-ferrous piping and hanger 
materials. It's always a bad day when they fire up the MRI and parts of the 
fire protection system rip out of the ceiling and stick to the casing. I've 
personally seen the fire alarm tech's screw driver gets sucked out of his 
pocket and stick to the machine. Very bad!

John Paulsen - SET
Crown Fire System Design
6282 Seeds Rd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P - 614-782-2438
F - 614-782-2374
C - 614-348-8206


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Micah Davis, SET
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:52 PM
To: SprinklerForum 
Subject: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects


I received the following comment on a review in Ohio.  This is a new one for 
me.  Does anyone have some insight into the kind of protection for the piping 
we would need to provide?  Are we talking about a dielectric union or something?



[cid:image001.png@01D454D9.108253C0]


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV

Dynamic Fire Designs



Mail: 
micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com
Mobile: 931-242-1299
www.dynamicfiredesigns.com


Dynamic Fire Designs * 247 Winthrop Dr. * Spring Hill * FL * 34609

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected 
by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by 
mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you 
may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and 
security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.


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

RE: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects

[tstone52]

Anytime I have designed sprinkler systems in a MRI room, The specifications
call for all piping and fitting including heads to be of Non-Ferrous
Material.

The MRI machine is a Super Magnet.

 

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 Micah Davis, SET
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:52 PM
To: SprinklerForum 
Subject: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects

 

I received the following comment on a review in Ohio.  This is a new one for
me.  Does anyone have some insight into the kind of protection for the
piping we would need to provide?  Are we talking about a dielectric union or
something?

 



 


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV 

Dynamic Fire Designs


 


Mail: micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com
 
Mobile: 931-242-1299
www.dynamicfiredesigns.com   


Dynamic Fire Designs . 247 Winthrop Dr. . Spring Hill . FL . 34609

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on
the Internet. 

 

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

Re: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects

[Shawn Foor]

I have always done cpvc in mri rooms

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 13:02 Micah Davis, SET  wrote:

> I received the following comment on a review in Ohio.  This is a new one
> for me.  Does anyone have some insight into the kind of protection for the
> piping we would need to provide?  Are we talking about a dielectric union
> or something?
>
>
>
>
> Micah Davis, SET
> NICET #124745
> Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV Dynamic Fire Designs
>
> Mail: micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com
> Mobile: 931-242-1299
> www.dynamicfiredesigns.com 
>
> Dynamic Fire Designs • 247 Winthrop Dr. • Spring Hill • FL • 34609
>
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise
> protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have
> received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it
> from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to
> anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on
> the Internet.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Shawn Foor, SET

*FOOR DESIGN, LLC*
*6227 S. 87TH E. AVE*
*TULSA, OK 74133*
*P:918-237-1400*
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects

[Micah Davis, SET]

Makes sense.  Thanks, guys!!


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IVDynamic Fire Designs

Mail: micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com
Mobile: 931-242-1299
www.dynamicfiredesigns.com


Dynamic Fire Designs • 247 Winthrop Dr. • Spring Hill • FL • 34609

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected 
by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by 
mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you 
may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and 
security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.




From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Shawn Foor 
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects

I have always done cpvc in mri rooms

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 13:02 Micah Davis, SET 
mailto:mi...@dynamicfire.us>> wrote:

I received the following comment on a review in Ohio.  This is a new one for 
me.  Does anyone have some insight into the kind of protection for the piping 
we would need to provide?  Are we talking about a dielectric union or something?


