RE: 30' diameter and 30' high storage tank

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Keep in mind that 12 ft is the maximum distance measured along the surface of 
the protected asset per NFPA 15.  "Net rate" in NFPA 15 (2017) Section 7.4.2.1 
means that one has to include necessary flow to achieve an overall average of 
0.25 gpm/sq ft of all exposed vessel surface.  If your published nozzle spray 
pattern radius at the plane of protection is, say, 3 ft for your axial distance 
and fixed angle nozzle orientation, then your horizontal on-center nozzle 
spacing can only be 6 ft.  On a vertical plane, a vertical spacing of 12 ft 
will require each nozzle to provide sufficient discharge for 12 ft x 6 ft @ 
0.25 gpm/sq ft or 18 gpm.  The upper level nozzle, flowing only the minimum 7 
gpm flow for the same axial distance and fixed angle nozzle orientation does 
not achieve the necessary net 0.25 gpm/sq ft density.  Once you are below a 
vessel hemisphere, now you must directly wet all surface within spray pattern 
radii per Section 7.4.2.4 as rundown is no longer allowed.  This results in 
significant overflow below the equator due to the required overlapping of 
patterns as well as more closely-spaced nozzles.  Follow the manufacturers' 
published information in their cutsheets or you are using the nozzle outside 
its listing.

If API is applicable...well...see API Publ 2510A Section 5.3.2 and API RP 2030 
Section 7.3.6 regarding alternatives allowing rundown on LPG spheres and other 
petrochemical-related pressure vessels, exchangers, and towers.

Good luck!

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 320-250-5404  \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 11:25 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; Kyle.Montgomery 

Subject: RE: 30' diameter and 30' high storage tank

Not necessary.  It's a basic engineering exercise.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:24 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 30' diameter and 30' high storage tank

I think this is one of those things, just like with Hi-Ex foam generators, 
where you really want to get some input from the manufacturer.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 8:51 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 30' diameter and 30' high storage tank

Spray nozzles are selected based on their angle of spray.  So depending on the 
distance off the wall of the tank, the pressure and flow characteristics, you 
select your nozzle.  Once you know what the area of coverage based on the above 
info will be for the nozzle, you can determine the horizontal spacing since 
there needs to be some overlap of the spray pattern in order to insure complete 
coverage of the tank surface.  You do not want a ton of over spray nor do you 
want dry spots.  There is no specific spacing rules as there are too many 
variables for anyone to make a blanket statement on spacing.

As far as vertical, 12 ft. is subjective also.  If there are appendages off the 
tank which could interrupt run-down or deflect the spray pattern, you might 
need to have them closer.  In the vertical the spray impingement may not 
contact the tank wall 100% between nozzles but you have run-down that is taken 
into consideration to some extent.

Check your email  inbox.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Easter, Tim (Contractor)
Sent: Th

RE: 30' diameter and 30' high storage tank

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Tim,
All manufacturers' cutsheets I've used walk you through how to determine this.  
In addition to the axial distance, the spray profile for your proposed nozzle 
needs to be known (typically shown on the cutsheets), as well as the nozzle's 
fixed angle of orientation.  Dependent upon these parameters and residual 
pressures within the prescribed range of the nozzle, the radius of your spray 
pattern at the plane of protection can then be determined.  Assuming your 
nozzle is oriented orthogonally to the surface of your vessel, the area of 
direct spray pattern impingement at the plane of protection is then A = πr2.  
As such, the maximum horizontal spacing is then equal to the diameter of your 
nozzle spray pattern since this is the width of the area of direct spray 
impingement.  This meets the criteria of NFPA 15 (2017) Section 7.4.2.3.

Tyco's D3 and Viking's Model E cuts are quite similar.  BETE's Type N has 
similar published documentation.  As has been indicated previously by others, 
the manufacturer's want you to use their equipment so they are quite helpful 
for proper application/selection guidance.  Last I checked, BETE provides 
actual spray pattern section profiles based on project specifics.  Other 
manufacturers just direct the designer to contact them for specific data for 
specific applications.

Good luck!

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 320-250-5404  \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Easter, Tim (Contractor) via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 11:58 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Easter, Tim (Contractor) 
Subject: RE: 30' diameter and 30' high storage tank

If my axial distance is 2'-0" what is my horizontal on center-nozzle spacing. 
How do you determine the horizontal on center-nozzle spacing?

Best,
Timothy M. Easter

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

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

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

IFC 2012 Section 901.4.5

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 320-250-5404  \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:33 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re not 
allowed to have anything in a sprinkler system that doesn’t function as what it 
appears to be.

Anyone know the chapter and verse on this?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:19 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Yes, you could do that, but you would have to dismount the DPV. We are trying 
to determine if removing the clapper and installing a flow switch is a 
“prohibited” procedure.

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with 
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:


From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet

Good Day Everyone!

A question has come up regarding the practice of taking the clapper out of a 
dry pipe valve in order to convert the system from dry pipe to wet pipe. We 
have had local AHJ’s demand that the valve itself be changed to avoid confusion 
for the first responders, but I was wondering if anyone on the forum knew of a 
specific code reference that would prohibit removing the clapper and leaving 
the DPV in place?

Thanks in Advance,

John Paulsen – SET
Sprinkler System Design & Sales
Silco Fire and Security
2345 Southwest Blvd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
F-614-449-2007
C-614-348-8206


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=eFKzVOzpKyeMvJp0mTEEelBwXLf6OKDPUZ-_OY5E3t8&s=B90DKgjKNCUTNp_BFOdO_a9DaTX3l6M4u_7zCQoprpw&e=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=Qi814SskoS25kTQqZ9f7KTPoINGV9-DI2T9Mn7AeIHU&s=1jfyWhJmiYjADoWN3yFQwnXw-W3Uj_mVkEEZrYWqXcE&e=
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Trying to determine hydrant locations per IFC, wondering how sprinkler coverage omissions will affect distances.

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

James,

From IBC 2018 commentary:
Section 202
DEFINITIONS
[F] AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM. An automatic sprinkler system, for fire 
protection purposes, is an integrated system of underground and overhead piping 
designed in accordance with fire protection engineering standards. The system 
includes a suitable water supply. The portion of the system above the ground is 
a network of specially sized or hydraulically designed piping installed in a 
structure or area, generally overhead, and to which automatic sprinklers are 
connected in a systematic pattern. The system is usually activated by heat from 
a fire and discharges water over the fire area.

  *   An automatic sprinkler system is one type of automatic fire-extinguishing 
system. Automatic sprinkler systems are the most common, and their life safety 
attributes are widely recognized. The code specifies three types of automatic 
sprinkler systems: one installed in accordance with NFPA 13, one in accordance 
with NFPA 13R and the other in accordance with NFPA 13D. To be considered for 
most code design alternatives, a building’s automatic sprinkler system must be 
installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 (see Section 903.3.1.1).

