RE: Distilled spirits

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Steve,

I suggest looking at the FM Guidelines on distilled spirits,  I have a
copy somewhere if you need it or any help drinking the evidence

Bob Caputo


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 3:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Distilled spirits

All:

Picture a small batch, craft distilled spirits storage and distribution
facility with 23,500 sq. ft. of fixturized storage.   Single and double
row pallet racks and also a fixture that is double row, with three levels
of tilted roller racking down near the floor.40-55% alcohol in glass
bottles by the case; not sure if they have 1.75L sizes or if its 1L and
750ml exclusively.A.5.6 says these are a flammable liquid and NOT
specifically addressed in the standard.

By flash and boiling points, 80-proof distilled spirits are a Class 1A
flammable liquid, but I have read that the packaging in glass bottles and
small container size radically reduce the effective hazard.   (I have read
passionate arguments against this theory as well.)   I've seen tech
reports that describe cased spirits as Class 4 commodity.   I've seen a
tech report that required bottled goods to be protected with the same
design criteria as if there were 500 gallon vats of alcohol in the array.
I'm looking for opinions and code citations - what is the appropriate
commodity classification for distilled spirits in consumer packaging?


Steve Leyton, President
Protection Design and Consulting
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |
www.protectiondesign.com
2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire
Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training





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

RE: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Not in my opinion.  We should always look at the definitions for each
occupancy classification as opposed to the list in the annex.  These
facilities have a lot of plastics and combustibles that exceed the
definition of light hazard and they are of heights exceeding 8 ft so OH1
is probably not adequate.

When I look at the foam in landing pits of gymnasiums or even the
bleachers, I'd have a hard time seeing a simple gymnasium as light hazard.

This is a personal opinion.

Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 7:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: tston...@comcast.net
Subject: INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY FIELD HOUSE

NFPA does not define Field houses.

Indoor Track, Basketball Courts, Tennis Courts and Climbing Wall. The new
building will be 37'-0 high to the peak of a flat roof.



Would it be safe to use Light Hazard Occupancy?





Regards,

G. Tim Stone



G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC

NICET Level III Engineering Technician

Fire Protection Sprinkler Design

and Consulting Services



   117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452

 CELL: (802) 373-0638

   tston...@comcast.net



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

RE: swimming pool

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

For what its worth, in the 2013 code cycle of NFPA 13, I submitted two
proposed changes related to this topic.  The first was to eliminate
sprinklers directly above the water where indoor swimming pools were
present.  This was rejected by the committee with the statement that indoor
pools are not always in service and when drained, could be used for
storage - so sprinklers are required above the pool.

The second proposal was to eliminate sprinklers in gymnasium locker room
shower areas where non-combustible tiles covered the entire floor, walls and
ceilings. This was also rejected by the committee with the statement that
gym mats and similar combustibles could be stored in these areas.

Additional discussion related to swimming pools expressed concerns for
combustible play toys and equipment often found in swimming pools.  Yes, I
did argue that changes of occupancy or use are addressed by NFPA 25 and
addressed the corrosive nature of the environment on the sprinklers, but the
committee rejected the proposal to omit sprinklers above the indoor pool.


Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association

Expand your business with ITM.
Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s comprehensive
20-month ITM Inspector Development program that provides a blended learning
environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry leaders.
Now enrolling for Spring 2022!


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 10:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tony Silva 
Subject: Re: swimming pool

Thanks for the responses. I'm trying to find out the industry practice.
Which do you see more? Sprinklers below the water slides or none taking into
account the fire load and possible vandalism?
Tony

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:31 PM AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> That is the preferred way to set the AHJ agreement, in distributed
> meeting minutes of course, because the other way it may be set,
> “provide NFPA 13 coverage for the deck area only”, means some
> sprinklers have to be installed beyond the pool edge to satisfy the
> application density transition boundary rules. That’s why it is best
> to be present at that first AHJ meeting, not just the Architect like some
> Architects like to do.
> The AHJs appreciate being in on the design from inception when dealing
> with odd situations.
>
> >
> > I have seen a pool where it was the AHJ that specifically required
> > NO
> heads anywhere over a pool because they are impossible to maintain.
> (municipal facility)
> >
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: UNUSED ATTIC DEFINITION

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Tim,

In defense of the committee and its members, NFPA standards state clearly
that where terms are not specifically defined in chapter 3, Mirriam Webster
Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition definitions shall be used.  Unused mean
no storage in this context and the standard does provide protection
requirements for situations where fuel fired heaters are present.

Of course, you are welcome to submit language to define unused attic spaces
for consideration when the standard is open for public inputs.  If we
provided a definition for every term used, the NFPA 13 would weigh 10
pounds (4.54 kilos)

Bob Caputo, President
AFSA

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 9:24 AM tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> The building is new wood frame with insulated roof deck over the Attics.
> The
> roof pitches range from 8:12 – 12:12. Occupancy is Hotel, 3 story built
> into
> hillside with full Attic. This fully insulated Attic shall remain above 40°
> F. which would allow installation of wet pipe system.
>
>
>
> Two air handling units (1 at each end of the Attic) will be suspended from
> the Roof. Each unit occupies about 160 SF of area in an Attic of about
> 9,400
> SF. These AHUs will have propane fired furnaces. I have already spoken with
> Mechanical Engineer and he has suggested that the Fire boxes could be
> replaced with forced hot water coils if needed. There will be service
> platforms built underneath and around these AHUs for servicing only. No
> Walls, Service doors and ladder from floor below only to access the AHUs.
> No storage and Public will not have access.
>
>
>
> Could this be considered “Unused Attic”?  I have laid out sprinkler
> coverage
> using QR listed heads in accordance with NFPA 13, 10.2.4.2 and Table
> 10.2.4.2.1(a) and 10.2.6.1.4. I believe this layout should also qualify for
> Ordinary Hazard per Table 10.2.4.2.1(b), 2022 edition.
>
>
>
> I wish NFPA would define “Unused Attic”. This term is used in NFPA 13 so
> why
> not define it. Or do I treat the entire Attic spaces as “Mechanical Room”?
>
>
>
> Thank you advance.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> G. Tim Stone
>
>
>
> G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC
>
> NICET Level III Engineering Technician
>
> Fire Protection Sprinkler Design
>
> and Consulting Services
>
>
>
>117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452
> 
>
>  CELL: (802) 373-0638
>
>    tston...@comcast.net
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
,
you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more

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

Re: Airing of Grievances

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Scot,

Thank you for your commentary on this subject and for sharing your opinion on 
the subject of open discussion related to money however, as I stated earlier, 
this is not the place for it. 

As president of the AFSA, it is my responsibility to ensure we deliver on out 
mission statement for the membership.  We welcome openly, opinions and debate 
with very few restrictions - including (as stated by Kevin Hall) the discussion 
of pricing models.

This is not a democracy nor are we a government agency and as such, our rules 
will be followed or violators will be subjected to suspension or removal from 
the forum at the discretion of AFSA management and leadership. This is not open 
to debate. 

Thank you for your understanding and Happy New Year to one and all. 

Bob Caputo, President
AFSA 


> On Dec 28, 2021, at 6:03 PM, Bob Caputo  wrote:
> 
> Leyton, 
> 
> While I agree with you in spirit and in practice, please refrain from 
> discussing
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Airing of Grievances

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Mr. Leyton, 

While I agree with you in spirit and in practice, please refrain from 
discussing specific pricing models within the forum or and AFSA venue or 
medium. Doing so may be considered a form of price fixing which is both frowned 
upon and illegal. 

AFSA is a non profit trade organization and such conversations could put us in 
jeopardy or at risk or invite some form of investigation. 

Personally, I agree that many in our industry accept too much risk, 
responsibility and liability for too little money but this forum is not the 
place for specific pricing discussions.   Please keep comments generic or 
offline.  