[cid:16611f116be62ffc1e61]


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IVDynamic Fire Designs

Mail: 
micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com
Mobile: 931-242-1299
www.dynamicfiredesigns.com


Dynamic Fire Designs • 247 Winthrop Dr. • Spring Hill • FL • 34609

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected 
by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by 
mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you 
may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and 
security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
--
Shawn Foor, SET

FOOR DESIGN, LLC
6227 S. 87TH E. AVE
TULSA, OK 74133
P:918-237-1400
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

[Fpdcdesign]

  
  

 Steve,   
  

  
The owner and architect had an engineer review and design/spec this system. I 
assume they looked at the building code and established criteria. However, what 
they came up with is a 74 nozzle open deluge system that has to be included 
with the sprinkler design. And the locations are not correct so I have no idea 
what the final count will be. Approximately 2/3 of it I haven’t found any 
exposure.   
  

  
I submitted to the contractor to send an RFI saying it is outside of the scope 
of NFPA 13. We shall see what happens. (There are other RFIs as well.   
  

  
Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They 
are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their engineers are plumbers 
with a copy of 13.   
  
  
  
 Todd G Williams, PE  
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
  
Stonington, CT
  
860-535-2080 (ofc)
  
860-553-3553 (fax)
  
860-608-4559 (cell)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Sep 25, 2018 at 1:06 PM,   (mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
>  This is a perfect example of where the owner and architect need to step up 
> and establish what the CODE requires before they ask the sprinkler designer 
> to prepare plans according to the referenced standard(s).  One of the 
> reasons I started my firm was to address this kind of insidious scope creep.  
> You are NOT the code consultant of record and they’re trying to get you 
> do figure out how to meet the fire resistive construction criteria that’s 
> required by code or subjectively by the building official for free.  
> There is obviously not a prescriptive solution here (at least not that you or 
> I can see, right?) so I would throw back to the architect via an RFI that 
> states, “No prescriptive solution exists for this condition in referenced 
> codes and standards.  Please specify design criteria for window opening 
> protectives.”
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  Just my grumpy 2¢ …
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>
>  SL
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]  On Behalf Of  
> Fpdcdesign
>   Sent:  Monday, September 24, 2018 9:59 AM
>   To:  Sprinklerforum
>   Subject:  Re: Exposure protection of large windows.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> Some of each. Example: 15 ft wide window with center 5 ft operable (tilt). I 
> believe original window. Building circa 1920 (I believe).   
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>  Todd G Williams, PE
>
>   
>   
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Stonington, CT
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>   
>   
>
>
>   
>   
>
> On Sep 24, 2018 at 12:39 PM,   (mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com)>  wrote:
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  Fixed glazing or operable windows? 
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>  From:Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]  On Behalf Of  
> Fpdcdesign
>   Sent:  Monday, September 24, 2018 9:39 AM
>   To:  Sprinklerforum
>   Subject:  Exposure protection of large windows.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> I am looking at a project which is the conversion of an old mill. The spec 
> calls for exposure protection on the windows in some areas. One issue I am 
> running into is that the exposure protection table (7.8.8.4 - 2010) only 
> covers up to 12’-0” wide windows. I have several that range from 12-6” to 
> 15’-0” wide. Any thoughts or experience on protecting wider windows?
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>  Todd G Williams, PE
>
>   
>   
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Stonington, CT
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>  ___ 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: Exposure protection of large windows.

[Steve Leyton]

And the beat goes on …

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:52 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

Steve,

The owner and architect had an engineer review and design/spec this system. I 
assume they looked at the building code and established criteria. However, what 
they came up with is a 74 nozzle open deluge system that has to be included 
with the sprinkler design. And the locations are not correct so I have no idea 
what the final count will be. Approximately 2/3 of it I haven’t found any 
exposure.

I submitted to the contractor to send an RFI saying it is outside of the scope 
of NFPA 13. We shall see what happens. (There are other RFIs as well.

Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They 
are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their engineers are plumbers 
with a copy of 13.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)



On Sep 25, 2018 at 1:06 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> 
wrote:
This is a perfect example of where the owner and architect need to step up and 
establish what the CODE requires before they ask the sprinkler designer to 
prepare plans according to the referenced standard(s).   One of the reasons I 
started my firm was to address this kind of insidious scope creep.   You are 
NOT the code consultant of record and they’re trying to get you do figure out 
how to meet the fire resistive construction criteria that’s required by code or 
subjectively by the building official for free.   There is obviously not a 
prescriptive solution here (at least not that you or I can see, right?) so I 
would throw back to the architect via an RFI that states, “No prescriptive 
solution exists for this condition in referenced codes and standards.   Please 
specify design criteria for window opening protectives.”