In a fire, sprinklers automatically open and discharge water onto the fire in a 
spray pattern that is designed to contain or extinguish the fire. Originally, 
automatic sprinkler systems were developed just for the protection of buildings 
and their contents. Because of the development and improvements in sprinkler 
head response time and water distribution, however, automatic sprinkler systems 
are now also considered life safety systems. Proper operation of an automatic 
sprinkler system requires careful selection of the sprinkler heads so that 
water in sufficient quantity, at adequate pressure and  properly distributed 
will be available to suppress the fire. Note that he use of the term “fire 
area” in the last sentence of the definition refers to the area in which the 
fire is occurring, not to the defined term “Fire area.”

There are many different types of automatic sprinkler systems—wet pipe, dry 
pipe, preaction, anti-freeze and various combinations. Sprinklers can be 
pendant, upright or sidewall and can be designed for standard or extended 
coverage. Additional information can be found in NFPA 13.

Section 903
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

[F] 903.3 Installation requirements. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be 
designed and installed in accordance with Sections 903.3.1 through 903.3.8.
[F] 903.3.1 Standards. Sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in 
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 unless otherwise permitted by Sections 
903.3.1.2 and 903.3.1.3 and other chapters of this code, as applicable.
 [F] 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. Where the provisions of this code 
require that a building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with an 
automatic sprinkler system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be 
installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 except as provided in Sections 
903.3.1.1.1 and 903.3.1.1.2.

  *   NFPA 13 contains the minimum requirements for the design and installation 
of automatic water sprinkler systems and exposure protection sprinkler systems. 
The requirements contained in the standard include the character and adequacy 
of the water supply and the selection of sprinklers, piping, valves and all of 
the materials and accessories. The standard does not include requirements for 
installation of private fire service mains and their appurtenances, 
installation of fire pumps, or construction and installation of gravity and 
pressure tanks and towers.

NFPA 13 defines seven classifications or types of water sprinkler systems: wet 
pipe [see Commentary Figure 903.3.1.1], dry pipe, preaction or deluge, combined 
dry pipe and preaction, antifreeze systems, sprinkler systems that are designed 
for a special purpose and outside sprinklers for exposure protection. While 
numerous variables must be considered in selecting the proper type of sprinkler 
system, the wet-pipe sprinkler system is recognized as the most effective and 
efficient. The wet-pipe system is also the most reliable type of sprinkler 
system because water under pressure is available at the sprinkler. Therefore, 
wet-pipe sprinkler systems are recommended wherever possible.

The extent of coverage and distribution of sprinklers is based on the NFPA 13 
standard. Numerous conditions exist in the standard where sprinklers are 
specifically required and also where they may or may not be located. Once it is 
determined that the sprinkler system is to be in accordance with NFPA 13, that 
standard must be reviewed for installation details. For example, exterior 
spaces such as combustible canopies are required to be equipped with sprinklers 
according to Section 8.15.7 of NFPA 13 where the canopy extends for a distance 
of 4 feet (1219 mm) or more. A 3-foot (914 mm) combustible canopy would not 
req

RE: Table 22.4.2.1 NFPA 30

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Tim,
Keep in mind the fact that each pair of tanks is independently evaluated for 
spacing purposes per the note at the bottom of NFPA 30 (2015) Table 22.4.2.1 as 
further explained in Section A.22.4.2.1 and that there are exceptions in the 
subsequent subsections.

There are other documents out there which may also drive spacing such as PIP 
(Process Industry Practices) PNE3 - Process Unit and Offsites Layout 
Practices, GAPS (Global Asset Protection Services) GAP.2.5.2 - Oil and Chemical 
Plant Layout and Spacing, and CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety) G-84 - 
Guidelines for Facility Siting and Layout.  Larger petrochemical companies may 
have their own specific siting requirements as well.  Their applicability 
should be determined and documented prior to starting your project...LOL

Keep in mind that tank spacing is only one of several design parameters 
requiring consideration when determining the siting fire protection of 
aboveground tanks.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 320-250-5404  \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Easter, Tim (Contractor) via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Easter, Tim (Contractor) 
Subject: Table 22.4.2.1 NFPA 30

[cid:image001.png@01D5B739.A798DE50]

So whichever tanks hold flammable or combustible materials must follow this 
rule but everything else is exempt?


Best,
Timothy M. Easter, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
BAE Systems, Inc.
T: +1 423 578 1713  |  E: 
tim.eas...@holston-aap.com

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

RE: Looking for a 6" hanger for sloped roof

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Assuming you have done your homework regarding whether and at what hanger 
spacing the structure can support the weight of the water-filled pipe in 
accordance with NFPA 13; in my experience, one still cannot hang from the 
bottom lip of exposed Z-purlins and must instead hang with something like a 
Cooper B-Line #51 side beam bracket from the center 1/3 of the purlin spine 
with ½” nut, bolt, and washers to not void the listing of the support structure 
itself.  From the side beam bracket, a ½” rod hanging down with a nut and 
Figure B3234 bevel washer oriented such that the rod can hang straight down 
without lateral loading or bending since it is axially loaded vertically in the 
direction of gravity thus complying with NFPA 13 (2019) Section 17.2.1.6 along 
with handbook commentary:

Threaded Sections of Rods. Threaded sections of rods shall not be formed or 
bent.
The requirement in 17.2.1.6 also applies to the rod once it is installed. 
Cracks can result if the rod is arranged with a lateral load applied to it. In 
other words, the rod must be axially loaded once it is connected between the 
building structure and the system pipe. Hanger attachments are available that 
are listed for attaching to the building structure and that can accommodate 
angles from vertical, allowing the rod to remain unbent.

I have seen many installations whose structural connections do not allow purely 
axial loading in the rod hangers and induce lateral loads in violation of this 
standard section.

Don’t forget that ultimately, the structural member manufacturer (Butler in 
this case) must be consulted for allowable connection location means and 
methods regarding drilling of their engineered structural members.

Good luck!