Thank you,  the management 

Bob Caputo - Sent from my iPhone


> On Dec 28, 2021, at 4:01 PM, 321 via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Guys,
> Having been in this business for almost 50 years, I have learned that the 
> quality of a Fire Sprinkler job begins with Quality Design. I was on the 
> "Board" for almost 10 years before I moved on to Sales, Management and later 
> Ownership.
> My start in Design gave me a great foundation to have the success that I have 
> had. I don't mind paying more for a complete Design Job with tie down 
> dimensions and proper routing of piping with the installer in mind.
> I for one will walk away from a job that I can't get a decent price for...a 
> price that will allow me to pay the people at the foundation of the job...the 
> Designers and Fitters, to do the best job they can.
> I closely review all shop drawings that come thru our company and don't 
> hesitate to use the highest quality people I can find.
> That has always been my policy and always will.
> Certified Lower Keys Plumbing and FireKey West, Florida
> John W. Farabee, Manager and License HolderFire Protection Division
> 561-707-5150
> 
> 
>On Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 03:32:41 PM EST, Steve Leyton via 
> Sprinklerforum  wrote:  
> 
> As long as I'm on a roll, I submitted a proposal last week on a site fire 
> main project that's off  the grid in the desert east of San Diego.  The 
> proposal request came from the Civil Engineer who's already signed up and on 
> board, but they recently realized that the FP infrastructure is beyond their 
> capabilities.  It's a battery farm for the regional utility corporate parent, 
> with approximately 2 million SF of lithium battery stacks in 100,000 sq. ft. 
> modular buildings.Water supply will be tapped from an adjacent canal, 
> stored in 3 large tanks, then pumped into 3.5 miles of 8" or 10" pipe to 
> supply 43 hydrants and an unknown number of building systems, since service 
> laterals to the buildings weren't shown on the concept site utilities plan.  
> Probably because the basis of design for suppression systems hasn't been 
> conceived yet.  Number of, size and configuration of pumps unknown, whether 
> the utility is self-insured or not, has existing loss prevention standards or 
> not, how they intend to use the 20 accessory buildings shown on the plans in 
> addition to the battery housing, all still not known.  
> 
> We estimate a 9-12 month design schedule with a meeting a week, and included 
> 12 trips to the site during construction at 2 hours each way from San Diego 
> to the site.  So we guessed at a design fee of 2.5% of an ROM cost for the 
> work and they literally came back with, "What can we get for $35-50,000?"
> 
> I dunno, a late-model used car?
> 
> SL
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 12:16 PM
> To: Sprinklerforum 
> Cc: Fpdcdesign 
> Subject: Re: Airing of Grievances
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   Steve, that stuff happens on the other coast, too. A few years ago I had 
> someone come in at half the design price I quoted. I told the client I can’t 
> come near that, so the other guy got it. A few months later, the low bidder 
> called to hire me to get the plan through review. I told him I know what he 
> took the job for and he can’t afford me.  
>   
> 
>   
> We have another guy out here, who may or may not be NICET certified, who bids 
> on the spec jobs at shop drawing prices. He has a McDonalds PE (buy him 
> breakfast at McDonalds and he will stamp your drawings) that will stamp them 
> and everyone thinks they are getting PE specified plans. It has effectively 
> killed making money in any small/medium sized spec jobs. The big stuff goes 
> to the big name firms so guys like me are SOL.
>   
>   
>   
> Todd G Williams, PE  
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>   
> Stonington, CT
>   
> 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
>   
> 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054)(fax)
>   
> 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
>   
>   
>>   
>> On Dec 28, 2021 at 2:45 PM,  > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>>   
>>   
>>   
>>   Since it's Festivus season, I thought I'd share this with the group. Our 
>> firm is scaled and resourced as a consulting engineering b

RE: Purpose of Subdividing Dry Systems?

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

As noted in the NFPA 13, 2013 edition handbook, "Prior to the 2010
edition, 7.2.3.9 conflicted with the requirement in 7.4.4.1 that combined
dry pipe and preaction systems be subdivided as well as contradictory to
the requirement in 7.9.2.8.4(5) for separate indicating control valves and
check valves for ceiling and in-rack preaction systems, as indicated in
figure 7.9.2.8.4. If subdivision is necessary for those systems, there is
no reason that it should not be acceptable for dry pipe systems, which
operate in similar fashion."

Section 7.2.3.9 was revised in the 2010 edition of NFPA 13 because it was
contradictory to 7.4.5.1

Yes, the reason for sub dividing dry pipe (and preaction systems) is/was
to speed the water delivery time by not having to exhasut air in the parts
of systems not in the direct path of water flow to open sprinklers. All
check valves require internal inspection at 5 year intervals per NFPA 25
but the concern noted by the submitter of the change (AFSA rep Roland
Huggins) in his statement included in the PI. was that check valves could
be frozen closed and not observed, since most inspections are performed in
warm months.

The installation committee agreed that check valve may still be used but
require installation in a heated enclosure to ensure operability.

As always, the above is the opinion of the writer and may not be
considered as a formal interpretation of NFPA 13, and does not necessarily
reflect to views of NFPA or it committees. This opinion should net be
relied upon as consultation.


Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: Re: Purpose of Subdividing Dry Systems?

Don't be shy, anyone?


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:42 AM J H  wrote:

> Hello All,
> Is the purpose of subdividing a dry system per NFPA 13, 7.3.9 -
> 7.2.3.9.2
> (2013 ed) in order to control system size? Let's say you have a system
> that is 1000 gallons and I don't want to be subject to the water
> delivery time requirement can I divide the system right down the
> middle with a check valve (with the check valve in a heated area and a
> hole drilled in clapper) and call it good? If that's not the intention
> of the code mentioned what is it for?
>
> Thanks,
> JH
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o
rg
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Sprinkler protection in a freezer warehouse - with plastics

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Craig,

As you know, the commodity classification is based on the product, the
packaging and the pallet type.  As such, your foam trays have to be taken
into account by weight or by volume.  NFPA 13, Fig 20.4.3.3(a) and (b) and
I don’t have a book with me but pretty sure frozen food on polystyrene
trays is listed as a Group A plastic in the annex list….

Not sure NFPA 13 has any dark corners, though the color of the new edition
is dark gray ;-)


Bob Caputo, Lurking the dark corners of Dubai this week
AFSA

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:49 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I have searched the from the deepest depths to the highest heights within
> NFPA 13 for a solution and am coming up empty.
>
> We have a freezer warehouse, storing packaged meats on foam trays which
> are placed in plastic trays. The frozen meat per NFPA 13 is a class III,
> the kicker is the exposed, expanded plastic tray which represents about 63%
> of the package load.  They claim to only put about 2.5 lbs of meat in a
> plastic tray that weighs 4.4 lbs.  This is pushing us into considering this
> as a Group A plastic commodity.
>
> I have found no system criteria for a freezer warehouse with 22' of racked
> storage and a 30 ft ceiling/roof height and exposed, unexpanded group A
> plastic.  Any options we find show them as being Wet systems only.
>
> I am starting to dig into the FM data sheets but was looking to see if
> anyone has any insight or if I've missed some option hidden away in the
> dark corners of NFPA 13.
>
> Quell only goes up to Class III commodities.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection |
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
>
> 
>
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by
> unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message
> and deleting it from your computer.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
,
you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more

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

Re: NFPA #30 Containment

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

I am out of the country (without my books) but from recollection, the time
frame is based on the H occupancy classification form the IFC/IBC, where H9
has a longer duration than H3.  Not sure its in NFPA 30.  It’s definitely
sprinkler discharge rate plus the volume of the largest vessel though.

I hope that helps

Bob Caputo
AFSA

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 4:08 AM James Crawford via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Hope some can help, I seem to remember there was a time frame of the
> sprinkler demand plus largest container in order to figure out the amount
> of containment requires for a flammable storage room, but cannot seem to
> find it.
>
> Can only find the 20 minutes for plastic containers.
>
> Can someone point me in the right direction.
>
> Thank You
>
> James Crawford
> Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
> Phone 604-888-0318
> Cel: 604-790-0938
> Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
> Web: www.phaserfire.ca
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
,
you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more

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

Re: Mechanical roll-grooved fittings for fire pipe

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

NFPA 13 does provide rules for grooved piping.  These rules are copied from
the 2016 edition, so the current edition section numbers will be different.


6.5.3.1* Pipe, fittings, valves, and devices to be joined with grooved
couplings shall contain cut, rolled, or cast grooves that are dimensionally
compatible with the couplings.

6.5.3.1.1* Pipe, fittings, valves, devices, and couplings that conform with
or are listed in compliance with standardized groove specifications shall
be considered compatible.

6.5.3.1.2 Other groove dimensions and grooving methods shall be acceptable
in accordance with 6.5.5.1.

6.5.3.2 Grooved couplings, including gaskets used on dry pipe, preaction,
and deluge systems, shall be listed for dry service.

Coupling manufacturers are required to observe these dimensionally
compatible specifications so that any manufacturer’s couplings or fittings
will work with any other brand.

As always, the opinions expressed herein are my personal opinions and may
not be considered as the opinion of NFPA or its committees. This opinion
should not be considered or used as consultation services.