Just my grumpy 2¢ …

SL

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

Some of each. Example: 15 ft wide window with center 5 ft operable (tilt). I 
believe original window. Building circa 1920 (I believe).

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)




On Sep 24, 2018 at 12:39 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> 
wrote:
Fixed glazing or operable windows?

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Exposure protection of large windows.

I am looking at a project which is the conversion of an old mill. The spec 
calls for exposure protection on the windows in some areas. One issue I am 
running into is that the exposure protection table (7.8.8.4 - 2010) only covers 
up to 12’-0” wide windows. I have several that range from 12-6” to 15’-0” wide. 
Any thoughts or experience on protecting wider windows?


Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)
___ 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: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects

[Jim Davidson]

Micah,

You need to consult with the MRI manufacturer, need to determine if a 
super-conducting magnet also need to determine radio frequency shielding 
requirements for the sprinkler pipe entering the MRI room (or any other opening 
into the room) check to see if "mu" metal shielding is being installed to 
reduce the effects of the magnetic field.

All penetrations of the RF shield need to have RF shield guides around the 
penetration.

Have a fire safe day.

Jim

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Micah Davis, SET
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:52 PM
To: SprinklerForum 
Subject: Protecting Sprinkler Pipe from Magnetic Effects


I received the following comment on a review in Ohio.  This is a new one for 
me.  Does anyone have some insight into the kind of protection for the piping 
we would need to provide?  Are we talking about a dielectric union or something?



[cid:image001.png@01D454DC.2685FAC0]


Micah Davis, SET
NICET #124745
Water Based Systems Layout, Level IV

Dynamic Fire Designs



Mail: 
micah.da...@dynamicfiredesigns.com
Mobile: 931-242-1299
www.dynamicfiredesigns.com


Dynamic Fire Designs * 247 Winthrop Dr. * Spring Hill * FL * 34609

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected 
by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by 
mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you 
may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and 
security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.


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

Re: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms

[Ron Greenman]

I don't think the door itself is what defines whether this a compartment or
not. I believe it is the lintel depth above the door. Open would be
equivalent to removed and an open door does not alter the definition of a
compartment.


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 25, 2018 at 8:48 AM Fox, Duane T. (FireMarshal) <
duane@state.de.us> wrote:

> Given the sink area has no door it is unlikely this door will be removed.
> I have had others that were removed before I did the final inspection.
>
>
>
> Duane
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
> Hicks
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:42 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Re: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms
>
>
>
> No chance the door will be removed after the inspection?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Fox, Duane T. (FireMarshal) 
>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2018 7:54 AM
>
> *To:* mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> 
>
> *Subject:* RE: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms
>
>
>
> That is quite clear – thanks.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Taylor
> Schumacher
> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2018 10:52 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms
>
>
>
> NFPA 13 3.3.2 “two bathrooms can be adjacent to each other and are
> considered separate rooms, provided they are enclosed with the required
> level of construction.”
>
>
>
>
>
> *Taylor Schumacher*
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Fox,
> Duane T. (FireMarshal)
> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2018 9:48 AM
> *To:* 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'
> *Subject:* Omission of sprinklers in hotel bathrooms
>
>
>
> I have a hotel project where the designer has placed a door inside the
> bathroom between the sink and toilet/shower.  The bathroom is over 55 sqft,
> however, with the placement of the door inside the bathroom each area on
> either side of the door is less than 55 sqft.  NFPA 13 – 8.15.8.1 states
> bathrooms under 55 sqft are exempt (with other criteria met) and the
> appendix for that section states a door is not required in order to omit
> sprinkler as long as the bathroom complies with the definition for
> compartment. I assume the door in the appendix is between the bathroom and
> the living space.  My question: is adding a door inside the bathroom,
> making two areas within the bathroom, a viable design to allow the
> sprinklers to be omitted?
>
>
>
> In my opinion the bathroom square footage is the entire area within the
> bathroom space no matter how many doors are used. Therefore, the space
> would need coverage.
>
>
>
> Duane T. Fox, Jr., CFPS, CFI, CFPE
>
> Asst Chief, Technical Services
>
> DE State Fire Marshal’s Office
>
> 302-856-5298
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> 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