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 320-250-5404  \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of James Litvak via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 7:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Litvak 
Subject: Looking for a 6" hanger for sloped roof

I'm trying to hang 6" pipe flat beneath a roof with a 4:12 slope, but having 
trouble finding an attachment. It's a standard Butler-style building with 
Z-purlins, and I'm hanging the pipe flat, both perpendicular and parallel to 
the slope. The Sammy hangers with swivels are not listed, and the slope is way 
too steep to "adjust" the rod. About the only thing I have been able to find is 
welded linked eye rods from Tolco 
(http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/dam/public/bline/Resources/Library/catalogs/pipe_hangers/pipe_hangers_and_supports/TA-EyeRod.pdf).
 However, even though the Z-purlins are heavy gauge, it seems like a bad idea 
to hang from the bottom lip. In which case, even if I went with the linked eye 
rods, hanging from the side of the purlin seems like it would create its own 
difficulty. Does anyone here have a suggestion for how to hang in this 
situation? I also need to trapeze the pipe across the slope, but I figure 
whatever solution I can use to hang the pipe across the slope will also work 
for trapeze hangers.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

NFPA 14 Air supervision requirement

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Got a question with the 'apparently' all-encompassing dry standpipe air 
supervision requirement of NFPA 14 Section 6.1.1?:

  *   2013:

[cid:image009.png@01D5D2C2.A4A39510]

  *   2016:

[cid:image008.png@01D5D2C2.2A144EC0]

  *   2019:
[cid:image010.png@01D5D2C3.2F6A77E0]
Since it's illogical (to me) location has meaning, air pressure supervision 
appears required for both manual AND automatic dry standpipes.  Is this intent 
correct...even for a manual dry standpipe?  It seems to me that the dry 
standpipe supervision requirement should be coming from NFPA 14 based on the 
standpipe class and intended building use, not from 72.  Requiring air 
supervision could create prime conditions for intra-pipe corrosion for an 
otherwise normally-empty piping system.  Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Fire Protection Engineering Group
O 952-656-3662 \  NEW M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300  \  Bloomington, MN 55437

[cid:image001.png@01D024F0.1D126480]
  [cid:image002.png@01D024F0.1D126480] 
   
[cid:image003.png@01D024F0.1D126480]    
[cid:image004.png@01D024F0.1D126480]    
[cid:image005.png@01D024F0.1D126480]    
[cid:image006.jpg@01D5D2BD.0F914C10] 

Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
This email and any attachments are solely for the use of the addressed 
recipients and
may contain privileged client communication or privileged work product. If you 
are not the
intended recipient and receive this communication, please contact the sender by 
phone at
816-333-9400, and delete and purge this email from your email system and 
destroy any
other electronic or printed copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
[Logo_1_Primary_2Color_sm]
Create Amazing.

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

Re: Flammable liquid tanks in a garage

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Is NFPA 37 applicable?

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 26, 2020, at 5:24 AM, Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:


Could you give a few more details? What is in the tanks? Why are they there?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)


On Feb 26, 2020 at 12:30 AM, mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> wrote:


There is a garage with an existing system that has a restaurant on the floor 
above; the restaurant has (2) exposed flammable liquid tanks in the garage 
(with piping connected from the restaurant above to the tanks below. Question: 
What does this do to the hazard classification in the garage ? Would the owner 
need to build an NFPA 30 type enclosure around the tanks ? A bit of a grey area 
and not really sure how to proceed. Never seen this before. What says everyone ?



Sean Lockyer
Project Designer   6817 N. Orange 
Blossom Trail
Cell386-279-1197 Orlando, Florida 
32810
slock...@aitlifesafety.com Phone:407-816-9101
www.AITLifeSafety.com


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


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C214f0c6dc61c47205c9408d7baae69ce%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637183130573182120&sdata=759anIw%2BbdTSazsdzjPxFclNF%2BpPVUY2IRbpaKI1Er0%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

I would caution throwing all us engineers into the same stereotypical 
group...kind of like saying all Americans are racist.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2020, at 8:35 AM, Dennis Wilson via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:


Don’t you just love them engineers!!!




From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 6:50 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required

The spec is demanding 8.0K for the LH areas.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:48 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required

4.2k or even 2.8k can be your friend – if applicable.



Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material quote?  
Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click 
here
 to register.*
**Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to 
your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS 
devices
 or Android 
devices**



From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 4:34 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Knight mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Floor area less than required

Yep, it’s actually 14 sprinklers.  Bunch of small compartments.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
Fire by Knight, LLC
208-318-3057

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:33 PM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; 
sprinklerforum@

RE: C-Clamp Hangers

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Hanger attachments are being confused with bracing attachments.  
-   NFPA 13 (2019) Section 18.5.11.10 explicitly DOES NOT allow C-clamps 
used for seismic bracing structural attachments with orwithout restraining 
straps unless specifically listed for such use. 
-   Section 18.7.1 allows their use for hangers in seismically active areas 
when a restraining strap is included.  
-   Chapter 17 explicitly DOES allow listed use of c-clamps for hangers 
alone.  

See commentary for further discussion and pictures depicting their allowed 
hanger usage.

Hope this helps,

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 12:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
Subject: C-Clamp Hangers

Does anyone know the reasoning Why you would not be allowed to use C-Clamps for 
your hanger attachments? 

 

I've had a couple of specs have this requirement pass by my desk recently. 

 

Jerry Van Kolken

Millennium Fire Protection Corp.

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C1d14008726f74fa34d4308d849e89359%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637340610543326549&sdata=%2Bt0YUDv8iKf9xPab8hEUmLbdCBOX%2FIZ5VDKB7jaeLls%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Ethanol unloading exposure protection

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Your scenario, which sounds like exposure protection, is likely not going to be 
achieved using closed sprinklers and should instead be using deluge.  Why not 
provide a fixed water spray exposure system using open spray nozzles in 
accordance with NFPA 15, FM 4-1N,...or API RP 2030 Sections 7.2.2 and 7.3.12 
alleviating the need for dry sprinklers altogether?  Since the title of this 
thread says ethanol unloading, does this project fall under the purview of API? 
 API RP 2030 (and other documentation) has quite a bit of information about 
fixed water spray in the petrochemical industry.  Does the owner have their own 
specific guidelines/standards that must be followed over and above 
locally-adopted codes and standards?  In my experience, most do.

Good luck,


Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ben Young via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 12:59 PM
To: 321 via Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Ben Young 
Subject: Ethanol unloading exposure protection

Does anyone know where I can find some criteria (preferably in FM Global data 
sheets) on how to provide exposure protection on the exterior of a building 
wall  using dry sidewall heads?

I have an insurance company telling me to do this but they didn't give me a 
basis of design.


Trying to stay away from foam since to my knowledge there are no dry sidewalls 
listed for discharge devices and I don't want to deal with containment.

Benjamin Young
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C35d040c9d95c46ae338008d84f69e711%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637346663552988633&sdata=sC0dq%2BKJDyrxp%2F0MJbKHP9JrTsK8YWDXbZq0xvX5PPw%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Code requiring inclusion of possible concurrent flow

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

We have run into a dock FW system design where multiple automatic flushing 
valves are being provided on the system to prevent freezing by automatically 
flowing water at temps below 40°F to the order of 300 gpm.  Though this flow 
should absolutely be included in the system demand flow, I am having difficulty 
finding code direction requiring its inclusion in hydraulic demands other than 
where NFPA 13R systems may have to account for concurrent domestic flows.

Any code sections come to mind?

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Fire Protection Engineering Group
O 952-656-3662 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submittal Packages

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

It's very difficult to efficiently review a project when submittals come in 
piecemeal.  Inevitably, things get missed and resubmittals of such partial 
submittals only complicate matters.  Though there are always exceptions, we 
require complete (re)submittals with shop drawings complying with NFPA working 
plans requirements, quality annotated cutsheets clearly indicating any 
selected/elected options, along with the hydraulic calculations in accordance 
with NFPA hydraulic calculation procedures.  Incomplete submittals are rejected 
without review.  We also require each review comment of a submittal to be 
addressed in a returned written response letter accompanying the resubmittal.