Bob Caputo, President
AFSA




On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:55 AM Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> You are going to need to cite a specific section, and preferably provide a
> link to said section, otherwise we will not know what you're referencing.
> The link you provided takes you to a gateway page, and I don't think there
> are many of us that have the time to find roll groove specs in what appears
> to be a "spec book" web page.
> Can you give us a section you have in question?
>
> -Jamie Seidl
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 11:28 PM Phong - Indochine Engineering via
> Sprinklerforum  wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > NATSPEC in Australia specify the application of mechanical roll-grooved
> > fittings: Provide only in sprinkler-protected areas.
> > https://www.natspec.com.au/
> >
> > I wonder why and if NFPA has a similar rule?
> >
> > Thanks for discussing.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Le Vu Phong
> > Mobile:  +84 (0) 902 363 525
> > ___
> > 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
>
-- 
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
,
you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more

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

RE: Paint Booth Duct Protection

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

I should have checked the spelling before posting that 1st comment (damned
auto correct) but I wouldn't say only the exhaust duct requires
protection.  It depends on the arrangement of the hood and filter screens.
Often, the booth, the area behind the filter screens and the duct require
sprinklers and they should be on a separate (independent) control valve.
It really depends on the content of the fumes (flammability)

Bob Caputo

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Dennis Wilson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 10:48 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dennis Wilson 
Subject: RE: Paint Booth Duct Protection

Only the exhaust duct is normally sprinklered.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 12:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Caputo 
Subject: Re: Paint Booth Duct Protection

Generally, if the exhaust duct Carrie's flammable or combustible vapors it
does




On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 9:49 AM Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I have a paint booth with a intake and exhaust duct systems.
>
> When I look at NFPA 33-9.5.1.6 Duct Protection
>
> It only specific size of duct requiring protection, and doesn't
> mention "exhaust" until item #2 and #3.
>
> If larger enough does both set of ducting require protection?
>
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may
> be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete
> the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this
> communication by someone other than the intended recipient is
prohibited.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists
> .firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&a
> mp;data=04%7C01%7Cdwilson%40blackhawksprinklers.com%7Cff22abcc7986400b
> 961208d9b5c0d273%7C20b3eafa18334148b9c58e75b45c105a%7C1%7C1%7C63774066
> 2041767945%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI
> iLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=g5g1D43gv0gPMgtTwv0Ko
> i2LLIiWKVTkrxDQnOxcPNY%3D&reserved=0
>
--
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fac
ebook.com%2Ffiresprinkler.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdwilson%40blackhawkspr
inklers.com%7Cff22abcc7986400b961208d9b5c0d273%7C20b3eafa18334148b9c58e75b
45c105a%7C1%7C1%7C637740662041767945%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL
jAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Tb3
%2FYLrE%2BUjNHPvOHwIXJRt32PL32WRgXdi9m8NyakU%3D&reserved=0>
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter
.com%2Fafsa%2Fstatus%2F1039528345367732224&data=04%7C01%7Cdwilson%40bl
ackhawksprinklers.com%7Cff22abcc7986400b961208d9b5c0d273%7C20b3eafa1833414
8b9c58e75b45c105a%7C1%7C1%7C637740662041767945%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&
;sdata=tLXqP26Oz8HRi7GYU3kU7M%2BsFwDf9Xtas4YeEIWh4l4%3D&reserved=0>
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lin
kedin.com%2Fcompany%2Famerican-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-%2F&dat
a=04%7C01%7Cdwilson%40blackhawksprinklers.com%7Cff22abcc7986400b961208d9b5
c0d273%7C20b3eafa18334148b9c58e75b45c105a%7C1%7C1%7C637740662041777897%7CU
nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL
CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2F%2FUhGCzr8q91bup4UXX1CAYqLLRgJizzh7J1704
2y9w%3D&reserved=0>

<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ins
tagram.com%2Ffiresprinklerorg%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdwilson%40blackhawkspr
inklers.com%7Cff22abcc7986400b961208d9b5c0d273%7C20b3eafa18334148b9c58e75b
45c105a%7C1%7C1%7C637740662041777897%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL
jAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=jTO
VwjLs%2BUB6JRm%2BMs04l8SzePr%2Bf3t9BUPSqiB6q%2BA%3D&reserved=0>

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fir
esprinkler.org%2FWWW%2FEducation%2FApprentice_Training%2FWWW%2FEducation%2
FAppre

Re: Paint Booth Duct Protection

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Generally, if the exhaust duct Carrie’s flammable or combustible vapors it
does




On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 9:49 AM Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I have a paint booth with a intake and exhaust duct systems.
>
> When I look at NFPA 33-9.5.1.6 Duct Protection
>
> It only specific size of duct requiring protection, and doesn't mention
> "exhaust" until item #2 and #3.
>
> If larger enough does both set of ducting require protection?
>
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole
> use of the intended recipients and contain information that may be
> confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any
> disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this communication by someone
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
,
you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more

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

RE: theft of FDC inlets

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

There are ways to replace the FDC swivels -  here are a few links.  AFSA
does not endorse specific manufacturers or suppliers - this is simply
offering potential solutions for FDC repair.

https://www.qrfs.com/blog/110-replacing-a-fire-department-connection-swivel/#:~:text=How%20to%20install,fire%20department%20connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOUMQFSTJ6E


Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 3:12 PM
To: e...@bamfordfire.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BRUCE VERHEI 
Subject: Re: theft of FDC inlets

Ed,

They’re not using a wrench. They’re breaking out the caps, sticking in a
piece of 1-1/2” pipe, and rotating unit off.

We went to the Knox product which stopped the problem. Some owners added
Locktite Red, which adds its own problem if replacement is necessary.

Knox passes out the key to the FD’s. As they don’t access the building I don’t
think we kept them in the semi-secure, remote release box in the engines
etc.

If address was stamped on would scrap buyers stop pretending they don’t know
source?

Best.

Bruce Verhei

> On 10/14/2021 8:16 AM Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
>  wrote:
>
>
> We received a letter from a local fire official saying they've seen a
> significant increase in theft of FDC's.  It's no longer just the brass
> plugs, but now it's the female swivel - making the FDC non-functional.
>
>
>
> Some potential solutions that have been offered include:
>
> * Using a bit of JB Weld on the set screw that holds the swivel in
> place
> * Drilling out the top of the same set screw
> * Replacing standard FDC's w/Storz
> * Installing locking covers (such as Knox #3041)
> * Electrifying the FDC and instructing fire fighters to wear
> insulating gloves (not really)
>
>
>
> Anybody got any other ideas?
>
>
>
> Ed K
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

NFPA 13, 2019 edition section A.4.3.2(16) lists unused attics as light
hazard.  That said, it's always better to consider the definition of the
hazard as opposed to automatically applying the lists from the annex.
Section 4.3.2 defines LH as spaces with low quantity and combustibility of
contents. And of course, Table 10.2.4.2.1(a) will dictate the spacing of
standard sprinklers in the LH space, depending on the construction and
whether obstructed or not.  Unless you (and the AHJ) believe the plywood
adds to the combustibility, there is a solid case for LH design in the
unoccupied attic.

Just my thoughts

Bob Caputo

Have you visited afsasafetyportal.com yet?
It's AFSA's member-only safety resource! This virtual library delivers the
accident-prevention and safety-related information you need to educate
your staff, help prevent claims, and create a safe work
environment. Click here to learn more.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey 
Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy

Maybe I wasn't clear, this is an existing unsprinklered building attached
to a sprinklered building at a firewall.  I presume when constructed it
was per code.  The intent is to add fire protection at the request of an
insurance company.  All areas would be protected as stated, my concern is
whether or not a traditional light hazard attic design is appropriate for
the space above the plywood ceiling given that it's a plastic storage
warehouse below.

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager * Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 /
cell 260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:36 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Art Tiroly 
Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy


BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


No building size is indicated. Does the building code require protection?

Plastic storage may be considered a high hazard.
If protection is a code requirement then the attic requires protection.
Without protection a fire in the attic will likely cause a total loss of
the building and contents.

Art Tiroly

ATCO Fire Protection


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 10:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey 
Subject: Attic protection over a storage occupancy

Applicable code/standards would be IBC 2012 and its references (NFPA 13
2010
mainly) I'm not coming up with a "why not" for this, but it doesn't give
me a warm fuzzy.  I have a wood framed "pole barn" being used for plastic
storage in racks.  The building is a standard 4:12 wood truss building
with plywood sheathing at the bottom of the trusses (with a layer of
fiberglass batts on them above) creating a flat ceiling at 18' AFF, walls
are exposed 2x construction with fiberglass batts.  I can't come up with a
reason I can't protect the space below the plywood according to the
storage requirements (looking at .6/2600 dry system, rack storage of Gp A
plastic to 20' max <5' clear, doing CMDA both because they barely have 18"
clear and they want a dry system) and the space above as an unused light
hazard attic, potentially with "back to back" style attic heads.  Anyone
see a flaw with this logic, or any other pitfalls to watch for due to this
construction scenario?  I don't love this scenario but the customer went
out of their way to avoid sprinklering the building
  origina  lly and built it to the bottom dollar, but now a new insurance
carrier may require it to be protected.

Mike Morey
CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677
Project Manager * Fire Protection Group
Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company
7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 /
cell
260.417.0625 /  fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com



This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If
you receive this message in error, please  immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify
the sender.  You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose,
distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the
intended recipient.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sp
rinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!PEy36P2Ree2IDKHDssMLwq70UBvwk5g
X32aU8NcgXc8x_JP_Pkqr3gfir

RE: Fire Pump Room Sprinkler Classification

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

NFPA 20 is clear that the pump room is to be protected per EH2.  By
definition of EH2, the presence of the diesel fuel makes it EH2.   See
4.14.1.3


Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 12:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: Fire Pump Room Sprinkler Classification

We are having a discussion in our and with a local AHJ on the design
requirements of the sprinkler system in a fire pump room with a diesel
fire pump.

Comments have varied from OH2 to EX1 to EH2

Any feed back out there?