PRYING FACTORS

[Bob Knight]

So, this is the first time I've needed to apply the 2016 ed. prying factors
for seismic.  I'm confused to say the least.

I'm looking at one particular manufactures wedge type anchor.  It has a Pr
factor and then a corresponding weight load.

For example, 3/8" anchor, Figure A, has a Pr of 2.626 @ 173 lbs and Figure
B, has a Pr of 1.002 @ 338 lbs.  

If I'm thinking this out correctly, I than need to go to the tables in
chapter 9 and locate the closest match.

Again, for example: Table 9.3.5.12.2(c)  Maximum Load for Wedge Anchors in
3000 psi (207 bar) Normal Weight Cracked Concrete

Pr 2.1-3.5 @ 116 lbs, use
116 instead of manufactures 173 lbs

Pr ? 1.1 @ 240 lbs, use 240
instead of manufactures 338 lbs

If this is correct, then one needs to jump around on these tables to match
the Pr and weight.

Am I looking at this correctly?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Bob Knight, CET III

Fire by Knight, LLC

208-318-3057

FBK-LOGO-EMAIL

 

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

Type V Construction & Hangers

[MFP Design, LLC]

Has anyone run into situations where the AHJ is requiring the structural
engineer on a project to provide a sealed criteria letter for the project
indicating the maximum hanger spacing based on pipe size and structural
member?  We are seeing one local jurisdiction start to require this.  

 



Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

  email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

 

 
 http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

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."

 

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

RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

[Steve Leyton]

All the time bruddah.

SML

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Type V Construction & Hangers

Has anyone run into situations where the AHJ is requiring the structural 
engineer on a project to provide a sealed criteria letter for the project 
indicating the maximum hanger spacing based on pipe size and structural member? 
 We are seeing one local jurisdiction start to require this.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
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."

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

RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

[MFP Design, LLC]

I know you CA peeps do.  I had just never run into it outside of CA.

 

 



Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

  email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

 

 
 http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

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 Steve Leyton
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

 

All the time bruddah.

 

SML

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: Type V Construction & Hangers

 

Has anyone run into situations where the AHJ is requiring the structural
engineer on a project to provide a sealed criteria letter for the project
indicating the maximum hanger spacing based on pipe size and structural
member?  We are seeing one local jurisdiction start to require this.  

 



Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

  email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

 

 
 http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

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."

 

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

RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

[Mike Stossel]

Had this occur once a couple years ago in New Jersey.

Mike Stossel SET
[400dpiLogoCropped]
36 Barren Road
East Stroudsburg, PA 18302
Office: 973-670-2627
m...@knssprinkler.com

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 5:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Type V Construction & Hangers

Has anyone run into situations where the AHJ is requiring the structural 
engineer on a project to provide a sealed criteria letter for the project 
indicating the maximum hanger spacing based on pipe size and structural member? 
 We are seeing one local jurisdiction start to require this.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
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."

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

RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

[Matt Grise]

I've had insurance agents and building owners require it when the building is 
very lightly constructed. We've had a few places where the structure needed 
reinforcement to support the pipe - no seismic considerations included. Never a 
fire marshal though.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Type V Construction & Hangers

Has anyone run into situations where the AHJ is requiring the structural 
engineer on a project to provide a sealed criteria letter for the project 
indicating the maximum hanger spacing based on pipe size and structural member? 
 We are seeing one local jurisdiction start to require this.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
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."