We've had success when this is stated up front in bid documents and plan review 
generally goes much quicker and with less headache.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 10:41 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; John Denhardt 

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submittal Packages

John,  I have that requirement in big bold letters in several places in the 
specs but have had a contractor ask to submit components including the fire 
pump even before the first pipe has been placed on a drawing.

I was told this is how they've been doing it for decades.  Just wanted to see 
what the industry consensus was.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacobs.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C5ca87af7c38244f427b108d86ba08957%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637377684527248653&sdata=3aGT7kLeKIbnZg4TvDPBxUoz195Nl4J%2BkvETIT7u%2F50%3D&reserved=0
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 11:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submittal Packages

I have seen both.  I prefer the entire package.  However, I have worked with 
General Contractors that demand equipment data sheets with 2 weeks of contract 
award.

Engineers - a suggestion:  put the requirement in your specification to require 
a complete package if that is what you want.

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org
 
 

   


*Our members are at the heart of everything we do.*

*Don’t miss another issue!*

Sign up to get your exclusive copy of the industry’s leading membership 
magazine *Sprinkler* *Age* delivered straight to your mailbox, inbox, or both! 
Subscribe

RE: Obstruction Clarification

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Since you are using EC heads, presumably you are protecting LH or OH areas 
wherein, if you were using standard uprights or pendents in the space, you 
could ignore minimum spacing from nonstructural members per Section 
10.2.7.2.1.4.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of JD Gamble via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 6:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: JD Gamble 
Subject: Obstruction Clarification 

Working with NFPA 13 :2019 ed

Relating to Section 11.2.5.3.2 and Annex Material A.11.2.5.3.2

When obstructions are located more than 18 in. (450 mm) below the sprinkler 
deflector, an adequate spray pattern develops and obstructions up to and 
including 4 ft (1200 mm) wide do not require additional protection underneath.

Have I read this correctly that regardless of the obstruction and or its 
arrangement, if its more than 18" below and less than or equal to 48" wide 
. no additional coverage needed?

I ask because we have drawn sprinklers in aspects of construction that now are 
realized to be non-desirable for the owner and the Architect has directed us to 
remove them if allowable by code.  Did we just miss it and this code relieves 
the need for such?

Thanks,


JD Gamble
LSS of Sheridan, Inc.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C2dd45098563e4f5537db08d8869fc5ef%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637407368060316833%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=hryfY27Hyfqf9J3gMz6JQCyPX6GZZQz7V%2FEZAJvBCbs%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Domestic Demands 13R

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Is this entire complex brand new or existing?  Your answer will determine mine:
1.  Taking a water flow test on an existing looped water main supplying 
both FW and domestic demands already accounts for the domestic demands of the 
other buildings, no?  On the single main feeding all the way into the building 
in question, one only needs to include the domestic demand for that building 
where the domestic is not provided with a valve preventing domestic flow in the 
event of a sprinkler activation therein.  NFPA 13R (2016) Section 9.6 states, 
"Domestic Demand. Domestic demand for the building being calculated shall be 
included as part of the overall system demand for systems with common 
domestic/fire mains where no provisions are made to prevent the domestic 
waterflow upon sprinkler system activation."  Key words here are "for the 
building" and "where no provisions are made".
2.  If the entire loop system supplying both FW and domestic demands is new 
and yet to be completed, then provision must be made for anticipated domestic 
flows of the other, yet to be occupied buildings as you indicate.

My too scents,

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:34 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: Domestic Demands 13R

Forumites:

Per 13R 9.6 it requires the domestic demand for the building being calculated 
to be added to the fire sprinkler system.  This is generally not an issue.  If 
you have a complex of say 20 buildings on site that is supplied by a common 
water line serving both domestic and fire, are you required to include the 
domestic demand for each building on the site water main.

For example, if I have a project with a 8" main going through the complex, and 
4" lead-ins to each building, with a domestic demand of 125 gpm for each 
building, how are you doing the domestic demand?  With the domestic / fire 
split in the building, it is required to include the 125 gpm demand in addition 
to the fire sprinkler system demand in the 4" line.  Are you including the 
other 2375 gpm  (19 additional buildings at 125 gpm domestic allowance), in 
your calculations back to the city main?

This seems quite excessive.  If it were a 13 system, you would have similar 
flows and a 100 gpm hose allowance.  There is no requirement in this example to 
include the domestic in a 13 system.  But, if you are required to include the 
additional 2375 gpm, that could be quite taxing on the site supply.  Again, how 
is everyone handling it.

We have seen AHJ's take both approaches on this.


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89a4ad9720f746a0dbc608d88728d480%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637407956725504278%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=YqfQS1VxYVmcEYutfsPngkMSPGgV6GIA2PKjVSDvJ8k%3D&reserved=0

Send large files to us via: 
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89a4ad9720f746a0dbc608d88728d480%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637407956725504278%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=WpWoNWJzRsJF8BgtKXFVqL5RCNM4adfmhPnvGj9thas%3D&reserved=0
LinkedIn: 
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89a4ad9720f746a0dbc608d88728d480%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637407956725504278%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=BPQIg68Vjjdkum%2BOfbx75ngs%2FfnEuID%2B5VB%2FEWlNgyg%3D&reserved=0

“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten.”

Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material quote?  
Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click here to 
register.* **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go 
access to your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android 
devices**

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https:/

RE: Domestic Demands 13R

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Perhaps my response appeared to imply the 2500 gpm demand would be required.  
It did not.  I was merely inferring that consideration of additional domestic 
flow still needs consideration IMO.  I agree with Ron that this would be a 
total fire (and domestic) flow determined by the water purveyor/civil engineer 
in accordance with applicable infrastructure design requirements such as IFC 
2015 Section 507.1 which states, "Required water supply. An approved water 
supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be 
provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings 
are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction" or 
recommendations from IFC Appendix B.