Thank You

James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone 604-888-0318
Cel: 604-790-0938
Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
Web: www.phaserfire.ca

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Not to mention it’s a horrible practice in my opinion


Bob Caputo, President
American Fire Sprinkler Association



-Original Message-
From: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: Bob Caputo ;
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

While NFPA 24 may not restrict the use or installation of certain materials,
the manufacture's listing data may in fact restrict the use.  It's a good
idea to review the listing of the material to see what restrictions may
apply to its use.

Also, some Risk Groups/Insurers also may comment on use of certain
materials.



Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection |
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS



-Original Message-
From: Bob Caputo 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 5:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; John Denhardt

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

The prior editions of NFPA 24 do not restrict the use of non-metallic spigot
pieces (riser coming up through the floor from the underground piping)  I
discovered this fact a few years ago, while responding to the question when
doing Advisory Service for NFPA.  I was surprised and concerned for all of
the reasons of exposure now enumerated in the annex when installing
materials this way.

As for temperature, about 8 years ago, I was asked to evaluate a high
pressure problem at a high rise building in Honolulu, where the daily
pressures were excessive. Upon visiting the site, we discovered the
standpipes were interconnected at the top of the building (on the roof) as
opposed to the floor level.  The steel pipe was exposed to direct sunlight
every day...  increasing the system pressure significantly.  We proposed
tenting the pipe on the roof to solve the problem, which it did.

The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal
interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This is provided with the understanding that the AFSA assumes no
liability for this opinion or actions taken on it and they are not to be
considered the official position of the AFSA, and/or NFPA or its technical
committees. AFSA cannot provide design or consulting engineering services,
and this opinion should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as
such.


Bob Caputo, President
American Fire Sprinkler Association





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 10:47 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; John Denhardt

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

Thanks for the additional comments John, oh and BTW, I guess the forum
doesn't do different text colors.

My point was that if you are unsure whether or not an item is being used
correctly, go to the sources, either the manufacturer's installation
guidelines, the letter from the recognized testing agency,  or the Approval
Guide and verify one way or another whether the component is being used and
is installed as it was intended.

There are those out there who will try to gain an advantage over others by
substituting cheaper or more easily installed materials regardless of
whether or not the choice material is appropriate or not.   So if it doesn't
seem right, verify.

As far as temperature exposure versus pressure rating degradation, whether
someone agrees or not doesn't matter. It is a tested and proven fact
provided in the published data by the manufacturer.   I'd be curious how the
NFPA 24 committee viewed this information.



Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection |
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | http://www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 11:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

Looking at Craig's comments directly, I want to provide some information.
*(in blue bold)*

1. Go to the manufacturer's data and see if it is listed to be installed
above grade per UL and/or FM as a fire riser. * I am not aware of many
nonmetallic underground materials which are Listed for a fire riser.
The NFPA 24 technical committee acknowledged this during the debates on the
new language which was added for the 2019 editions of NFPA 13 and 24..*

2. Exposure to elevated temperatures such as in a fire event can cause
plastic pipe to fail. The pressure rating of Non-metallic pipe is typically
coupled to the design temperature at which it is intended to be used.  A
class of piping that may be rated for 175 psi at 73 deg. (f) will not
provide the same resiliency at 150 deg (f) and even less at 500 deg. (f).
For example, C900 PV

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

The prior editions of NFPA 24 do not restrict the use of non-metallic spigot
pieces (riser coming up through the floor from the underground piping)  I
discovered this fact a few years ago, while responding to the question when
doing Advisory Service for NFPA.  I was surprised and concerned for all of
the reasons of exposure now enumerated in the annex when installing
materials this way.

As for temperature, about 8 years ago, I was asked to evaluate a high
pressure problem at a high rise building in Honolulu, where the daily
pressures were excessive. Upon visiting the site, we discovered the
standpipes were interconnected at the top of the building (on the roof) as
opposed to the floor level.  The steel pipe was exposed to direct sunlight
every day...  increasing the system pressure significantly.  We proposed
tenting the pipe on the roof to solve the problem, which it did.

The above is my opinion and has not been processed as a formal
interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This is provided with the understanding that the AFSA assumes no
liability for this opinion or actions taken on it and they are not to be
considered the official position of the AFSA, and/or NFPA or its technical
committees. AFSA cannot provide design or consulting engineering services,
and this opinion should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as
such.


Bob Caputo, President
American Fire Sprinkler Association





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 10:47 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; John Denhardt

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

Thanks for the additional comments John, oh and BTW, I guess the forum
doesn't do different text colors.

My point was that if you are unsure whether or not an item is being used
correctly, go to the sources, either the manufacturer's installation
guidelines, the letter from the recognized testing agency,  or the Approval
Guide and verify one way or another whether the component is being used and
is installed as it was intended.

There are those out there who will try to gain an advantage over others by
substituting cheaper or more easily installed materials regardless of
whether or not the choice material is appropriate or not.   So if it doesn't
seem right, verify.

As far as temperature exposure versus pressure rating degradation, whether
someone agrees or not doesn't matter. It is a tested and proven fact
provided in the published data by the manufacturer.   I'd be curious how the
NFPA 24 committee viewed this information.



Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection |
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 11:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

Looking at Craig's comments directly, I want to provide some information.
*(in blue bold)*

1. Go to the manufacturer's data and see if it is listed to be installed
above grade per UL and/or FM as a fire riser. * I am not aware of many
nonmetallic underground materials which are Listed for a fire riser.
The NFPA 24 technical committee acknowledged this during the debates on the
new language which was added for the 2019 editions of NFPA 13 and 24..*

2. Exposure to elevated temperatures such as in a fire event can cause
plastic pipe to fail. The pressure rating of Non-metallic pipe is typically
coupled to the design temperature at which it is intended to be used.  A
class of piping that may be rated for 175 psi at 73 deg. (f) will not
provide the same resiliency at 150 deg (f) and even less at 500 deg. (f).
For example, C900 PVC obtains its pressure rating at an ambient temperature
of 73 deg. (f) at which its pressure rating reduction coefficient would be
100 (100% of pressure rating is attainable).  At 140 deg. (f) it's pressure
reduction coefficient is .22 where it has lost 75% of its pressure rating.
This is why we typically do not accept plastic pipe of any kind above grade
for a riser unless the manufacturer explicitly states that it is Listed
and/or Approved for such an installation. * I do not disagree with the
information.  The NFPA 24 technical committee reviewed this data.*

3. Additional support is needed for the riser assembly.  *Agree.*

*What I want to add is that the NFPA 24 technical committee added new
language in the 2019 editions of NFPA 13 and 24 to cover this application.
This material was discussed and debated in detail.*

NFPA 13 - 6.1.4* Underground piping shall be permitted to extend into

the building through the slab or wall not more than 24 in.

(600 mm). [24:10.1.4]


NFPA 13 - A.6.1.4 Where nonmetallic underground piping is provided

abo

RE: Material Prices !!

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

The AFSA Forum is intended to be used for the sharing of ideas and technical
questions or issues.  We do not allow, or condone any conversations related
to pricing on any level. Please take this topic off line. It is not
appropriate for this forum and will be deleted by the administrator.

Thank you for your understanding.

Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association

Get in the (Fitter) Zone!
AFSA's "Fitter Zone" features live webinars designed specifically for fire
sprinkler fitters. These live presentations are held on Saturdays whenever
possible, so you don't have to take your fitters out of the field during the
workweek. If you cannot attend live sessions, these webinars will be
recorded and can be purchased for on-demand access.  Learn more here.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 5:54 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
Subject: Re: Material Prices !!

My hogwash radar alarm went off. So I checked. People in the fire sprinkler
protection business did time combing through code and standards books. I
cannot apologize for checking.
US Antitrust laws comprise three acts. One is The Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It
is all about conspiracy in restraint of trade, such as monopolization,
attempted monopolization or conspiracy or combination to monopolize. Wrong
buzzer on that one. The second Act is The Federal Trade Commission Act. It
bans unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices. Wrong buzzer on that one also. The third Act is The Clayton
Antitrust Act. It is about mergers and acquisitions that substantially
lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Wrong buzzer for that one
also.
Checking steel prices, the US steel prices are currently 3 to 4 times what
they where at this time last year. The steel prices in other parts of the
world are not exhibiting the same degree of out of balance. The true
antitrust aspect has to do with the price of steel. That alone may not be
what this forum is about, but a good portion of a sprinkler system is steel.
Certainly, business contract practices necessary to ensure the proper health
of fire sprinkler contractors’ businesses so that they can provide and
install effective fire sprinkler systems is forum material.