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

RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

[Steve Leyton]

Maybe so, but here's the thing: if you apply the seismic load factors (as 
you're supposed to in the building code) to standard details from companies 
like TJI, you'll be shocked to find that their "pre-engineered/pre-approved" 
details aren't adequate.  I've been shown where the value of a 10d nail is less 
than what's assumed in details that compose a lot of what we've taken for 
granted as "good or best" practices.Having a structural engineer review the 
load bearing capabilities (dead and shear) of the framing and the specific spot 
loads of the anchorage is a really good idea.  And it's not just seismic, it's 
dead loads too.   If I was an AHJ starting a new prevention bureau, it might be 
the first policy bulletin I issue.

SML

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

I know you CA peeps do.  I had just never run into it outside of CA.


[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
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 Steve Leyton
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

All the time bruddah.

SML

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:27 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Type V Construction & Hangers

Has anyone run into situations where the AHJ is requiring the structural 
engineer on a project to provide a sealed criteria letter for the project 
indicating the maximum hanger spacing based on pipe size and structural member? 
 We are seeing one local jurisdiction start to require this.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
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 th

RE: Exposure protection of large windows.

[Tom Duross]

This is based upon % of openings and setbacks to property lines and not means 
of way?

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

 

Steve, 

 

The owner and architect had an engineer review and design/spec this system. I 
assume they looked at the building code and established criteria. However, what 
they came up with is a 74 nozzle open deluge system that has to be included 
with the sprinkler design. And the locations are not correct so I have no idea 
what the final count will be. Approximately 2/3 of it I haven’t found any 
exposure. 

 

I submitted to the contractor to send an RFI saying it is outside of the scope 
of NFPA 13. We shall see what happens. (There are other RFIs as well. 

 

Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They 
are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their engineers are plumbers 
with a copy of 13. 


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)






On Sep 25, 2018 at 1:06 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > 
wrote:

This is a perfect example of where the owner and architect need to step up and 
establish what the CODE requires before they ask the sprinkler designer to 
prepare plans according to the referenced standard(s).   One of the reasons I 
started my firm was to address this kind of insidious scope creep.   You are 
NOT the code consultant of record and they’re trying to get you do figure out 
how to meet the fire resistive construction criteria that’s required by code or 
subjectively by the building official for free.   There is obviously not a 
prescriptive solution here (at least not that you or I can see, right?) so I 
would throw back to the architect via an RFI that states, “No prescriptive 
solution exists for this condition in referenced codes and standards.   Please 
specify design criteria for window opening protectives.”

 

Just my grumpy 2¢ …

 

SL

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

 

Some of each. Example: 15 ft wide window with center 5 ft operable (tilt). I 
believe original window. Building circa 1920 (I believe). 


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)







On Sep 24, 2018 at 12:39 PM, mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> 
> wrote:

Fixed glazing or operable windows?   

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Fpdcdesign
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Exposure protection of large windows.

 

I am looking at a project which is the conversion of an old mill. The spec 
calls for exposure protection on the windows in some areas. One issue I am 
running into is that the exposure protection table (7.8.8.4 - 2010) only covers 
up to 12’-0” wide windows. I have several that range from 12-6” to 15’-0” wide. 
Any thoughts or experience on protecting wider windows?

 


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)

___ 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: Type V Construction & Hangers

[Bruce Verhei]

There are several types of lightweight roof construction that I expected notes 
about point loads imposed by sprinklers to be on the structural plans. Another 
item discussed at pre-app if construction method, e.g., Z-purloin, provided. I 
usually called the Engineer of Record myself. Sometimes I ended up with P.E. of 
manufacturer. 

It’s just a lot faster if the AHJ makes the call. Experience is sometimes a 
sprinkler designer is jerked around.  Two or three minutes on the phone is all 
it takes for the AHJ. There’s only so many manufacturers of these systems. In 
moderately busy FM’s office the manufacturer’s PE in Henderson or wherever will 
say ‘what’s up today Bob’ when you call. It’s best if you catch this at the 
building permit review.