The water purveyor/civil engineer still needs to determine and account for a 
reasonable domestic demand flow (where supplied from the same source) at 
minimum plumbing code residual pressures (likely above 20 psi) to the overall 
water loop design.  Sprinkler designers should not be generating this demand.  
If they are asked, they should push back.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 11:19 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman 
Subject: Re: Domestic Demands 13R

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


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)


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

> It is a new complex.  I agree with #1 for sure.  #2, while I see the 
> logic, it just seems like that is way overkill for a project.  
> Including a
> 2500 gpm domestic demand in a site loop really seems excessive.  If it 
> were a 13 system, you would include a 100 gpm and wouldn't even 
> consider the other buildings on the site.  That is where the rationale 
> of including all seems to escape.
>
> Again, we have AHJ's requesting both ways.  I am wondering how others 
> handle it and what you have run up against.
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.m
> fpdesign.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C9c91628183
> a8418eca7e08d8872f1f06%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C63
> 7407983739031746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=dmjex6fcSyXO9FP
> uZQWAxEatX9%2Fmy0xAMDkKVdL2gW0%3D&reserved=0
>
> Send large files to us via:
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com
> %7C9c91628183a8418eca7e08d8872f1f06%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b
> %7C0%7C1%7C637407983739041705%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
> MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=U5
> 8IfgaAkctbNutG4p5e8cm5CeN%2Fl%2Baq9Tyet05L4oY%3D&reserved=0
> LinkedIn:
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.c
> om%7C9c91628183a8418eca7e08d8872f1f06%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c
> 8b%7C0%7C1%7C637407983739041705%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLj
> AwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=
> OMFTEyg%2BUToKX0uWQzvLQbXWz0BDDnjKLsM5cUXUM3w%3D&reserved=0
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of 
> low price is forgotten.”
>
> Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material
> quote?  Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
> *If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> ferguson.com%2Faccount-registration&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burns
> mcd.com%7C9c91628183a8418eca7e08d8872f1f06%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637407983739041705%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%

Lonergan Fire Pump Pressure Relief Valve

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Does anyone out there have a cutsheet for the J.E. Lonergan Model HU FM 
Approved Fire Pump Relief Valve from circa 1970?  I have one needing 
reorientation due to revising relief piping and am looking for allowable 
installation orientation.  Not finding anything online.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell Senior Fire Protection 
Engineer O 952-656-3662 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923 
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437 
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: potential freezing in ESFR system

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Hopefully, your sprinklers are not already installed.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 NEW \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 12:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: potential freezing in ESFR system

Currently - NFPA 13-2019 allows pulling plugs and installing sprinklers without 
another hydrostatic test.


28.2.1.8* When systems are being hydrostatically tested, tests shall be 
permitted to be conducted with pendent or horizontal sidewall sprinklers or 
plugs installed in fittings. Any plugs shall be replaced with pendent or 
horizontal sidewall sprinklers after the test is completed.

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org



   


*Our members are at the heart of everything we do.*


*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 Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:17 PM Richard Mote  wrote:

> Just wondering, what would be the point of doing a hydrostatic test 
> and then replacing all the sprinklers. In a 40,000 sq. ft. system at 100 sq.
> ft. per, that a potential for 400 new leaks.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Denhardt 
> Sent: Tue, Dec 22, 2020 1:11 pm
> Subject: Re: potential freezing in ESFR system
>
> Again personally, I would never knowingly put water in a wet piping 
> system unless the "client" can ensure or take responsibility" for any 
> damage due to freezing.  Pulling the pendent sprinklers is not a viable 
> option.
>
> As a contractor, in almost all cases, our client backed down.  In the 
> case when they insisted, we were compensated to remove and replace all 
> the sprinklers with new after the hydrostatic test.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> John August Denhardt, PE
> *Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> m: p: 301-343-1457
> 2

RE: Does a remote free standing FDC require a valve pit?

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Ball drip is required at the lowpoint of the upstream piping of FDC checks per 
NFPA 13 (2019) Sections 16.12.1, 16.12.7, and Figure 16.12.1 (in areas subject 
to freezing...TX) unless an FDC is not required per Section 16.12.2.  (Here it 
is called out as an automatic drip)  It should be noted that this 'ball drip' 
valve is also shown in multiple A.16.12.5.5 details depicting both local and 
remote FDCs...again, always at the lowpoint of the upstream FDC pipe.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Does a remote free standing FDC require a valve pit?

Consider installing the check valve vertically.  Should help with your 
concerns, since gravity would help keep the clapper shut.  I would think the 
longer the vertical pipe drop is on top of the check, the more likely it is to 
hold, so you may consider that when laying out your riser room.

To answer your original question, I believe NFPA 13 doesn't explicitly require 
a drain at the low point between the check valve and FDC.  It does require a 
ball drip between the check and FDC in areas subject to freezing, but doesn't 
specifically say it has to be installed at the low point.  It does require an 
aux. drain on the system side of the check, if that is trapped.

This is an issue that is almost never dealt with in the real world.  Kind of 
like hydrostatically testing the piping from the FDC to the check.  We have 
literally shop vac'd or pumped the water out if the check leaks on these.


- Skyler


On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:17 AM Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I see a trend starting in our area where the architect is specifying a 
> remote free standing FDC without a valve pit when the check valve can 
> be placed inside the building. Upon talking to my field superintendent 
> he was concerned that some check valves let multiple gallons of water 
> through whenever a system is drained and refilled and that the remote 
> pipe may eventually fill up and freeze.  We were toying with the idea 
> of installing a return bend in the FDC pipe downstream of the check 
> before it leaves the building to help prevent this.  A  ball valve 
> would be installed between the return bend and check to drain out the 
> pipe.  Anyone else have insight on this?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dewayne Martinez
> Fire Protection Design Manager
>
> TOTAL Mechanical
> Building Integrity
>
> W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
> Pewaukee, WI  53072
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
> Ph:  262-522-7110
> Cell: 414-406-5208
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.t
> otal-mechanical.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7Cf10
> 3ce2b90424612cd7008d8e3e3dae6%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7
> C0%7C637509915070725872%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC
> JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=tTmUhw6p
> ndwFl%2FKrmVezzpmL48gOr7xv9tD6YnB2ucM%3D&reserved=0
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists
> .firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&a
> mp;data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7Cf103ce2b90424612cd7008d8e3e
> 3dae6%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637509915070735833%
> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik
> 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ivAFObroBrioDn9lK1Sgmzh1fAV%2B7h
> sqdfyNU3btAPY%3D&reserved=0
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7Cf103ce2b90424612cd7008d8e3e3dae6%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637509915070735833%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ivAFObroBrioDn9lK1Sgmzh1fAV%2B7hsqdfyNU3btAPY%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Same size orifice in a room

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Same orifice, no.  Limits on orifice, yes...in several places such as NFPA 13 
(2019) Sections 9.4.4, Chapter 21, Chapter 25, Section 27.2.4.9.2, or word 
search 'factor'.  Same response time per compartment, yes per Section 9.4.3.2.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 1:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: Same size orifice in a room

I'm trying to locate the section in the standard about all sprinklers in a 
compartment to be same orifice.  Can anyone help point me in that direction?  
My searching is not too productive today.