Alllan Seidel
St. Louis, MO

> On Aug 5, 2021, at 12:16 PM, Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
>  wrote:
>
> Just a reminder to the forum that this is toeing the line on
> Anti-Trust Policies. Please refrain from further comment on specific
> pricing of products and proposals.
>
> Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE *Coordinator, Engineering
> and Technical Services*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> p: 214-349-5971
> w: firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> 
>   
>
>
> *Get in the (Fitter) Zone!*
>
> AFSA's "Fitter Zone" features live webinars designed specifically for
> fire sprinkler fitters. These live presentations are held on Saturdays
> whenever possible, so you don't have to take your fitters out of the
> field during the workweek. If you cannot attend live sessions, these
> webinars will be recorded and can be purchased for on-demand access.
> Learn more *here* .
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:18 PM JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
>> Who all is demanding an escalation clause in contracts right now?
>>
>> Get Outlook for iOS
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum 
>> on behalf of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 10:14:37 AM
>> To: 321 ;
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
>> Subject: Re: Material Prices !!
>>
>> Domestic steel prices are through the roof.  Domestic HRB went from
>> around
>> $600 per ton around October 2020 to around $1,966 per ton recently,
>> in pretty much a straight line up.  Make sure you are communicating
>> this to your customers.  Wood has pretty much come back to earth from
>> the recent high, but steel seemingly keeps going up.
>>
>>
>> Skyler Bilbo
>> 217-819-6404 Cell
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:44 AM 321 via Sprinklerforum <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I bought almost exactly the same jobs about 5 months ago for less
>>> than half of that!! Where is the "Choke Point" on this ? Is it steel
>>> pipe,
>> Iron
>>> Fittings, availability?
>>> On of my best vendors told me this morning that they cant get pipe
>>> and fittings imported because Walmart bought up all the Sea Can
>>> Shipping containers for their use.
>>> A shippin

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

The committee discussion on this change was the in a 400 cubic foot enclosure, 
it doesn’t matter where the sprinkler is relative to the shelf.  Think about in 
rack sprinklers and the product loads…. I agree there should be concern for 
bumping the sprinkler but no one is loading the closet with a forklift so…. 

Bob Caputo - Sent from my iPhone


> On Jul 1, 2021, at 2:52 PM, BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> From an old fire guys perspective I’d be more concerned with accidental head 
> breakage than water dispersal.
> 
> Best.
> 
> 
>> On 07/01/2021 3:01 PM Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for that clarification.  I missed that.
>> 
>> Pete
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Dane Long via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 12:51 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Dane Long ; Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) 
>> 
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage
>> 
>> Peter,
>> 
>> One thing to emphasize is that it says 400ft3 not ft2. So, the thought is if 
>> you have mechanical equipment like a furnace, you're not really going to 
>> have much room to store anything in this closet. An example would be a 
>> closet with an 8ft. ceiling can only be 7ftx7ft. This is 49sqft or 392ft3.
>> Your minimum discharge is going to automatically be the 7psi, so you're 
>> going to be flooding the closet anyway.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dane Long, AET
>> Engineering Technician | Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc.
>> P:785.825.7710
>> F:785.825.0667
>> A:   1383 W. North Street  Salina, KS  67401
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 10:36 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) 
>> Subject: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage
>> 
>> NFPA 13 (2019 edition) states the following in two sections:
>> 
>> 9.5.5.4 Closets. In all closets and compartments, including those closets 
>> housing mechanical equipment, that are not larger than 400 ft3 (11 m3) in 
>> size, a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling level shall be sufficient 
>> without regard to obstructions or minimum distance to the wall.
>> 9.5.6 Clearance from Deflector to Storage.
>> 9.5.6.1* Unless the requirements of 9.5.6.2, 9.5.6.3, 9.5.6.4, or
>> 9.5.6.5 are met, the clearance between the deflector and the top of storage 
>> or contents of the room shall be 18 in. (450 mm) or greater.
>> 
>> Section 9.5.5.4 states "a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling level 
>> shall be sufficient without regard to obstructions or minimum distance to 
>> the wall."  Does 9.5.5.4 allow a sprinkler to be less than 18 inches from 
>> the storage in a closet?  Section 9.5.6.1 does not specifically say that
>> 9.5.5.4 is an exception to the 18 inch storage clearance requirement.
>> 
>> However, if the storage less than 18 inches from the deflector is considered 
>> an "obstruction", then it would seem that 9.5.5.4 would allow storage that 
>> is less than 18 inches from the sprinkler deflector in a closet.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance.
>> 
>> Pete
>> Dept of VA
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7C%7C171fd521855d42ea5bbf08d93cb07d43%7Ce95f1b23abaf45ee821db7ab251ab3bf%7C0%7C0%7C637607551271236540%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=W3YDQ67bNbkjs1e471XyWxEEvY5bleyBqDOI5FjJ9ak%3D&reserved=0
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7C%7C171fd521855d42ea5bbf08d93cb07d43%7Ce95f1b23abaf45ee821db7ab251ab3bf%7C0%7C0%7C637607551271236540%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=W3YDQ67bNbkjs1e471XyWxEEvY5bleyBqDOI5FjJ9ak%3D&reserved=0
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespr

RE: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Pete,

You are correct. Where the closet is less than 400 ft3, no clearance is
required below the deflector

Bob Caputo




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 10:36 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) 
Subject: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage

NFPA 13 (2019 edition) states the following in two sections:

9.5.5.4 Closets. In all closets and compartments, including those closets
housing mechanical equipment, that are not larger than 400 ft3 (11 m3) in
size, a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling level shall be sufficient
without regard to obstructions or minimum distance to the wall.
9.5.6 Clearance from Deflector to Storage.
9.5.6.1* Unless the requirements of 9.5.6.2, 9.5.6.3, 9.5.6.4, or
9.5.6.5 are met, the clearance between the deflector and the top of
storage or contents of the room shall be 18 in. (450 mm) or greater.

Section 9.5.5.4 states "a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling
level shall be sufficient without regard to obstructions or minimum
distance to the wall."  Does 9.5.5.4 allow a sprinkler to be less than 18
inches from the storage in a closet?  Section 9.5.6.1 does not
specifically say that 9.5.5.4 is an exception to the 18 inch storage
clearance requirement.

However, if the storage less than 18 inches from the deflector is
considered an "obstruction", then it would seem that 9.5.5.4 would allow
storage that is less than 18 inches from the sprinkler deflector in a
closet.

Thanks in advance.

Pete
Dept of VA

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

I would agree with Mark at Aero when the project is within a municipal area
with a public utility water supply but what if we're designing a
hotel/casino on a reservation where no such infrastructure exists and the
tank will be used to supply domestic, irrigation and fire protection needs,
to include private fire hydrants?  Then what?

Fire flow has nothing to do with system design or water supply analysis for
fire protection purposes. System demand and fire flow are completely
separate issues and are not combined or compared.  When the tank is designed
for multiple water uses, the non-fire protection supply must be piped higher
up so the minimum fire protection water cannot be used for other purposes
and such a tank would not actually have to meet NFPA 22 requirements.  The
demand for hydrants would have to be added to the water-based systems demand
but "fire Flow" requirements would probably not be the basis for determining
that extra volume.

Water supply analysis is engineering in my opinion and the needs of a
project in terms of water supply evaluation should be the purview of the
engineer of record if there is one.

My opinion solely and only.  Not to be considered the opinion of AFSA, NFPA
or any technical committee upon which I serve. (13/25/24/291)

Bob Caputo

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 11:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

I think I disagree with the statement that the Fire Flow must be provided by
the fire pump. I believe the fire flow is only required to be “available” in
the capacity of the city water main. The responsibility for utilizing it is
completely the domain of the responding Fire Company. They will connect
their Truck to the FDC and  an available hydrant and manage it from there.
In the process of this they may override the site fire pump and shut it down
on a time out.  Isn’t that the standard protocol?

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 23, 2021, at 7:51 AM, Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum
>  wrote:
>
> So NFPA 13 11.1.5.3 does require the fire pump to be sized for the demand
> that is on the discharge side of the fire pump regardless of whether it is
> site demand or fire sprinkler demand or both.  If the fire pump is
> supplying both a 2000 gpm site demand and 900 gpm fire sprinkler demand,
> the fire pump would have to be a minimum of 2000 gpm.  (2000 gpm x 150% +
> 3000 gpm).  Correct?
>
> My original question wasn't meant to determine if site and fire sprinkler
> demands need to be added together.  Just if a fire pump supplies both per
> NFPA 13 11.1.5.3, then fire pump gpm has to be able to meet both not just
> the greater of the two.
>
> Thanks,
> Gregg Fontes
> Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
> 209-334-9119
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> On Behalf Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 6:21 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bob Caputo 
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
>
> Lots of great responses to this question, the best of which is that it is
> really up to the local AHJ to determine what will be required.  That said,
> in the context of NFPA 13 (2016 edition) we should note two specific
> applicable sections in consideration of the issue:
>
> First, section 3.8.2.1.3 defines a private fire hydrant as a valved
> connection on a water supply system having one or more outlets and that is
> used to supply hose and fire department pumpers with water on private
> property. [24, 2013] Second, and most important to the question is section
> 11.1.5.3* which requires pumps shall be sized to supply the equipment that
> they serve.
>
>
> The issue of fire flow is interesting and separate because it requires a
> volume of water at 20 psi, based on the construction type and size of the
> building, which can be reduced by 50% for a sprinklered building.  The
> point is that the fire pump cannot make water and can only provide
> pressure.  If your volume is not met, you’ll need a water storage tank and
> a pump. (Both of which are required to be sized for the equipment they
> serve).
>
> The private hydrant is likely required because the public hydrants on the
> street are too far from the rear of the building for normal hose lays and
> the friction loss per 100 ft of hose is about 29 psi.  Some AHJ’s require
> that hydrant to become public and piped separately from the sprinkler
> system, with a dedicated easement but either way, the hydrant is for fire
> department use only, and they bring a pump in the engine when they show
> up - so its more likely you’d need to add a water storage tank if f