Best.

Bruce Verhei 

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 14:45, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> Maybe so, but here’s the thing: if you apply the seismic load factors (as 
> you’re supposed to in the building code) to standard details from companies 
> like TJI, you’ll be shocked to find that their “pre-engineered/pre-approved” 
> details aren’t adequate.  I’ve been shown where the value of a 10d nail is 
> less than what’s assumed in details that compose a lot of what we’ve taken 
> for granted as “good or best” practices.Having a structural engineer 
> review the load bearing capabilities (dead and shear) of the framing and the 
> specific spot loads of the anchorage is a really good idea.  And it’s not 
> just seismic, it’s dead loads too.   If I was an AHJ starting a new 
> prevention bureau, it might be the first policy bulletin I issue.  
>  
> SML
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:31 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Type V Construction & Hangers
>  
> I know you CA peeps do.  I had just never run into it outside of CA.
>  
>  
> 
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>  
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> 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 Steve Leyton
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:30 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Type V Construction & Hangers
>  
> All the time bruddah.
>  
> SML
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:27 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Type V Construction & Hangers
>  
> Has anyone run into situations where the AHJ is requiring the structural 
> engineer on a project to provide a sealed criteria letter for the project 
> indicating the maximum hanger spacing based on pipe size and structural 
> member?  We are seeing one local jurisdiction start to require this. 
>  
> 
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>  
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> 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.”
>  
> ___
> 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] Re: Type V Construction & Hangers

[Mark . Phelps]

I look back over the past million or more hangers we’ve installed and can’t 
think of a single time anyone has called to say one failed. Mostly when we have 
heavy loads, say 8” heavy wall, we tighten up the spacing, maybe 8’ oc, or even 
just install trapeze bars to spread out the point load. We do a lot of hybrid 
wood/steel roof systems.

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:14 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Type V Construction & Hangers

There are several types of lightweight roof construction that I expected notes 
about point loads imposed by sprinklers to be on the structural plans. Another 
item discussed at pre-app if construction method, e.g., Z-purloin, provided. I 
usually called the Engineer of Record myself. Sometimes I ended up with P.E. of 
manufacturer.

It’s just a lot faster if the AHJ makes the call. Experience is sometimes a 
sprinkler designer is jerked around.  Two or three minutes on the phone is all 
it takes for the AHJ. There’s only so many manufacturers of these systems. In 
moderately busy FM’s office the manufacturer’s PE in Henderson or wherever will 
say ‘what’s up today Bob’ when you call. It’s best if you catch this at the 
building permit review.

Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Sep 25, 2018, at 14:45, Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote:
Maybe so, but here’s the thing: if you apply the seismic load factors (as 
you’re supposed to in the building code) to standard details from companies 
like TJI, you’ll be shocked to find that their “pre-engineered/pre-approved” 
details aren’t adequate.  I’ve been shown where the value of a 10d nail is less 
than what’s assumed in details that compose a lot of what we’ve taken for 
granted as “good or best” practices.Having a structural engineer review the 
load bearing capabilities (dead and shear) of the framing and the specific spot 
loads of the anchorage is a really good idea.  And it’s not just seismic, it’s 
dead loads too.   If I was an AHJ starting a new prevention bureau, it might be 
the first policy bulletin I issue.

SML

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:31 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

I know you CA peeps do.  I had just never run into it outside of CA.



Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Type V Construction & Hangers

[John Denhardt]

In one jurisdiction, it has been that way for over 20 years to require a 
structural certification any time we are installing any pipe over 2” in any 
type of construction.

Yes I do say any type of construction!