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
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C077a977a65d747acd46208d903606560%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637544534817746520%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=zKXUY1e6UZwbAE%2FM9412xtTqx5nroBDha%2BEpZlrBeqQ%3D&reserved=0

Send large files to us via: 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C077a977a65d747acd46208d903606560%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637544534817746520%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=9DFr4qBFZqUDKsOyNpT8ei%2FlzbUppPrPWLVZMgxwnx8%3D&reserved=0

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C077a977a65d747acd46208d903606560%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637544534817746520%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=PttA%2FDZOKTzSHbD123toZQY2ioYQsdFQnKOID0U9exc%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Don’t forget that, along with your pump(s) churn, the high water level in the 
tank must be used to determine maximum downstream system pressure.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 7, 2021, at 4:06 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> So,  if this same tank and pump were at the same elevation and  5 blocks 
> away in a Water Utility Yard owned by the city water department, what 
> pressure and flow rate would one use to design a sprinkler system?
> 
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 11:21 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Bob Caputo 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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
>> 
>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__lists.firesprinkle&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C16898695b528484c6ff408d9119c046e%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C1%7C637560184075025189%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=FlAYNVXV%2BQH9O6XoNg%2F%2B7OHZUG29BMzeAKphsphf2ZI%3D&reserved=0
>> r.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=wn3mZ
>> QLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=sbcv
>> VKDiY86Z6_d0cmGpUAE-yKbUHdvwJfxJIwZih14&s=xW_3DXTpaglGRp_Lod9_4SygFCmo
>> JqtVkLeqtK_Eczg&e=
>> 
> --
> Bob Caputo, CFPS
> *President*
> 
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> p: 214-349-5965 ext124
> w: firesprinkler.org
>   > 
>   > 
> 

RE: Dry head boot retrofit

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

I think you are thinking of the Tyco DSB-2 Sprinkler boot which included one 
boot, two strap ties, and 1/3 oz. of adhesive.  This component is/was found on 
Tyco's Dry Sprinkler cuts...at least on the old cutsheets TFP500 and TFP550.  
Not sure if it is still available.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mark Phillips via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 7:03 PM
To: Mark Longtin ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark Phillips 
Subject: Re: Dry head boot retrofit

Yes very similar
I thought a sprinkler manufacturer like Tyco sold these at one time.
Thank yiu

Sent from my mobile device
Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.

Mark Phillips
Branch Manager
Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm 
Inspections

832-101 Purser Drive
Raleigh NC 27603
Phone: 919-779-4010
Fax : 919-779-4014
Cell : 919-268-7587
Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com
Web : 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pyebarkerfire.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89af2a0ddd4c451b407208d93c23906c%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637606945742860119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=LVbsagZ7M%2FvKLdI1yv4ABHavHErRDnony2ld9DS092M%3D&reserved=0


From: Mark Longtin 
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 7:55:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Mark Phillips 
Subject: RE: Dry head boot retrofit

[EXTERNAL]

This may work for your application:

Dektite Retrofit Pipe Flashing


Mark Longtin, Vice President
Automatic Fire System Services, Inc.
300 South Catlin #2
Missoula, MT  59801
P 406-542-9119  C 406-214-6961



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mark Phillips via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 5:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark Phillips 
Subject: Dry head boot retrofit

Hello everyone
Need some help identifying a manufacturer and or part number It's been a while 
but there used to be a split rubber boot for dry sprinklers which allowed for 
retrofit. Slipped it over and used screws and zip ties to attach.
Can anyone remember or assist?
Thanks y'all

Sent from my mobile device
Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.

Mark Phillips
Branch Manager
Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm 
Inspections

832-101 Purser Drive
Raleigh NC 27603
Phone: 919-779-4010
Fax : 919-779-4014
Cell : 919-268-7587
Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com
Web : 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pyebarkerfire.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89af2a0ddd4c451b407208d93c23906c%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637606945742860119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=LVbsagZ7M%2FvKLdI1yv4ABHavHErRDnony2ld9DS092M%3D&reserved=0

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89af2a0ddd4c451b407208d93c23906c%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637606945742860119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=5lLEdpO59kQMwKQ6qkkZIQiLDPXtKAHoYJyG%2B8Cz3Ds%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89af2a0ddd4c451b407208d93c23906c%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637606945742860119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=5lLEdpO59kQMwKQ6qkkZIQiLDPXtKAHoYJyG%2B8Cz3Ds%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listin

RE: Dry head boot retrofit

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

https://www.tyco-fire.com/index.php?P=detailprod&S=5910

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Hinson, Ryan 
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 10:11 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Mark Longtin 
Cc: Mark Phillips 
Subject: RE: Dry head boot retrofit

I think you are thinking of the Tyco DSB-2 Sprinkler boot which included one 
boot, two strap ties, and 1/3 oz. of adhesive.  This component is/was found on 
Tyco's Dry Sprinkler cuts...at least on the old cutsheets TFP500 and TFP550.  
Not sure if it is still available.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell Senior Fire Protection 
Engineer O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923 
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437 
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems 
Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mark Phillips via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 7:03 PM
To: Mark Longtin ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark Phillips 
Subject: Re: Dry head boot retrofit

Yes very similar
I thought a sprinkler manufacturer like Tyco sold these at one time.
Thank yiu

Sent from my mobile device
Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.

Mark Phillips
Branch Manager
Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm 
Inspections

832-101 Purser Drive
Raleigh NC 27603
Phone: 919-779-4010
Fax : 919-779-4014
Cell : 919-268-7587
Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com
Web : 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pyebarkerfire.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89af2a0ddd4c451b407208d93c23906c%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637606945742860119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=LVbsagZ7M%2FvKLdI1yv4ABHavHErRDnony2ld9DS092M%3D&reserved=0


From: Mark Longtin 
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 7:55:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Mark Phillips 
Subject: RE: Dry head boot retrofit

[EXTERNAL]

This may work for your application:

Dektite Retrofit Pipe Flashing


Mark Longtin, Vice President
Automatic Fire System Services, Inc.
300 South Catlin #2
Missoula, MT  59801
P 406-542-9119  C 406-214-6961



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mark Phillips via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 5:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark Phillips 
Subject: Dry head boot retrofit

Hello everyone
Need some help identifying a manufacturer and or part number It's been a while 
but there used to be a split rubber boot for dry sprinklers which allowed for 
retrofit. Slipped it over and used screws and zip ties to attach.
Can anyone remember or assist?
Thanks y'all

Sent from my mobile device
Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.

Mark Phillips
Branch Manager
Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm 
Inspections

832-101 Purser Drive
Raleigh NC 27603
Phone: 919-779-4010
Fax : 919-779-4014
Cell : 919-268-7587
Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com
Web : 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pyebarkerfire.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89af2a0ddd4c451b407208d93c23906c%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637606945742860119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=LVbsagZ7M%2FvKLdI1yv4ABHavHErRDnony2ld9DS092M%3D&reserved=0

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C89af2a0ddd4c451b407208d93c23906c%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637606945742860119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=5lLEdpO59kQMwKQ6qkkZIQiLDPXtKAHoYJyG%2B8Cz3Ds%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
htt

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Stub-up Material

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

I agree with others' assertions here that this is poor design.  I have further 
taken NFPA 24 (2019) Section 10.1.4's specific wording to mean that this 
nonmetallic stub is only allowable INSIDE a building.  If the manufacturer says 
no, so do I in this regard.  I have also received photos from others on this 
forum of the remains of post-fire melted nonmetal fire riser stubs inside 
buildings...not pretty.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 5:13 PM
To: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Caputo ; John Denhardt 

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

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 | 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacobs.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C1a13bdae20c7483ae05408d9635e869c%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637650080495681638%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0&sdata=6DrwCCj4zHaSkX0x5nzb0HmMFPn%2FgG4CA4EJIqT5rUE%3D&reserved=0
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 te

RE: Seismic joint detail

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

While I see allowable offsetting in all directions via rotation within those 
couplings necessary, it would appear that before some couplings will rotate, a 
moment arm must be created into which the strain can be transferred or it may 
manifest itself into a coupling in a prying fashion coaxially to Pipe A or B 
instead of the intended rotation about each axis A or B.  