Re: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

😀

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> There goes my logic, right out the window..again.
>
> Mike Hill
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:21 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bob Caputo 
> Subject: Re: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank
>
> No, you are not permitted to use elevation pressure from a gravity tank.
> You do not know the elevation of the water in the tank which is depleted
> during the operation of the systems in fighting the fire.  You are
> permitted to use the pumps productive curve at 150% of rated flow and 65%
> of rated pressure
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm working on a project where they are adding a new building to an
> > existing campus. There is an existing fire water storage tank and fire
> > pump  that serves the site underground fire loop. The new building has
> > a very demanding sprinkler system that just barely exceeds the fire
> > pump's pressure available at the demand flow (using just the pump
> > curve as the water supply).
> >
> > Normally, I would be conservative and use just a few psi as my water
> > supply from the tank (as though it were nearly empty). But, is that
> > overly conservative? The tank is mounted on the ground, at the same
> > elevation as the fire pump, but it is nearly 45 feet tall, with a
> > total capacity of over
> > 500,000 gallons. Can I use some of that elevation pressure, or do I
> > need to design and calc as though the tank is nearly depleted?
> >
> > -Kyle M
> > ___
> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
> > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >
> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> > er.org
> >
> --
> Bob Caputo, CFPS
> *President*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> p: 214-349-5965 ext124
> w: firesprinkler.org
> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
> <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/
> >
><https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>
>
> *Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*
>
> By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
> Sprinkler Fitters <
> https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Education/Apprentice_Training/WWW/Education/Apprenticeship_Training.aspx?hkey=e88ef09e-d74c-407f-abcd-995aff866149
> >,
> you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
> Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
> productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more <
> https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Education/Apprentice_Training/WWW/Education/Apprenticeship_Training.aspx?hkey=e88ef09e-d74c-407f-abcd-995aff866149
> >
> .
> ___
> 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
>
-- 
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org
<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>
   <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
<https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Education/Apprentice_Training/WWW/Education/Apprenticeship_Training.aspx?hkey=e88ef09e-d74c-407f-abcd-995aff866149>,
you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more
<https://www.firesprinkler.org/WWW/Education/Apprentice_Training/WWW/Education/Apprenticeship_Training.aspx?hkey=e88ef09e-d74c-407f-abcd-995aff866149>
.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

No, you are not permitted to use elevation pressure from a gravity tank.
You do not know the elevation of the water in the tank which is depleted
during the operation of the systems in fighting the fire.  You are
permitted to use the pumps productive curve at 150% of rated flow and 65%
of rated pressure

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I'm working on a project where they are adding a new building to an
> existing campus. There is an existing fire water storage tank and fire
> pump  that serves the site underground fire loop. The new building has a
> very demanding sprinkler system that just barely exceeds the fire pump's
> pressure available at the demand flow (using just the pump curve as the
> water supply).
>
> Normally, I would be conservative and use just a few psi as my water
> supply from the tank (as though it were nearly empty). But, is that overly
> conservative? The tank is mounted on the ground, at the same elevation as
> the fire pump, but it is nearly 45 feet tall, with a total capacity of over
> 500,000 gallons. Can I use some of that elevation pressure, or do I need to
> design and calc as though the tank is nearly depleted?
>
> -Kyle M
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
-- 
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: firesprinkler.org



   

*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for
Sprinkler Fitters
,
you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more

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

Re: Hydrant barrel loss

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Sincerely you’re measuring the flow and pressure at the hydrant in the
first place, why would you need to know that?  Just curious...

Reverse engineering the water supply in the water main below?


On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:57 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Does anyone have any tech data or knowledge of the pressure loss within a
> wet-barrel hydrant?  I've tried to reach Mueller/Jones but their customer
> service isn't answering.
>
>
> Protection Design and Consulting
> Steve Leyton, President
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  www.protectiondesign.com<
> http://www.protectiondesign.com/>
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108
> Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
>
>
> ___
> 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] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

A lot of this depends on whether the private hydrant is supplied from the fire 
pump or around it (directly from the city supply)

In Mr. Leyton’s scenario of a manual standpipe arrangement, he is absolutely 
correct because a manual standpipe requires manual intervention to be of use by 
definition.  However, fire hydrant needs to produce a minimum flow rate.  So if 
the fire pump in the original question is the primary supply for the sprinkler 
system and the fire hydrant, I would expect the pump to be sized for both 
simultaneously.  The hydrant could be used for something other than hand lines 
fighting a fire within the building served, such as an adjacent wildland fire.  
If the hydrant has an adequate city supply, I would size the pump for the 
system only.  

This is why the local AHJ has to be included in the discussion, so that all 
aspects are considered.  Again, fire pumps move water and add pressure, they 
can’t add water.   

Again, just my 2 cents wort…. Not be be considered the opinion of NFPA, AFSA or 
any technical committee nor the formal opinion of the NFPA 13, 24, 291 or 25 
committees.



Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org <http://firesprinkler.org/>  
 <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>   
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>   
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>   
<https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>
 

Did You Know: Your AFSA membership entitles you to a free 30 minute 
consultation with our labor attorney…  
Enter your apprentices to win a trip to San Antonio! 

Deadline to enter to compete in the 28th Annual National Apprentice Competition 
is April 30, 2021. Don't miss this opportunity to be recognized for your 
training efforts! It’s free to enter online at 
https://www.firesprinkler.org/competition 
<https://www.firesprinkler.org/competition>

> On Apr 23, 2021, at 11:06 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Let's change the context to a similar demand scenario where a wet-manual 
> combined standpipe/sprinkler system requires a pump to meet the sprinkler 
> demand.  In that case, the pump can be sized for sprinklers only as the 
> primary water supply for the standpipe demand is pumped to the FDC.In 
> this case, you said that there is a bypass from city water around the pump: 
> does the city water supply meet the hydrant demand in this configuration?  If 
> yes, then you do NOT have to size the pump for hydrant flow because the pump 
> isn't the primary water supply for the hydrants.   They will over-perform if 
> the pressure in the discharge main drops during a hydrant flow scenario and 
> the pump kicks in because it will pressurize the line to its rating - this is 
> a good thing.  But you do not have to size the pump for the hydrants if the 
> primary (city) water supply can meet the demand. 
> 
> 
> The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 13 
> and 24 Technical Committees, nor is intended to serve as an interpretation of 
> the standard.
> 
> 
> Steve Leyton
> Protection Design & Consulting
> San Diego, CA 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Gregg Fontes via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 7:51 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Gregg Fontes 
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
> 
> So NFPA 13 11.1.5.3 does require the fire pump to be sized for the demand 
> that is on the discharge side of the fire pump regardless of whether it is 
> site demand or fire sprinkler demand or both.  If the fire pump is supplying 
> both a 2000 gpm site demand and 900 gpm fire sprinkler demand, the fire pump 
> would have to be a minimum of 2000 gpm.  (2000 gpm x 150% + 3000 gpm).  
> Correct?  
> 
> My original question wasn't meant to determine if site and fire sprinkler 
> demands need to be added together.  Just if a fire pump supplies both per 
> NFPA 13 11.1.5.3, then fire pump gpm has to be able to meet both not just the 
> greater of the two. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Gregg Fontes
> Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc.
> 209-334-9119
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 6:21 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bob Caputo 
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
> 
> Lots of great responses to this question, the best of which is that it is 
> really up to the local AHJ to determine what will be required.  That said, in 
> the 

Re: [EXTERNAL] Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Lots of great responses to this question, the best of which is that it is 
really up to the local AHJ to determine what will be required.  That said, in 
the context of NFPA 13 (2016 edition) we should note two specific applicable 
sections in consideration of the issue:

First, section 3.8.2.1.3 defines a private fire hydrant as a valved connection 
on a water supply system having one or more outlets and that is used to supply 
hose and fire department pumpers with water on private property. [24, 2013]
Second, and most important to the question is section 11.1.5.3* which requires 
pumps shall be sized to supply the equipment that they serve.


The issue of fire flow is interesting and separate because it requires a volume 
of water at 20 psi, based on the construction type and size of the building, 
which can be reduced by 50% for a sprinklered building.  The point is that the 
fire pump cannot make water and can only provide pressure.  If your volume is 
not met, you’ll need a water storage tank and a pump. (Both of which are 
required to be sized for the equipment they serve). 

The private hydrant is likely required because the public hydrants on the 
street are too far from the rear of the building for normal hose lays and the 
friction loss per 100 ft of hose is about 29 psi.  Some AHJ’s require that 
hydrant to become public and piped separately from the sprinkler system, with a 
dedicated easement but either way, the hydrant is for fire department use only, 
and they bring a pump in the engine when they show up - so its more likely 
you’d need to add a water storage tank if fire flow is the concern.  Fire flow 
is not a NFPA 13 issue but section 11.1.5.3 is. 

Just adding my 2 cents...



Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org   
    
   
   

 

Did You Know: Your AFSA membership entitles you to a free 30 minute 
consultation with our labor attorney…  
Enter your apprentices to win a trip to San Antonio! 

Deadline to enter to compete in the 28th Annual National Apprentice Competition 
is April 30, 2021. Don't miss this opportunity to be recognized for your 
training efforts! It’s free to enter online at 
https://www.firesprinkler.org/competition 


> On Apr 21, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I've had at least one Official state (opinion) that the "Fire Flow"  @ 20 
> PSI" was never intended to be "provided to the site hydrants". It is simply a 
> recommendation for the benefit of Fire Fighters using their pumpers and hoes 
> to "preserve" 20 psi in the city water main for all the obvious reasons. Ive 
> also has fire fighters tell me that if they know its only a structure fire, 
> (no occupants) they will not pull their suction pressure down below 20 psi. 
> However, if there are known lives at stake, they will go negative on the 
> suction pressure if they feel its necessary. 
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  > On Behalf Of Ron 
> Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 9:12 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: Ron Greenman mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fire Pump Sprk & Fire Flow Demand
> 
> Consider that if the building was not there and you could meet the required 
> CFC fireflow for the site you'd be done, just as you would for any land 
> development project, municipal or private. No pump necessary. Then you 
> reference 13 as the place with the sticky wicket paragraph about everything 
> after the pump. Remember that 13 addresses sprinkler systems and associated 
> hose allowances and if your site system could handle both of those without a 
> pump you'd also be done. Since you apparently need a pump to meet 13 
> requirements I'd say your pump needs to be sized for the sprinkler and 
> associated hose stream allowance from 13 only. But then who the hell am I?
> As Craig said, check with the approving authority. And as a bit of learned 
> advice, didn't ask for a solution but rather give that person your read of 
> the rules and how you got there, and then ask if that's how they see it.
> Your job is to come up with the solution and theirs is to yay or nay it.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:40 AM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> 
>> You do not have to prove building system demand and site fire flow 
>> concurrently. Hard stop.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steve Leyton
>> 
>> (Sent from my smartphone; please excuse typos and voic

Re: Old sprinklers

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

This may have been approved by the local AHJ, which would be the
appropriate assumption based on NFPA 25. We are not doing a design
analysis.

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 9:34 AM Dale Wingard via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Sounds like the intent was to protect the egress.  I'm not sure about the
> current IBC but there use to be where a max of 6 sprinklers was allowed to
> be supplied from the domestic water to provide this sort of protection
> under certain conditions.  I'm still working from home so no access to the
> codes right now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dale F. Wingard, SET
> Designer Commercial/Marine Division
> NICET IV #76284
> Water-based Systems
>
> Hiller Systems
> A Division of The Hiller Companies, Inc.
>
> 3751 Joy Springs Drive
> Mobile, AL 36693
> c: 251.509.7108
> o: 251.661.1275 ext. 10145
> HillerFire.com
>
>
>
> Protecting life and property since 1919
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 9:12 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: RE: Old sprinklers
>
> Is there also a stand-alone sprinkler system, or are those the only 4
> heads in the building?
>
> Matt
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On
> Behalf Of Thomas Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2021 9:05 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Thomas Reinhardt 
> Subject: Old sprinklers
>
> Question for the group. I recently did an inspection at a very old
> McDonalds restaurant in town. During inspection found 4 sprinkler heads
> piped off domestic  protecting the rear corridor leading the exit access. I
> found nothing in the old file showing this installation. I do realize that
> maybe when it was built that the code may have warrant this protection.
> Usually I see this in residential building where the basement store room
> has one or two heads. Any thoughts. Thanks
>
> Tom Reinhardt
> Skokie Fire Prevention Bureau
> Plan Review/Fire Inspector
> 7424 Niles Center Road
> Skokie Fire Department
> Skokie, IL 60077 847-982-5342
> thomas.reinha...@skokie.org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&c=E,1,Kyxi0IswWwD5FpUs_cImkdjJRvTSorD0upYS-jzozJaKfjYghTSr9uSadsfLiNi-EV_3FL7OIQiVK3UZ2y-g8fFY520QBJUlPMx1NFzRjaajY5YFYJjNYsbKUeNq&typo=1
> ___
> 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: Different Levels of protection open to each other in the same hazard

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

BTW, I probably should have included in my comments, the requirements for floor 
control valve assemblies in NFPA 13, 2019 edition section 16.9.11, which might 
be applicable to Jerry’s situation.  Again, I may have missed the point of the 
original question…. But I’m old so I have an excuse! 




Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org   
    
   
   

 

Expand your business with ITM

Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector 
Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended 
learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry 
leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for 
Spring 2021 .

> On Mar 18, 2021, at 9:35 PM, BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I’d ask why. Is the fire sprinkler system acting as detection system for a 
> smoke exhaust system? 
> 
> Best.
> 
> Bruce Verhei
> 
> 
>> On 03/18/2021 8:05 PM Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> We've had cases where the 2 story volume area is required to be protected 
>> from the 1st floor system, but not the entire building just off of one 
>> system because of that.
>> 
>> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
>> Engineering Manager
>> MFP Design
>> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
>> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
>> www.mfpdesign.com
>> 
>> Send large files to us via: 
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 5:03 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Jerry Van Kolken 
>> Subject: Different Levels of protection open to each other in the same hazard
>> 
>> I've had this review comment come up and want to know if there was any way 
>> to argue it.
>> 
>> I have a project where each level of the building has its own system. There 
>> are areas where the lower level opens into the upper level. Because these 2 
>> level are not complete separate the reviewer is asking me to protect them 
>> with the same system.
>> 
>> Jerry Van Kolken
>> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
>> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
>> Oceanside, CA 92058
>> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>> 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use 
>> of the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential 
>> or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
>> notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, 
>> copying, distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than 
>> the intended recipient is prohibited.
>> ___
>> 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: Different Levels of protection open to each other in the same hazard

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Jerry,

NFPA 13 is clear that it is the designers responsibility to design the system 
and chose the design method.  It is the AHJs (reviewer’s) responsibility to 
review the submitted design for acceptance to adopted codes and standards.  
Unless the reviewer in your case is the owner’s representative as would be the 
case for an A&E firm, the design method is the purview of the designer.

Admittedly, the specific comment in NFPA 13, 2019 edition section 19.2.1 is 
speaking to the selection of a design approach ie: density/area; residential; 
room design method… but the statement is clear in the fact that the design is 
required to meet the rules provided in NFPA 13 at the designer’s digression.  
You may not exceed the allowable area per system, not exceed spacing 
limitations and provide proper hanger and bracing components, and so on, unless 
you submit alternatives under section 1.5.

I would not encourage you to pick a fight with an AHJ, who’s purview it is to 
decide what is compliant or not… but they are not the system designer. 

With an apology if I’ve missed the point of your issues…. the information 
provided herein is an informal interpretation of the standard and the opinion 
of the writer and may not be considered a formal interpretation of the 
standard, may not express the opinion of NFPA or its technical committees. 

Bob 




Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org   
    
   
   

 

Expand your business with ITM

Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector 
Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended 
learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry 
leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for 
Spring 2021 .

> On Mar 18, 2021, at 9:35 PM, BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I’d ask why. Is the fire sprinkler system acting as detection system for a 
> smoke exhaust system? 
> 
> Best.
> 
> Bruce Verhei
> 
> 
>> On 03/18/2021 8:05 PM Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> We've had cases where the 2 story volume area is required to be protected 
>> from the 1st floor system, but not the entire building just off of one 
>> system because of that.
>> 
>> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
>> Engineering Manager
>> MFP Design
>> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
>> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
>> www.mfpdesign.com
>> 
>> Send large files to us via: 
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 5:03 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Jerry Van Kolken 
>> Subject: Different Levels of protection open to each other in the same hazard
>> 
>> I've had this review comment come up and want to know if there was any way 
>> to argue it.
>> 
>> I have a project where each level of the building has its own system. There 
>> are areas where the lower level opens into the upper level. Because these 2 
>> level are not complete separate the reviewer is asking me to protect them 
>> with the same system.
>> 
>> Jerry Van Kolken
>> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
>> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
>> Oceanside, CA 92058
>> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>> 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use 
>> of the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential 
>> or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
>> notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, 
>> copying, distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than 
>> the intended recipient is prohibited.
>> ___
>> 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-firesprink

Re: Question about a drop pipe size

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Henry,

I’m not sure why the forum site would have disallowed your question but I will 
inquire with our IT people. 

To your specific question, NFPA 13, 2019 edition was reorganized (as you know) 
and all existing system modification requirements were moved to Chapter 29.  
The use of a 4”  maximum length nipple when remodeling existing pipe scheduled 
systems is permitted in section 29.4.3.  

Section 29.4.6 notes that you may not use this method where seismic design is 
required.  This change occurred many cycles ago after the Loma Prieta and 
Northridge, CA earthquakes showed us that the 1/2” or 3/4” x 0-4 nipples were 
not substantial enough to withstand the weight of the attached drop assembly.

The development of mechanical tee products and the ease of drilling holes to 
accommodate them are a more practical and safe method of providing pendent 
sprinklers when remodeling existing systems utilizing existing piping.

I hope this is the data you’re looking for….

The information provided herein is an informal interpretation of the standard 
and the opinion of the writer and may not be considered a formal interpretation 
of the standard, may not express the opinion of NFPA or its technical 
committees.


Best regards,

Bob




Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org   
    
   
   

 

Expand your business with ITM

Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector 
Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended 
learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry 
leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for 
Spring 2021 .

> On Mar 18, 2021, at 8:44 AM, Henry Fontana  wrote:
> 
> Good morning All
>  
> I know I have read that you can no longer remove a sprinkler and add an (1/2” 
> or ¾”) extra heavy nipple and up size to 1” and add a new drop. I have a 
> customer that is asking to see this in a code document.  I cannot seem to 
> find this, can someone please help? 
>  
>  
> Henry Fontana
> Operations Manager (NYC)
> Johnson Controls Fire Protection
> 100 Lighting Way Secaucus, NJ 07094
> Cell: 201-210-9873
> henry.font...@jci.com 
> 

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

Re: leaving abandoned sprinkler piping in place

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

NFPA 13, 2019 edition actually addresses this in section 29.2




Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org   
    
   
   

 

Expand your business with ITM

Professionalize the role of your inspection team with AFSA’s ITM Inspector 
Development Program. This comprehensive 20-month program provides a blended 
learning environment teamed with robust curriculum created by top industry 
leaders. Plus, the first six-months of instruction is online. Now enrolling for 
Spring 2021 .

> On Mar 17, 2021, at 9:12 AM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have a customer that is being asked to cut and cap an existing system and 
> leave it in place.  I seem to recall a section of the fire or building code 
> that does not permit you to leave abandoned life safety equipment in place.  
> They are being asked to remove the sprinklers but leave all of the piping 
> dead in the air.  Is anyone familiar with this section of the fire / building 
> code?  If so, would you be able to provide the location in the IFC / IBC so 
> that I can forward it on?
> 
> Thanks in advance for the assistance.
> 
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
> travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> www.mfpdesign.com
> 
> Send large files to us via: 
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

Re: Fire Retardant Coating used in Combustible concealed spaces

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Actually, the coating would be allowed under the equivalency clause with
approval of the AHJ.

With AHJ approval, the 3000 sq ft rule could also be ignored.  Some years
ago, I made the mistake of saying no to this question while doing
interpretations for NFPA as a consultant and almost got them sued over my
response - so I know this answer really well

Bob Caputo

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:44 AM tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Project is a 100 year old 6 story Steel & Concrete Hotel building. The roof
> is steel framed with concrete above and the Sixth floor ceiling is Plaster
> over metal lath. Over the years the building has been added onto with wood
> framing above the Sixth floor ceilings.
>
> As Part of a major renovation started in 2020, the installation of a
> complete NFPA 13 sprinkler system and Standpipes is taking place.
>
>
>
> A few substantial combustible concealed spaces have been discovered
> throughout the building on other floors too. If nothing is done the
> sprinkler design areas would need to be increased to 3,000 SF as outlined
> in
> Chapter 11.2.3.1.5. The sprinkler contractor and I have suggested filling
> these spaces with noncombustible Insulation.
>
>
>
> The architect and builder are discussing Flame Retardant Coating to be
> applied to the wood framing in order meet the Non-Combustible and Limited
> Combustible concealed space definition. In reviewing Chapter 11.2.3.1.5.2 I
> don't see where Flame Retardant Coating is an option in order to reduce the
> design area.
>
>
>
> I believe In order to reduce the Design areas these combustible spaces need
> to be filled with noncombustible Insulation.
>
>
>
> Would "Flame Retardant Coating" be considered an option as outlined in
> A.8.15.1.2.11 (commentary text) the equivalency provisions in Section 1.5?
>
>
>
> Thank you for your imput.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: Distilled Spirits

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

FM Global has a standard for this specifically.  I recommend downloading it 
from their website.  Great information that might provide guidance for you.




Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org   
    
   
   


“The enemy of change and leadership isn’t a ‘no,’ it’s a ‘not yet.’ ‘Not yet’ 
is the safest, easiest way to forestall change.” – Seth Godin
>> Be a Member, Get a Member
>> 
>> We’re growing and introducing many new programs to help meet your team’s 
>> growth and business needs. AFSA is offering a six-month trial membership for 
>> contractors and a 12-month trial membership for municipal AHJs. Let’s help 
>> potential members see what they’re missing! Current members who recruit a 
>> new contractor member will receive a $100 gift card and the new member gets 
>> a free webinar.  Let’s grow stronger together! Join AFSA 
>> .
>> 
>> 





> On Feb 3, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via 
> Sprinklerforum  wrote:
> 
> Can anyone direct me to design criteria for the manufacturing and storage of
> distilled spirits ( Rum)?
> 
> 
> 
> Any info would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> Troy
> 
> ___
> 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: schedule 7 pipe?

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Jeff Normand is correct in terms of the 1st exposed thread at the fitting 
having less depth of material than a schedule 10 roll groove, however most 
corrosion we see is related to oxidation as opposed to MIC.  The problem with 
roll grooves tends to be water trapped between the grooves sitting in the 
“damned” area regardless of pitch of pipe or the rating of the gasket used with 
the coupling (in dry pipe or reaction systems). 

Bob Caputo 


> On Jan 20, 2021, at 1:07 PM, Jeff Normand via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have been designing with sch 7 pipe for over 25 years. Not sure about
> longevity. But you mentioned A53 unlisted pipe. Possibly getting listed?
> 
> I would really like to see comparisons of sch 7, 10 and 40 for corrosion
> and MIC. Specially treated pipe some manufacturers claim. Always heard that
> sch 40 threads are just as bad as sch 10 grooved.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:45 PM Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum <
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> 
>> Considering how much corrosion I've observed and documented in wet and dry
>> systems in schedule 10 in 8-15 years - not MIC - we only specify schedule
>> 40.
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
>> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On
>> Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11:07 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Steve Leyton ; Matt Grise <
>> m...@afpsprink.com>
>> Subject: RE: schedule 7 pipe?
>> 
>> Considering how much "Sch. 7" we've seen perforated by MIC, and also that
>> our firm is heavily invested in the institutional and educations sectors
>> where clients want 50+ year buildings, we only spec' Sch. 10 and 40.
>> 
>> Steve L.
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise
>> via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:58 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Matt Grise 
>> Subject: schedule 7 pipe?
>> 
>> Has there been any push/interest in allowing unlisted (standard ASTM A53)
>> schedule 7 steel pipe to be allowed by code in place of the listed "flow"
>> piping options?
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> ___
>> 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: Merry Christmas,

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Thank youSame to you and yours

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:38 AM Mario Berrios via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Merry Christmas,
> mario berrios
> ___
> 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: potential freezing in ESFR system

[Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum]

Matt,

Not sure many people are lurking around the forum this week, so I’ll offer my 2 
cents worth….  1st and foremost, I would get the GC to sign off on a letter 
stating that you are not responsible for any freeze damage resulting from their 
request to perform the hydro prior to having heat in the building.

This is not as much chance for damage with the systems drained in my opinion, 
because if there is any ice formed at low points  or above the sprinklers, 
there is room for expansion without damage to surrounding parts.  That said, 
the sprinkler manufacturer would probably not recommend or stand behind their 
product in the event of any such damage.  

You didn’t note if the ESFR pendant sprinklers are attached directly to the 
branch lines or on drop nipples but assuming attached directly, I would 
recommend putting a good shop vac on the main drain and pulling a few remote 
sprinklers to draw off as much water as possible.  Regardless, protect you 
liability with a well written letter explaining your concerns and putting the 
responsibility for potential damage on the GC or the owner.  This will likely 
change their mind about doing the hydro before heat is available.

Just my opinion - and is not intended to represent the opinion of AFSA, NFPA or 
any NFPA Committee

Bob  




Bob Caputo, CFPS
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
p:  214-349-5965 ext124
w:  firesprinkler.org   
    
   
   

Love free stuff? 

Tell an industry friend why you are an AFSA member and when they join or 
re-join the AFSA family, you will receive a $100 Amazon gift card and they’ll 
receive one free AFSA on-demand webinar of their choice—including CEUs (a $250 
value)! It’s our way to say thank you and welcome. Offer valid through December 
31, 2020. Visit firesprinkler.org/join 
.




> On Dec 22, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> we have a GC who wants to hydro test a pendant ESFR system before they have 
> heat in the building. They want to fill and test during the day while 
> temperatures are over 40F, and then drain the system before it gets cold 
> again.
> 
> I thought it did not sound like a great idea, but I can't necessarily find 
> any code or rule that specifically prohibits the plan.
> 
> on the same note - if a pendant ESFR warehouse were going to be left cold and 
> drained, would it be required to pull every head?
> 
> matt
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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