John

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Strickland Fire Protection

On Sep 25, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Mark.Phelps 
mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote:

I look back over the past million or more hangers we’ve installed and can’t 
think of a single time anyone has called to say one failed. Mostly when we have 
heavy loads, say 8” heavy wall, we tighten up the spacing, maybe 8’ oc, or even 
just install trapeze bars to spread out the point load. We do a lot of hybrid 
wood/steel roof systems.

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:14 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Type V Construction & Hangers

There are several types of lightweight roof construction that I expected notes 
about point loads imposed by sprinklers to be on the structural plans. Another 
item discussed at pre-app if construction method, e.g., Z-purloin, provided. I 
usually called the Engineer of Record myself. Sometimes I ended up with P.E. of 
manufacturer.

It’s just a lot faster if the AHJ makes the call. Experience is sometimes a 
sprinkler designer is jerked around.  Two or three minutes on the phone is all 
it takes for the AHJ. There’s only so many manufacturers of these systems. In 
moderately busy FM’s office the manufacturer’s PE in Henderson or wherever will 
say ‘what’s up today Bob’ when you call. It’s best if you catch this at the 
building permit review.

Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Sep 25, 2018, at 14:45, Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote:
Maybe so, but here’s the thing: if you apply the seismic load factors (as 
you’re supposed to in the building code) to standard details from companies 
like TJI, you’ll be shocked to find that their “pre-engineered/pre-approved” 
details aren’t adequate.  I’ve been shown where the value of a 10d nail is less 
than what’s assumed in details that compose a lot of what we’ve taken for 
granted as “good or best” practices.Having a structural engineer review the 
load bearing capabilities (dead and shear) of the framing and the specific spot 
loads of the anchorage is a really good idea.  And it’s not just seismic, it’s 
dead loads too.   If I was an AHJ starting a new prevention bureau, it might be 
the first policy bulletin I issue.

SML

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:31 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

I know you CA peeps do.  I had just never run into it outside of CA.



Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

[Fpdcdesign]

  
  

 Exactly. Except in one section the nearest exposure is a single family house 
at least 159 ft away
  

  
  

  
  
>   
> On Sep 25, 2018 at 5:45 PM,  mailto:tduro...@comcast.net)>  
> wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>
> This is based upon % of openings and setbacks to property lines and not means 
> of way?
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> From:   Sprinklerforum On 
> Behalf Of  Fpdcdesign
>   Sent:  Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:52 PM
>   To:  Sprinklerforum  
>   Subject:  Re: Exposure protection of large windows.
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>
> Steve,   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> The owner and architect had an engineer review and design/spec this system. I 
> assume they looked at the building code and established criteria. However, 
> what they came up with is a 74 nozzle open deluge system that has to be 
> included with the sprinkler design. And the locations are not correct so I 
> have no idea what the final count will be. Approximately 2/3 of it I haven’t 
> found any exposure.   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> I submitted to the contractor to send an RFI saying it is outside of the 
> scope of NFPA 13. We shall see what happens. (There are other RFIs as well.   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They 
> are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their engineers are plumbers 
> with a copy of 13.   
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>  Todd G Williams, PE
>
>   
>   
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> Stonington, CT
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-553-3553 (fax)
>
>   
>   
>   
>
> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>   
>   
>   
>
>   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2018 at 1:06 PM,   > (mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com)>  wrote:
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >  This is a perfect example of where the owner and architect need to step up 
> > and establish what the CODE requires before they ask the sprinkler designer 
> > to prepare plans according to the referenced standard(s).  One of the 
> > reasons I started my firm was to address this kind of insidious scope 
> > creep.  You are NOT the code consultant of record and they’re trying to 
> > get you do figure out how to meet the fire resistive construction criteria 
> > that’s required by code or subjectively by the building official for free.  
> > There is obviously not a prescriptive solution here (at least not that 
> > you or I can see, right?) so I would throw back to the architect via an RFI 
> > that states, “No prescriptive solution exists for this condition in 
> > referenced codes and standards.  Please specify design criteria for 
> > window opening protectives.”
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> >  Just my grumpy 2¢ …
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> >  SL
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > From:   Sprinklerforum 
> > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]  On Behalf Of  
> > Fpdcdesign
> >   Sent:  Monday, September 24, 2018 9:59 AM
> >   To:  Sprinklerforum
> >   Subject:  Re: Exposure protection of large windows.
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Some of each. Example: 15 ft wide window with center 5 ft operable (tilt). 
> > I believe original window. Building circa 1920 (I believe).   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >
> >  Todd G Williams, PE
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Stonington, CT
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > 860-535-2080 (ofc)
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > 860-553-3553 (fax)
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > 860-608-4559 (cell)
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > On Sep 24, 2018 at 12:39 PM,   > (mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com)>  wrote:
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >  Fixed glazing or operable windows? 
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > From:   Sprinklerforum 
> > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]  On Behalf Of  
> > Fpdcdesign
> >   Sent:  Monday, September 24, 2018 9:39 AM
> >   To:  Sprinklerforum
> >   Subject:  Exposure protection of large windows.
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > I am looking at a project which is the conversion of an old mill. The spec 
> > calls for exposure protection on the windows in some areas. One issue I am 
> > running into is that the exposure protection table (7.8.8.4 - 2010) only 
> > covers up to 12’-0” wide windows. I have several that range from 12-6” to 
> > 15’-0” wide. Any thoughts or experience on protecting wider windows?
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >
> >  Todd G Williams, PE
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > Stonington, CT
> >
> >   