That being said, it should be noted that the couplings are all indicated to be 
flexible allowing for the coaxial misalignment within the listing of the 
coupling and of note is the dashed line on Pipe B indicating a "vertical 
movement" offset in the Elevation View.  While perhaps not clearly defined, it 
appears to me that this detail is intended for vertical misalignment as well 
where the 'lateral movement' indicated in the lower horizontal view is also 
valid and would function the same regardless of initial orientation/rotation 
about the axes of Pipes A and B.

My two cents,

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:46 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Seismic joint detail

A question was raised by a project structural engineer about the NFPA 13 
seismic joint detail shown in Fig. A.9.3.3(a), 2016 edition for reference.
Does anyone know if this configuration has ever been tested/measured?   Has it 
been verified as an acceptable OMNI-DIRECTIONAL solution?The engineer in 
question is looking at the detail and in his judgement, it's only a 2D 
solution.   There are lateral and longitudinal movements shown, but not a 
vertical one.If there are installation or hanger/bracing committee people 
who can chime in, I'm wondering if this figure has been vetted and that's why 
it's still in the standard.   Bottom line:  Is Fig. A.9.3.3(a) equivalent to a 
listed seismic loop?


Steve Leyton, President
Protection Design and Consulting
T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |  
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.protectiondesign.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C8fe0e8835f7145371f4b08d9931fe500%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637702588200958346%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=DbzlEEtPV0OT%2B5LPlW0A5uTavKmNFWb%2BOZdjtUZAT7E%3D&reserved=0
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
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C8fe0e8835f7145371f4b08d9931fe500%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637702588200963324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=YhwXusAFof3CK6z9VugBg8I%2F90VryPRzBeeKJ3NVPIo%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Mixing of K-Factors in self-storage facilities

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

...and response time within the compartment is the same per NFPA 13 (2019) 
Section 9.4.3.3 and as otherwise stipulated in specific chapters.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 10:26 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kevin Hall ; Sean Lockyer 

Subject: Re: Mixing of K-Factors in self-storage facilities

Sean,

While that section does say "small rooms" in the 2019 edition, it was not the 
committee's intent to only allow different K-factor sprinklers in light hazard 
occupancies less than 800 sq. ft based on the definition. The language was 
updated for the 2022 edition to clarify that intent:

28.2.4.9.3*
Sprinklers with different K-factors shall be acceptable for specific uses, such 
as exposure protection, small enclosures, smaller portions of a room, or 
directional discharge, where an adjacent sprinkler does not need to discharge 
as much water.

Committee Statement: This change combined with better alignment of Annex 
material is attempting to emphasize that the identified applications are just 
some of the examples where different K-factor sizes can be applied.
Particularly, it needs to show that this can occur within the same room without 
there being a change in orientation between the different sprinklers. 
Additionally, the reference to a Small Room is misleading since an area of up 
to 800 sf is not a justification for changing K-factors (nor is the restriction 
to light hazard applicable).

As long as the change in K-Factor is not for hydraulic balancing, it is 
permitted.

Thanks,
Kevin

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


Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE

Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services

American Fire Sprinkler Association

kh...@firesprinkler.org

214-349-5971


On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 10:09 AM Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> NFPA 13 generally discourages the use of mixing K-Factors in a system; 
> however, the mixing of K-Factors is allowed in certain circumstances, 
> namely in section 23.4.4.9.3 where it allows such use for small rooms 
> and enclosures. In a self-storage facility, the small 5' x 5' storage 
> units would not be considered "small rooms" as they are not light 
> hazard (once again, per the strict definition as layed out in chapter 
> 3). However, would you be able to consider the small units as 
> enclosures since they are completely separate rooms from the other, larger 
> self-storage units ?
>
> Sean Lockyer
> Project Designer6817 N. Orange
> Blossom Trail
> Cell386-337-1078 Orlando,
> Florida 32810
> slock...@aitlifesafety.com Phone:407-816-9101
> 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a
> itlifesafety.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C57676d
> e029f84e03d5f708d99af07a60%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%
> 7C637711179937114485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI
> joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Mpv3ntdo9L2
> 3D7x63eApasEJCMvjbfmUyWgU4Lh8UNQ%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists
> .firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&a
> mp;data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C57676de029f84e03d5f708d99af
> 07a60%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637711179937124438%
> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik
> 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=stHf24kU8GWQ90o1%2FQCgC4FCaG80mz
> %2BlbrTnOInUl94%3D&reserved=0
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C57676de029f84e03d5

SR EC OH fusible-link SDWL

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Happy Monday,
Does a standard response, extended coverage, fusible-link, sidewall sprinkler 
exist which is listed for ordinary hazard occupancies?

Thanks,

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Fire Protection Engineering Group
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437

  
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
This email and any attachments are solely for the use of the addressed 
recipients and
may contain privileged client communication or privileged work product. If you 
are not the
intended recipient and receive this communication, please contact the sender by 
phone at
816-333-9400, and delete and purge this email from your email system and 
destroy any
other electronic or printed copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

Create Amazing.



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

RE: Best Common Practices

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

In my experience, it boils down to whether you need relatively few trapezes for 
your XMs and/or BRs as opposed to greater potential numbers of trapezed BLs.  
Certainly, each design is likely going to be unique; pipe 
size/schedule-dependent; and roof structure:  direction-,  member max-loading-, 
geometry-dependent.  

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:55 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: RE: Best Common Practices

Mike-
I agree with the cost angle. Thanks for your time and the references you 
provided.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
bvssytemsinc.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2021 10:27 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey 
Subject: RE: Best Common Practices

Pretty sure that one was entirely dictated by cost.  We've done the opposite on 
occasion when it made sense.  See it a lot in cold storage due to pitch 
requirements when the structural runs up the slope, typically those can be done 
with expanding fasteners though so it's not that big of a deal.  You might hit 
him with some NFPA figures as most follow that "standard.  From 2019 edition of 
13: A.10.2.6.1.4.4, A14.2.8.2.3, A.17.4.3.4

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 Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Best Common Practices

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I know it's common practice to run Mains parallel with the structure and 
Branchlines perpendicular to it but is that written anywhere? I actually have 
an architect that would like to see it in writing...

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!O3W2qjDcTiChMdxtu4ebp9RR_SeFZ2dWgBoOKi4p26xDCJEjLDjMJXKt6WClAH7a$
 

Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!O3W2qjDcTiChMdxtu4ebp9RR_SeFZ2dWgBoOKi4p26xDCJEjLDjMJXKt6cMYj_7a$
 

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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C929adb8324ec4e71fa6b08d9a2d0250f%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637719837779633100%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=9%2ByZqg0uz5HbAoy6WFaiZ0fUtd%2FIdXWvlOnzPj69obk%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C929adb8324ec4e71fa6b08d9a2d0250f%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637719837779633100%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=9%2ByZqg0uz5HbAoy6WFaiZ0fUtd%2FIdXWvlOnzPj69obk%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Thread connection holding on one thread only

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

I seem to recall single thread calculations back in college, however, I could 
not find anything other than what is in ASME B.1-20-1 (2013) - Pipe threads, 
General Purpose.  Among other things, this standard discusses 'hand-tight 
engagement', 'wrench makeup length', effective thread length', and their 
determination.  Good luck!

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 8:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kevin Hall 
Subject: Re: Thread connection holding on one thread only

I do not believe one is sufficient. I recall a project where the specification 
limited the maximum number of exposed threads to 2 or 3. I'd have to do some 
research to find the product/installation standard that was referenced.


Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE

Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services

American Fire Sprinkler Association

kh...@firesprinkler.org

214-349-5971


On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 2:16 AM Dan Arbel via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Dear Forum Members
>
> I have a case where 1.25" NPT pipe nipple was connected to 1.25" BSP 
> (as per British standard) pipe.
>
> Sprinkler System in interstitial space.
>
> There was only 2 threads engagement.
>
> After about 15 years somebody touched the a pipe and the connection 
> disengaged.
>
> I would appreciated the members opinion on the allegation that even 
> one thread engagement is sufficient providing sufficient strength.
>
> Dan Arbel
> Dan Arbel Risk Engineering Ltd
> Mail: d...@riskmanage.com
> WEB SITE: 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.r
> iskmanage.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C792ae8f13
> 7ed4f398b2d08d9d0585afc%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C6
> 37769900180813465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi
> V2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=IP3GzldetY9Jtq
> R23bhQTjddTl0xMS04V6aSi2LaCyc%3D&reserved=0
> Mobile: +972-52-6611337
> Tel: +972-4-8243337
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists
> .firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&a
> mp;data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C792ae8f137ed4f398b2d08d9d05
> 85afc%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637769900180813465%
> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik
> 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=wpDZalLVViOJkPuZW8cUtN5SbS0dbOJh
> OYEdnQGwR7s%3D&reserved=0
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C792ae8f137ed4f398b2d08d9d0585afc%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637769900180813465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=wpDZalLVViOJkPuZW8cUtN5SbS0dbOJhOYEdnQGwR7s%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: 8 inch sprinkler pipe fall from factory ceiling

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Gary,
Some initial questions that come to my mind follow:
1.  What was the size of the main?
2.  What was the spacing of hangers?  
3.  Were all roll grooves of proper depth?
4.  Was there any structural movement before or during this recorded event?
5.  Was the hanger failure due to pipe joint separation or was pipe 
separation due to hanger failure?
6.  It is possible that there was a seismic event at the time that caused 
the pipe movement?
7.  Was there a significant system activation immediately prior to this 
event such as a deluge system where significant water hammer could have 
resulted in sudden flow of full pipe and caused this event?

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Gary Howard via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Gary Howard 
Subject: 8 inch sprinkler pipe fall from factory ceiling

Hello all

I have been reading here for 2 years but this is my first post.

I am investigating a 2018 collapse of about 150 feet of water-filled pipe, 
including a midspan 90 degree elbow. No injuries, but an insurance claim.

The actual cause has not yet been determined. 

It is supposed that the separation of a vertical 8 inch pipe from the manifold 
that also separated, (rolled grove joints) caused the elbow support clamps to 
slip off the joist upper flange. It is about 250 feet away from the riser and 
has about 8 elbows in-between.

It is alleged that a pressure surge caused pipe movement which was captured by 
security cameras, about 2 seconds before the collapse. Not sure that this can 
cause pipe movement if the pipe is already full. We tested this with the fire 
pump on and off = no movement.

The Caddy Clamp left scratch marks on the flange near the elbow which was first 
to fall. Elsewhere, the clamps were broken from overload and the flanges were 
deformed.

Apparently no forklift strike.

Any thought on the cause?






Gary W. Howard, P. Eng., 
Consulting Engineer
President
SAFETY AND FORENSIC ENGINEERING INC.
33 Rolling Court, 
King City, Ontario, Canada, L7B 1E8   
Phone: 416-843-1413
Fax: 905-833-2332
ghow...@safeinc.ca 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safeinc.ca%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C07a5abd3e7de4d2a006808d9f7cf920e%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637813293148612333%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=wHML7pQ72kzMmBGiceBEvk7ghySVwzmLdmQ%2BoEnSFLE%3D&reserved=0
 


Confidentiality Notice : 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. 






___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C07a5abd3e7de4d2a006808d9f7cf920e%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637813293148612333%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=FEEHFcsbLyjaSRmgwgbbplvAskQcARIVxx%2BOmyqaDC8%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Joining black carbon steel with stainless steel piping

[Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum]

Craig,
>From literature I have, SS has an anodic index of approximately 0.60 V while 
>plain CS has that of 0.85 V.  

If the environment in which the joint is located is 'normal' or 'controlled', 
you shouldn't have a galvanic compatibility issue.  If the environment is 
considered 'harsh', the anodic index delta must be smaller (approximately 0.15 
V) in which case, some sort of dielectric fitting/sacrificial anode would be 
needed for joint longevity.

As I am not an expert, I suggest reaching out to someone such as 
www.corrosion-doctors.org for more assistance.

Hope this helps,

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 612-900-3755 \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923
rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  burnsmcd.com
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437
*Registered in: AK, LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:06 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Subject: Joining black carbon steel with stainless steel piping

I've got a engineer asking about the joining of grooved stainless to grooved 
black carbon steel and if there needs to be a special dielectric or similar 
type of assembly used to join the two?

I've been hunting on the interwebs and haven't found any type of special 
coupling or should the connection be flanged?

In all my years this is the first time this subject has ever come up.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacobs.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C2d6969ca91d4441ae22908d9fad44781%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637816612359587927%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ln%2Ffq9qqoz%2FALwILLnsYh4I62399EES0Jp16yw6U%2FvU%3D&reserved=0
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org&data=04%7C01%7Crhinson%40burnsmcd.com%7C2d6969ca91d4441ae22908d9fad44781%7Cbfbb9a2b6d994e78b3c795005d555c8b%7C0%7C0%7C637816612359587927%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=1HZ7rCOBMvIGnkxdF6EcTJYOIGN1cnyC8cQHktVKb4c%3D&reserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org