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Type V Construction & Hangers

[Mark . Phelps]

Wow, it almost seems like a waste of time to even employ a structural engineer 
to design the roof structure, only to have another structural engineer prove 
every individual load.

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 25, 2018, at 4:46 PM, John Denhardt 
mailto:jdenha...@stricklandfire.com>> wrote:

In one jurisdiction, it has been that way for over 20 years to require a 
structural certification any time we are installing any pipe over 2” in any 
type of construction.

Yes I do say any type of construction!

John

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Strickland Fire Protection

On Sep 25, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Mark.Phelps 
mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote:

I look back over the past million or more hangers we’ve installed and can’t 
think of a single time anyone has called to say one failed. Mostly when we have 
heavy loads, say 8” heavy wall, we tighten up the spacing, maybe 8’ oc, or even 
just install trapeze bars to spread out the point load. We do a lot of hybrid 
wood/steel roof systems.

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:14 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Type V Construction & Hangers

There are several types of lightweight roof construction that I expected notes 
about point loads imposed by sprinklers to be on the structural plans. Another 
item discussed at pre-app if construction method, e.g., Z-purloin, provided. I 
usually called the Engineer of Record myself. Sometimes I ended up with P.E. of 
manufacturer.

It’s just a lot faster if the AHJ makes the call. Experience is sometimes a 
sprinkler designer is jerked around.  Two or three minutes on the phone is all 
it takes for the AHJ. There’s only so many manufacturers of these systems. In 
moderately busy FM’s office the manufacturer’s PE in Henderson or wherever will 
say ‘what’s up today Bob’ when you call. It’s best if you catch this at the 
building permit review.

Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Sep 25, 2018, at 14:45, Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote:
Maybe so, but here’s the thing: if you apply the seismic load factors (as 
you’re supposed to in the building code) to standard details from companies 
like TJI, you’ll be shocked to find that their “pre-engineered/pre-approved” 
details aren’t adequate.  I’ve been shown where the value of a 10d nail is less 
than what’s assumed in details that compose a lot of what we’ve taken for 
granted as “good or best” practices.Having a structural engineer review the 
load bearing capabilities (dead and shear) of the framing and the specific spot 
loads of the anchorage is a really good idea.  And it’s not just seismic, it’s 
dead loads too.   If I was an AHJ starting a new prevention bureau, it might be 
the first policy bulletin I issue.

SML

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:31 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Type V Construction & Hangers

I know you CA peeps do.  I had just never run into it outside of CA.



Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign