RE: Trash Transfer Station
Despite recycling efforts, municipal waste (I think) remains largely paper with wood and plastics interspersed. I would expect fires in transfers station piles to behave similarly to baled waste paper fires, with added heat release from the plastics. On a facility like this a number of years back, we married the requirements of FM data Sheet 8-22 on baled waste paper storage with the requirements of class IV solid pile storage (or maybe we used plastics?). Can't recall the details, as they were left behind at a previous employer - but that was the concept. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 8:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Trash Transfer Station That was my initiating and there was no conclusion posted. In my case I had a cascading pile about 12-15 ft high of Class IV (based on observation from existing facility). I was considering adjusting the requirements for a pile of wood chips (Class III) to Class IV. >From a letter I received off Forum, supposedly AFSA has information on loss >history, but I haven't been able to get a hold of it. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:31 AM, "Fire Protection Services" wrote: > Forum > > > > A few weeks ago there was a post on trash transfer stations. > > Could someone tell me what the conclusion was? EH2 comes to mind but > not sure. > > I have deleted those emails and apparently the monthly email to search > the archives. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Chris > > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 13 & 13R
Pete - A1.1 of what? NFPA 13? Seems to me this question is a code question. The idea you can design a system to NFPA 13 in the lower floor of a building, then NFPA 13R for the upper depends on the interpretation of the codes and wouldn't be found in NFPA 13. Normally, the building would be designed to NFPA 13R, assuming codes allowed that. The garage - per NFPA 13R - would be calculated based on densities prescribed in NFPA 13. But that is not an NFPA 13 design. E.g., you wouldn't be required to include the 250 gpm hose allowance required by NFPA 13 (but not required by NFPA 13R). The exception, as has been discussed here before, would be if you could prove that the garage level was a different building from the upper levels. In that case, there would be separate code analyses for the garage and the upper levels, much like two horizontally adjacent buildings. The catch is that is normally unusual to see a horizontal separation that qualified as a building separation to the point that two buildings can be considered vertically adjacent. But again, this is a code review issue and wouldn't be covered in the NFPA 13 standards. It strikes me as intriguing that the architect is asking the sprinkler contractor for code guidance. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Pete Schwab Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 1:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; SprinklerFORUM Subject: RE: 13 & 13R A.1.1 Peter Schwab VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, Fl 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com Celebrating over 34 years of life safety -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Lindholm Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 2:16 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: 13 & 13R I know that we have done buildings with parking garages on the main level designed per NFPA #13, then 2 or 3 stories of apartments above designed per 13R, but where does it say that this can be done? An Architect asked me and I am drawing a brain . Greg Lindholm ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Fire Pump with storage tank
Sounds like a great discussion to have been had by the A/E on the job, not the sprinkler contactor awarded the job after bidding (unless this is a design-build retrofit situation). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:54 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Fire Pump with storage tank How is fire flow being handled? For a school I doubt if tankers would be OK with the FD. And if it isn't a well why would you need a tank? On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jeremy Frazier wrote: > This is for a 2 story school. It doesn't have standpipes or hose stations. > The tank is only feeding the fire pump and the sprinkler system. I'm > not 100% sure what is supplying the tank at the moment, but I believe > it is either a well or something of that nature. > > Jeremy Frazier > Designer > Cavalier Fire Protection > P:571-931-1004 > F:571-931-1010 > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > craig.pr...@ch2m.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:03 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Fire Pump with storage tank > > Yes, hydrants fed from the pump/tank is one unanswered question in > this equation. > > We need details in order to provide guidance. > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > craig.pr...@ch2m.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Todd > - > Work > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:00 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Fire Pump with storage tank > > Unless otherwise specified, a tank is sized based on the maximum > sprinkler demand, plus any hose streams fed from the pump (inside hose > stations, standpipes, fire hydrants, etc), times the duration. And > that is useable water. If no hose flow is taken off the pump, it does > not have to be included in pump sizing. I would not think fire flow > would matter unless hydrants are fed by the pump. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > www.fpdc.com > > On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Steven Scandaliato > > wrote: > > > Chris, I'm curious, is that in the March 2013 edition of the UFC? > > Where is that coming from? > > > > Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS > > 520.971.2322 Cell > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > > Cahill, Christopher > > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:47 AM > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > Subject: RE: Fire Pump with storage tank > > > > The 150% part of the question makes me wonder if this is military. > > If so since Feb. 2013 you do size for 150% of the pump (or demand x > > time whichever is higher which is always the 150% of the pump, > > seeing as how you can't go past 140% of a pump for design, well > > unless you want to put in a lot of small pumps.) > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > > Burns & McDonnell > > 8201 Norman Center Drive > > Bloomington, MN 55437 > > Phone: 952.656.3652 > > Fax: 952.229.2923 > > ccah...@burnsmcd.com > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > > *Registered > in: > > MN > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > > craig.pr...@ch2m.com > > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:42 AM > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > Subject: RE: Fire Pump with storage tank > > > > Don't forget about Fire Flow as referenced in the IFC section 507. > > You'll need to call the local responding fire department and ask > > what method they have approved for determ
RE: Small Chemical Storage Room
Definitely follow-up with the kinds, quantities and methods of storage. If associated with a college chem. lab, then I suspect everything is to be stored in cabinets with limited quantities - in that case the OHII should be fine. Of course, my suspicions don't count so verify. If OHII, probably not a big deal since you're only talking two heads. Extra Hazard may get you unusually large pipe for those two heads. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Small Chemical Storage Room What kinds/quantities of chemicals? Flammable gasses? This is so subjective ... it could be an EH II just as surely as an OH II. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Small Chemical Storage Room I have a project with a small chemical prep/storage room that is 253 sf (19' x 13'4). NFPA 13 calls out chemical labs as OH2, but I can't find anything about the storage/prep. This is a community college science lab. What would be the appropriate design criteria for this room, or what would be the proper code to reference? Thanks, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: removing sprinkler on drop
The justification for not allowing the reuse of sprinklers removed from their fitting is that damage can occur to the link - particularly QR GB links. Random false activations have been known to occur because of damaged links. This is why they now come with protective covers from the manufacturer. I suspect the allowance of sprinklers being reused if they remain attached to their drop fitting is a compromise with the thought that they'd be less susceptible to damage. Someone from the T.C. would have to verify that reasoning. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Watt Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop Im with Greg. I have reinstalled thousands of heads without issue. What is the justification for this requirement? On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Greg McGahan wrote: > its ALL ridiculous if you ask me > it is a waste of resources > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Brad Casterline >wrote: > >> There is wording somewhere that supports NOT... >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Todd - Work [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:48 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: removing sprinkler on drop >> >> I am working on a project where we have to add heads above an >> existing ceiling on an existing system. The pendant heads are fed on swing >> joints. >> My >> plan is to have them removes the drops (with sprinkler in them) >> replace the >> 1" elbow with a tee and re-install the drops. The question came up >> about replacing the pendant heads. They were not removed from the >> pipe but the pipe with head was removed from the system. I never >> thought about this before and can see arguments on both sides. Replace the >> pendants or not? >> >> Todd G Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> Stonington, CT >> www.fpdc.com >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> > > > > -- > Greg McGahan > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > 1160 McKenzie Road > Cantonment, FL 32533 > 850-937-1850 > fax 850-937-1852 > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: removing sprinkler on drop
I would argue that this shouldn't be an argument as long as it is specified up-front. If the owner or engineer says do not reinstall, then don't argue, because if you win, it is your butt on the line should the head fail. If this is a competitive bid situation or direct work with owner, with no clear guidance beyond the 13 standard, then it appears you can re-use sprinklers left in drops or sprigs, but not sprinklers removed from the fitting to which they were originally attached. But I'd have a really good policy & procedure in place to ensure those heads are treated like fine china. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:51 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop Except for the part 'Only new sprinklers shall be installed' which has been around for a long time. Many would argue you have never been allowed to reinstall sprinklers. Yes, I know there is a lot of don't ask don't tell out there. Current edition provides clarification of the phrase only new sprinklers shall be installed. I don't see it as a change. The interpretation that if you pull the drop and never touch the sprinkler I'd even argue is a little sketchy. The point of the new section is damage can occur when you mess with the head. If you lay the drop with a head on a table or throw (carefully) in a bucket in my mind you have risked damage. If asked I'd say even in that case you need a new head per the code. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Watt Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:28 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop Im with Greg. I have reinstalled thousands of heads without issue. What is the justification for this requirement? On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Greg McGahan wrote: > its ALL ridiculous if you ask me > it is a waste of resources > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Brad Casterline >wrote: > >> There is wording somewhere that supports NOT... >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Todd - Work [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:48 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: removing sprinkler on drop >> >> I am working on a project where we have to add heads above an >> existing ceiling on an existing system. The pendant heads are fed on swing >> joints. >> My >> plan is to have them removes the drops (with sprinkler in them) >> replace the >> 1" elbow with a tee and re-install the drops. The question came up >> about replacing the pendant heads. They were not removed from the >> pipe but the pipe with head was removed from the system. I never >> thought about this before and can see arguments on both sides. Replace the >> pendants or not? >> >> Todd G Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> Stonington, CT >> www.fpdc.com >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> > > > > -- > Greg McGahan > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > 1160 McKenzie Road > Cantonment, FL 32533 > 850-937-1850 > fax 850-937-1852 > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Central Recall Comments P>S>
This anecdote underscores the need for proper contract language. A simple P.O. stating "annual inspection" with a price won't help you much (any?) in court. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 12:56 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Central Recall Comments P>S> I couldn't have said it better (ok I'll accept As Well). The same goes for spotting installation/design issues. We encourage to do so on a separate form from your 25 inspection form with the CYA caveat that it was not a complete review of the entire facility and covers just the location identified. Unbelievably, there was a lawsuit where the inspector was sued AND LOST when they identified such a deficiency and a fire occurred at a different location with the same deficiency. You'd think being told of one problem that common sense would say it is possible to be present elsewhere so the OWNER would look into it. ugh Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Sep 9, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Rod DiBona wrote: > Agree. Roland was replying to Jerry's post where a company was acting as if > it was a REQUIREMENT of the inspecting contractor to inform them of the > recall. Steve L and you make a different point to me which is we as > contractors would be foolish not to inform the owner. Our guys are trained to > always look for these and inform the owner for two main reasons. One because > we are hoping they will hire us to do the work and we make money. Two - > because it is the right thing to do for your customers- although not required. > > Rod at Rapid ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Storage area in a mix occupancy
I think it is worth rehashing a common issue we see on the Forum: The building is either designed to NFPA 13, or to NFPA 13R. There is no mixing of 13 and 13R in the SAME BUILDING. (Not yelling - emphasizing). Only if there is a code-based building separation dividing the facility into separate buildings could you then claim one area as 13 and the other 13R. If this is a 13R design, the storage areas get the OH2 design basis as described 13, but you don't need the hose allowance because its 13R. Conversely, if this is a 13 design, then the storage room design would be the same, but you'd need the 250 hose allowance - plus you'd be sprinklering combustible concealed spaces, attics, etc. throughout the building. It sounds like the above should be gently directed to the EOR. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Craig Leadbetter Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Storage area in a mix occupancy How is residential storage classified? I am looking at a project that indicates light hazard for a storage area which is currently is supposed to be designed to NFPA 13. They are trying to decide if the residential portion of the building can be protected via 13R. Is residential storage considered light hazard? If the storage is outside of the residential area would it be classified as ordinary hazard if it we storage for the residents? Thanks in advance for the help. Craig Leadbetter Safeguard of Marquette PO Box 116 Marquette, MI 49855 (P) 906-475-9955 (F) 906-475-5474 (C) 906-362-5393 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Spacing Rules
Regarding QR in Light Hazard, I thought that was strictly acknowledging a faster response is better, particularly in Light Hazard occupancies that are almost exclusively occupied by humans. Thus, it is a life safety benefit seen by that past committee as worthy of a hard rule. Somewhat ironically, though, they also allow an area reduction because of the QR sprinklers operating so much faster. To me this is a benefit to help lower costs. Of course, FM didn't buy into that benefit as they didn't see a significant enough reduction in activation time; or they didn't feel the cost savings was worthy of removing safety factor from their property protection goals; or both. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 8:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Spacing Rules Well, now that you two have hijacked my thread This was a question about philosophy and history, not math and time. Let's try again, and the bathroom compartmentalization thread is similar to what I'd like some feedback on. Most discussion about spacing rules revolve around arguments relating to distribution. I'm wondering how many are based on heat detection. For instance, why can I use an XYZ SSP head to cover 225 sq in light hazard but not ordinary. Since I'm after density over square footage I can certainly accomplish this prohibited feat. But after a given edition we are suddenly required to use QR heads for light hazard for some unspecified reason. That certainly doesn't have anything to do with coverage. On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Brad Casterline wrote: > Yes, and by 'different fire curves' I assume you mean fire growth rates. > I want to model the four common 'design fires': SLOW, MEDIUM, FAST, > and ULTRAFAST. All four will be "T-Squared", which as you know means > the growth is proportional to the time squared. I am not sure what the > proper word is for the factor that distinguishes SLOW from FAST but I > know what the numbers are and how to calc how many seconds from > ignition to peak RHR (Rate of Heat Release). I want to find out what > this "...same RHR point..." is. I will have to run (8) scenarios > because I want to use two separate max RHR. I will use 1250 kW and > 2500 kW. The factor I use for FAST, for example, is .0466 kW/sec2. So > a 2500 kW T-Squared FAST fire would peak at > (2500/.0466)^.5=~232 > seconds. I suppose I could then compare the activation time to the > time for max RHR and get a percent before or after for the different > growth rates and max RHRs. > thanks, > Brad > > -Original Message- > From: Roland Huggins [mailto:rhugg...@firesprinkler.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:57 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Spacing Rules > > I was simply trying to make the reference to time more than just how > many seconds have passed and tie it to the level of hazard presented > by the fire by using the same point on the different fire curves. > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Brad Casterline > wrote: > > > Dang Roland this opens up a whole new can of curiosity for me. > > Figuring out exactly what you mean will give me something to do the > > next couple-three lunch breaks. I usually check out the FDS-SMV > > discussions > but > > for some dumba$$ reason the NIST site has been down since Tuesday (smh). > > > > Brad > > > > . A more meaningful reference for activation is in regard to the > > same RHR point for the different fire curves.. > > > > .. > > Roland > > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > > Dallas, TX > > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > ___ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprink
RE: Fire Sprinkler System Connecting to a Dead end City main
One must not confuse hose requirements for the sprinkler system with hose requirements for manual firefighting. They are normally separate calculations. The option (1) you cited would include water for the sprinkler system plus the NFPA 13-required hose allowances. If the supply isn't adequate, your water flow test should identify that fact. It would also identify whether you had the code-required water for manual firefighting available at 20 psi. As to supplying the FDC form the same city main: that is done in most circumstances. In fact, it is unusual NOT to do it that way. You are correct, the backflow will prevent the sprinkler water from entering the city main under pressure from connection to the FDC. That's what backflow assemblies do - prevent backflow. The location of the hydrant and sprinkler system on a dead-end main is not germane to the discussion. If backflow was an issue, it would be a problem on a looped main as well. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Medina Jr Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:17 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Fire Sprinkler System Connecting to a Dead end City main Forum, I have a situation where a new fire sprinkler system is to be tied into a proposed new 6" city main which is planning to be extended 363' from its current dead end location. 20 feet upstream of the proposed 6" Fire Service is where a new fire hydrant is proposed.There are fire hydrants located within 150' of the FDC but they are located on the opposite side of the street, but will not allow that configuration. because of the traffic running over the hoses.Currently there are no Fire Hydrants located on the same side of the street that the project is on. Needless to say that the underground plans have been rejected because the Fire Department Plan Checker states that it is going to create and feed into a circulating loop. I tried explaining to him that the 6" Double Check Detector Assembly should prevent that from happening, but he was adamant about not allowing a fire hydrant on a dead end city main to supply the Fire Sprinkler Systems F.D.C. if it's supplied from the same de ad end city main. I could understand his concerns but doesn't NFPA-13E's method #1 allow it? is there anything in the International Fire Code addressing fire hydrants on a dead end city main or has anybody come across a similar situation? NFPA-13E Section 4.3.5 'Where hose streams will be used, water should be taken from sources that do not reduce the sprinklered protection. Pumper's should be supplied by one of the following methods: (1) Connecting pumper's to large mains from which flow tests have indicated adequate flows to supply both sprinklers and the required hose streams. (2) Connecting pumper's to water mains not needed for sprinkler supply. (3) Drafting pumper's from static sources. If anybody could help, Thank You. George Medina Jr. Mobile: 323-906-5701 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint
We appreciate your effort, Steve - and I know you mean well - but I think we still want to hear from Ken on this one... Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Per 2013 NFPA 13, and I'm paraphrasing: By definition, arm-overs are NOT branchlines. Where piping - ANY piping - above a ceiling serves a sprinkler in the pendent position below the ceiling, and the pressure at that sprinkler is >100psi, the hanger shall be of a type that resists vertical movement. Where seismic protection is required and the provisions of 9.3 are to be applied, restraint of branchlines against lateral AND vertical movement. This applies to branch piping but not arm-overs. The end hanger on an armover may require vertical restraint subject to the pressure, but not a lateral restraint. Branch restraints are required at intervals according to tables 9.3.6.4(a) and (b) and may be configured as one of the five options in 9.3.6.1. If using splay wire or a rod-type hanger on a 45° angle, the restraint must be within 2' of a hanger that resists vertical movement. If an "arm-over" serves two or more sprinklers, it's not an arm-over. My two-and-a-half-cents ... Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steven Scandaliato Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Wagoneryou need to answer this one... Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS 520.971.2322 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Arm over is defined as pipe supplying a single head - if I remember correctly. Restraint is not required for arm overs. So technically not required. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 20, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" > wrote: > > Issue is not about vertical restraint from >100 psi. Well below. This > is strictly an EQ question. > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > Burns & McDonnell > 8201 Norman Center Drive > Bloomington, MN 55437 > Phone: 952.656.3652 > Fax: 952.229.2923 > ccah...@burnsmcd.com > www.burnsmcd.com > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Dwight Havens > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 6:13 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint > > pendent heads w/ > 100 psi > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 20, 2013 6:44 PM, "mphe...@aerofire.com" wrote: > > Isn't the thrust restraint a requirement for systems with pressures in excess of 100 psi? > > - Original Message - > From: Ron Greenman [mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 09:42 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint > > Don't have anything at the moment. Is this eq country? Somewhere > there's something that requires up thrust restraint at the end of line. I think lateral is only required for seismic areas, but I'd need to read the section before I made an unequivocal statement. No books in the car. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" >> wrote: >> >> Got a code section that connects a length of a BL to a restraint or >> the inverse of what you said, that if it needs a hanger then it needs restraint? I got one that says it doesn't, 9.3.6.7 Drops and armovers shall not require restraint. 3.5.3 Arm-Over. A horizontal pipe that extends from the branch line to a single sprinkler or a sprinkler above and below a ceiling. I just find it odd I can have a 2" pipe 100' long serving one head and it doesn't need anything but regular old gravity hangers. Or I can't find anything to challenge 9.3.6.7. My case
RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint
Well... I guess a Ken Wagoner power point hand-out will work. But I think the real question hidden in Chris' original query is why? Why is an 8' arm-over not required to be restrained in EQ land, but an 8' branch line with two heads on it would be? Does one NOT see the movements in an earthquake that the other would? Or is it just an oversight in the rule making process? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Wilder Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 12:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Page 25 http://www.firesprinkler.org/handouts/9.19_8a_Seismic.pdf Dan W -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint We appreciate your effort, Steve - and I know you mean well - but I think we still want to hear from Ken on this one... Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11:22 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Per 2013 NFPA 13, and I'm paraphrasing: By definition, arm-overs are NOT branchlines. Where piping - ANY piping - above a ceiling serves a sprinkler in the pendent position below the ceiling, and the pressure at that sprinkler is >100psi, the hanger shall be of a type that resists vertical movement. Where seismic protection is required and the provisions of 9.3 are to be applied, restraint of branchlines against lateral AND vertical movement. This applies to branch piping but not arm-overs. The end hanger on an armover may require vertical restraint subject to the pressure, but not a lateral restraint. Branch restraints are required at intervals according to tables 9.3.6.4(a) and (b) and may be configured as one of the five options in 9.3.6.1. If using splay wire or a rod-type hanger on a 45° angle, the restraint must be within 2' of a hanger that resists vertical movement. If an "arm-over" serves two or more sprinklers, it's not an arm-over. My two-and-a-half-cents ... Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steven Scandaliato Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:01 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Wagoneryou need to answer this one... Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS 520.971.2322 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:09 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Arm over is defined as pipe supplying a single head - if I remember correctly. Restraint is not required for arm overs. So technically not required. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 20, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" > wrote: > > Issue is not about vertical restraint from >100 psi. Well below. This > is strictly an EQ question. > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > Burns & McDonnell > 8201 Norman Center Drive > Bloomington, MN 55437 > Phone: 952.656.3652 > Fax: 952.229.2923 > ccah...@burnsmcd.com > www.burnsmcd.com > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Dwight Havens > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 6:13 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint > > pendent heads w/ > 100 psi > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 20, 2013 6:44 PM, "mphe...@aerofire.com" wrote: > > Isn't the thrust restraint a requirement for systems with pressures in excess of 100 psi? > > - Original Message - > From: Ron Greenm
RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint
Ken - are you out there? I don't think Steve really answered my question.... Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Because in EQ land there's stuff going on in the Building Code and ASCE 7 that you unwashed people in non-EQ land can't see. Like, you either have to use a swing joint or flexible hose connection on your pendent drops to lay-in tile ceilings that aren't rigidly braced, or provide an oversized hole in the ceiling tile to prevent damage to the sprinkler. (For those who have never seen them, "filler" rings are available to enclose the annular space in these holes, which are larger diameter than the escutcheons. And they look like crap.)It is intended that there be some measure of movement in the drop piping that is independent of the main and branch piping, which are hung and braced and restrained to the roof or floor assembly above. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:54 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Well... I guess a Ken Wagoner power point hand-out will work. But I think the real question hidden in Chris' original query is why? Why is an 8' arm-over not required to be restrained in EQ land, but an 8' branch line with two heads on it would be? Does one NOT see the movements in an earthquake that the other would? Or is it just an oversight in the rule making process? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint
This is true. Steve has and will again a lie to me. Like when he said he answered my question, "Why do we restrain branch lines of 8 ft. length in EQ zones, but not 8 ft. long arm-overs?" His answer (paraphrased) was 'because sprinklers can move during earthquakes.' And then he accused me of not bathing. Earlier he noted that 'arm-overs aren't by definition branch lines.' Now, Steve AND Ken, please don't misunderstand me: I am not mad about this; but I am a bit disappointed. That's because this isn't about just me. There's another P.E. out there who initiated this thread who is likely as eager as I to know the reasoning behind this. He looks up to both of you and is checking his Forum emails regularly to learn the answer to this question. So far, he has come up empty - and you can bet feels as bad as a kid who's dad didn't get home from work as promised to take him to that big league game. So, c'mon, guys. If you won't answer this one for me, then do if for Chris Cahill, P.E.* (*Registered in MN) Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:31 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Thank you Ken - your kind words yesterday were the greatest endorsement of my skills since ... well, since the last 27 emails I've received from LinkedIn. And, in spite of his apparent skepticism, I'd like to express my respect for Mark Sornsin, P.E. He has letters after his name after all, so I know that he has at least shown an aptitude for scholastic binge drinking and standardized tests. But I want to be perfectly clear that as much as I value the relationships made and fostered on the Forum and in the Association, I would most definitely lie to him. Sometimes, I look for opportunities to lie to Mark. Mr. Muncy, I apologize for straying off of technical topics and making questionable comments about a member's character and be with the starving pygmies down in New Guinea. Amen. SL -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of Ken Sent: Mon 10/21/2013 6:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint He answered it perfectly, Mark. He deals with this kind of issue every single day, as I do. His answer was right out of the book, as was the notation on the drop ceilings. Pay attention to him, he wouldn't lie to you. Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax http://www.parsleyconsulting.com On 10/21/2013 6:20 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. wrote: > Ken - are you out there? I don't think Steve really answered my question > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Leyton > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:06 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint > > Because in EQ land there's stuff going on in the Building Code and ASCE 7 > that you unwashed people in non-EQ land can't see. Like, you either have to > use a swing joint or flexible hose connection on your pendent drops to lay-in > tile ceilings that aren't rigidly braced, or provide an oversized hole in the > ceiling tile to prevent damage to the sprinkler. (For those who have never > seen them, "filler" rings are available to enclose the annular space in these > holes, which are larger diameter than the escutcheons. And they look like > crap.)It is intended that there be some measure of movement in the drop > piping that is independent of the main and branch piping, which are hung and > braced and restrained to the roof or floor assembly above. > > > Steve Leyton > > > > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. > Sornsin, P.E. > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:54 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint > > Well... I guess a Ken Wagoner power point hand-out will work. > > But I think the real question hidden in Chris' original query is why? Why is >
RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint
Tom, Thank-you for your thoughtful and insightful reply. It addressed our question and, therefore, should be a model for all of the Forum - especially Steve and Ken. Bottom line is, yes, there are 8 ft. arm-overs that would not require restraint to meet seismic requirements; and there are 8 ft. branch lines feeding two sprinklers that would require restraint. It seems to be a bit of a cross-over in the rules, but ultimately doesn't happen much and thus isn't considered to be a real problem. I can't speak for Chris (despite having done so before), but I feel satiated. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Wellen Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Mark and Chris, I'll take a stab at this. The west coast is still grinding the coffee beans. The length of an armorer is not expected to be very long. The adjacent branch lines cannot exceed 20 feet apart for extended coverage sprinklers and 15 ft for standard spray sprinklers. If the armorer is over 10 ft long coming off a cross main or branch line, it should be considered to be piped from the adjacent branch line. The main objective is to use less pipe, correct? Why waste pipe length? So, if that is the case, the committee is not worried about a line with a single sprinkler and provided the definition of an armover. A line with two or more sprinklers is defined as a branch line where they can be of considerable length. The longer the line, the more it will have a whipping action. Thus, Table 9.6.3.4(a) specifies the spacing needed for restraints based on the Cp in that area and the pipe size ranging from 26 ft to 53 ft. An armorer shouldn't whip around so much due to its short length so restraint is not required. Can there be instances where there are long armorers? Sure, especially if there is a drop from a 40 ft ceiling to a ceiling at an 8 ft level. 9.3.6.7 Drops and armorers shall not require restraint. What a mess that would be to restrain a drop located 32 ft from the ceiling. Steve commented that ceiling grids should be rigidly braced. If not, then the oversized hole for the sprinkler is necessary in the ceiling to keep the ceiling from bre aking the fusible element. Will fusible elements still still break during an earthquake from the ceiling? Probably. The cost benefit of providing restraints on every drop does not warrant them to be installed. NFPA 13 is full "lines in the sand" that we don't know the true history behind them but it seems mostly just to give a warm fuzzy (i.e. 4 ft obstruction rule, area limitations of 52,000 sf, etc) and armorers and branch lines is just one of them. It doesn't fit all applications, but the baseline requirement is established. Tom Wellen AFSA ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Transfer Switch Tests
All of a sudden, flow meters piped back to suction (or suction tank) look like a good thing - at least when you need to test transfer switches. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:29 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Transfer Switch Tests Can't be every year, really? I think (or hope) that's a misprint because flowing 150% for 30 minutes is beyond ridiculous. No, there is no other way to put peak load on the driver other than to pump. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:42 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Transfer Switch Tests Agree every year. But what about the 30 minutes flowing water. Is there another way to simulate peak load? Sent from my Motorola Smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint! -Original message- From: Tom To: "sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org" Sent: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 18:36:03 EDT Subject: Re: Transfer Switch Tests Tom, Not sure if you are referring to annual testing (NFPA 25) or acceptance testing (NFPA 20) ? If NFPA 25 I believe the transfer test is required annually not every 3 years. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Transfer Switch Tests
This may be a great time to remind those in the testing business to clearly denote the scope of work in your contracts. Simply billing your client for "Annual fire system test per code" may be exposing you to scope items you had no idea existed...like 30 min. testing of the fire pump at 150% load under alternate power. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Transfer Switch Tests U ... given that enforcement of 25 in general is almost nil, I would imagine that's a safe assumption. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 12:19 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Transfer Switch Tests Does anyone else think that enforcement of this will be spotty at best? On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM, John Denhardt wrote: > From the 25 - 2014 ROP > > 25-187 Log #249 Final Action: Accept in Principle > (8.3.3.4(3) (New) ) > ___ > Submitter: John Whitney, Clarke Fire Protection Products, Inc. > Recommendation: Revise text to add; Verify that pump continues to > perform at peak load on the alternate power source for 10 minutes or > 30 minutes if alternate power source is a standby generator set. > Substantiation: During annual tests it is only appropriate that the > alternate power source also be tested to assure that circuits and > generators be tested to confirm they perform under peak load. > Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add peak "horsepower" > before "load". > Verify that pump continues to perform at peak horsepower load on the > alternate power source for 10 minutes for a alternate utility or 30 > minutes if the alternate power source is a standby generator set. > Committee Statement: Clarifies that a standby generator requires a 30 > minute test while carrying peak electric motor fire pump horsepower > load. > Number Eligible to Vote: 33 > Ballot Results: Affirmative: 33 > > > WOW! - No negative votes! No comments! > > > John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE > Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated > 5113 Berwyn Road > College Park, Maryland 20740 > Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: > 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? > > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. > Sornsin, P.E. > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:32 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Transfer Switch Tests > > All of a sudden, flow meters piped back to suction (or suction tank) > look like a good thing - at least when you need to test transfer switches. > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom > Duross > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:29 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Transfer Switch Tests > > Can't be every year, really? > I think (or hope) that's a misprint because flowing 150% for 30 > minutes is beyond ridiculous. > No, there is no other way to put peak load on the driver other than to > pump. > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > John Denhardt > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:42 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Transfer Switch Tests > > Agree every year. But what about the 30 minutes flowing water. Is > there another way to simulate peak load? > > Sent from my Motorola Smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint! > > > -Original message- > From: Tom > To: "sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org" > > Sent: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 18:36:03 EDT > Subject: Re: Transfer Switch Tests > > Tom, > > Not sure if you are referring to annual testing (NFPA 25) or > ac
RE: surge/reaction forces study
Well, now I just want to see the results of both of these studies. If 100 gal. isn't good enough, that would be good to know (and why). Likewise, if it IS good enough, then how small would it be and still work? I'd love to see how 'bad' the reaction forces really are and if additional bracing is warranted. I know surge suppression is important in many cases - I'm just not certain it is worthy of the protection the Air Force prescribes in ALL cases. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 1:54 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: surge/reaction forces study Yeah I called the manufacturers of the surge arrestors and gave them the info. They had never seen this either. They called for 100 gal at 250 psi after each diesel but apparently that isn't good enough. We must do a comprehensive study to see if their calculations were correctsigh Rod at Rapid -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steven Scandaliato Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: surge/reaction forces study Yep...call Wessel or equal tell them the volume and pressure you are dealing with and they will give you what you need...but let it come from the FPE or get it reviewed and approved. Be careful if you are single riser or manifold...big difference in where you connect it... Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS 520.971.2322 Cell Skype: steven.scandaliato -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: surge/reaction forces study What Chris says. I appreciate and am mildly flattered that you would presume I have any idea whatsoever about how to calculate these forces but ... I'm an earthquake guy and these are more in line with fluid dynamics, I think. If the means of calculating reaction force from surge and thrust is the same as for braces and hangers against earthquakes, then the formulas are in ASCE 7. Steve Leyton -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: surge/reaction forces study All common stuff in AF hangars. I'd also point out you are probably not the specialist. Usually that is required to be an NCEES FPE. There is software out there to do this analysis. I think there is hand based methods. We've done them but its been a while. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns & McDonnell ccah...@burnsmcd.com 952-656-3652 Rod DiBona wrote: I have a military hi ex foam job bidding that is asking for a surge protection study and also a reaction forces study. They have a paragraph on each study required by the fire protection specialist that has done a minimum of three in the past. We have done a bunch of the hi ex jobs and have never seen this before. Talked with Mark Sornsin and we would have thought that the ETL 02-15 would have already taken this into account. Anyone ever hear of this requirement before and anyone know who could even provide this? Leyton? Waggoner? New one on me. Thanks for any insight. Rod at Rapid ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.clou
RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted?
I don't think this is a code problem - i.e., nothing says you can't do it (that I know of). But it may fall into the best practices area. Accessibility comes to mind. Can folks easily get to the valves in an emergency? Is locating them on a mezzanine any worse than at a remote part of the building with an exterior-only access? I suppose it really depends on proximity to hazard. Sorry, this is just top of mind input. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:14 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? I've got a real-estate problem. I have an Industrial process structure which requires a second fire protection valve room for a supplementary foam system consisting of 6 deluge risers and foam concentrate tank. Owner says there's no room around the building so stack it on top of the existing fire sprinkler riser room. This is a high hazard operation. While I'm digging through codes I was wondering if anyone here knew off the top of their head any specific code prohibitions to their idea? I need chapter and verse to show them if it's not permitted or recommended. Thanks, Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted?
Just to reiterate Scott's point: Maintenance is huge and his examples are extremely valid. We were once painted into a corner on our first foam job many years ago. The foam tanks were put on a mezzanine above the risers. But we ensured there was plenty of room on the mezzanine for bladder removal, and double doors on the exterior wall of the mezzanine for better access to remove/replace bladders or tanks (via fork lift). Not ideal, but serviceable. (BTW - my favorite example of lack of maintenance foresight is a foam job (by others) which included a vertical bladder tank located below a second level - with about 2 ft. of clearance above the tank. When the bladder needs replacement, the entire tank will have to be disconnected and removed from the building. There may also be some other piping that needs removal to allow this to happen. Of course, this is a non-issue if you simply blow-off maintenance...). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? I have two possible Aces up my sleeve. IFC 2009 509.2: Equipment Access. Approved access shall be provided and maintained for all fire protection equipment to permit immediate safe operation and maintenance of such equipment. This site has a dedicated fire service who act as first response to all the client facilities who occupy this industrial park. They are the AHJ for the park. They will be contacted to get their input. There is also the State Fire Marshal's office that also has input. Second is the fact that the proposed location provides no way to bring (6) 4" lines into the building. So I've got some ammo to shoot down this concept. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:21 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of foam system valve room on 2nd floor - permitted? No code restrictions, but certainly foam systems concerns. 55 gallon drums to second floor with stairs? Bladder tanks? Lay 'em down to replace bladder that gets torn. Craig, am I missing something? If not, I've seen this before and it gets ugly real fast. I've worked on an existing hanger that they buried the big tanks in a corner, tore the bladder and have to cut the roof open to lift them out, to lay it down, to replace it. Scott Futrell ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Class III Standpipes for a Stage
Greg - the requirements for the stage standpipes are different than an ordinary NFPA 14 standpipe - at least when in accordance with the IBC/IFC. As of the 2006 ed. of that code, if the building is fully sprinklered, then you simply need a single 1-1/2" hose connection in accordance with NFPA 13. Presumably this means the stage sprinkler calc. would include an inside hose allowance from that hose connection. Obviously you need to take into account any local amendments. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Lindholm Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 5:23 AM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Class III Standpipes for a Stage We have a 2 1/2" hose valve, with 2 1/2 x 1 1/2 reducer, at each side of a Stage. Originally, I was thinking that I had to design for 500 gpm at the remote valve, and 250 gpm for the second one. But NFPA #14 2007 talks about 250 gpm at each of the top 2 valves on a standpipe, then 250 gpm for additional standpipes. Do I just design for 250 gpm at each of the valves? Greg Lindholm ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Dry system main pitch in cooler
Duane, 7.9.1 is simply saying ignore the section when dealing with refrigerated spaces above freezing temps. Is doe NOT say ignore other sections such as 8.16.2.3.3. I.e. follow the standard, but skip over 7.9. So pitch the main at 1/2" in 10' (or greater). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Martinez, Dewayne Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Dry system main pitch in cooler NFPA 13 (07ed) What pitch does a dry system main have to be in a refrigerated space (>32F)? 8.16.2.3.3 states ½ in 10 but when you look at 7.9.1 it say's to ignore the requirements of 7.9 (Refrigerated Spaces)when the temperature is greater than 32F. Thanks, Dewayne ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: obstruction vs concealed space.
Textile cutting tables also tend to have significant combustibles (besides their construction) under and around them (a la Triangle Shirtwaist factory). Something else to figure into the mix. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. However, a traditional "cutting table" as referenced in .1 comes from the textile industry. The tables were 4 ft wide or wider and very long (some around 40 ft). These tables were wooden and were heavily built. They could be moved but generally remained in place since they were extremely heavy and took significant manpower to do so. My guess is that these tables (9 ft x 20 ft framed with 2x8s) more likely resemble these than a piece of furniture. I am trying to determine if they are being fixed to the floor. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) > On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" > wrote: > > 8.5.5.3.2 Sprinklers shall not be required under obstructions that are not > fixed in place, such as conference tables. > > Duane Johnson, PE > Program Manager > Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services > National Institutes of Health > 301-496-0487 > > "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" > > > -Original Message- > From: Todd - Work [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:02 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. > > NFPA 13 (2002) section 8.5.5.3.1 and equivalent sections of subsequent > editions. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > www.fpdc.com > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Steven Scandaliato >> wrote: >> >> What is making you feel you need to put sprinklers under tables that are 16" >> off the floor? Or under "normal" circumstances? >> >> Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS >> 520.971.2322 Cell >> Skype: steven.scandaliato >> >> -Original Message- >> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >> Todd - Work >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:19 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. >> >> Growing tables in an agricultural facility >> >> Todd G Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> Stonington, CT >> www.fpdc.com >> 860-535-2080 (ofc) >> >>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 2:57 PM, wrote: >>> >>> What kind of "tables", what kind of environment? >>> >>> Craig L. Prahl, CET >>> Fire Protection Group Lead >>> CH2MHILL >>> Lockwood Greene >>> 1500 International Drive >>> Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 >>> Direct - 864.599.4102 >>> Fax - 864.599.8439 >>> CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >>> craig.pr...@ch2m.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >>> Todd - Work >>> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:34 PM >>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> Subject: obstruction vs concealed space. >>> >>> I am working on a project where they are going to have 9 ft x 20 ft >>> tables >> located 16" off the floor. Not sure if the tables will be built with >> 2x8 or >> 2x10 framing. Under normal circumstances, we would need to have >> sprinklers installed under the tables. However, if the distance from >> the bottom of the joist to the floor is 6" or less, could it be considered a >> "concealed space" >> and sprinkler be eliminated? I would assume if those sprinklers were >> eliminated, the design area for the ceiling would increase to 3000 sqft. >>> >>> Todd G Williams, PE >>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>> Stonington, CT >>> www.fpdc.com >>> 860-535-2080 (ofc) >>> ___ >>> Sprinkle
RE: obstruction vs concealed space.
Todd - I think you answered your own question. As long a it is impractical, then the space should be allowed to be except, with the caveat of the 3,000 sq.ft. design area for that room. Of course, convincing the AHJ that impractical is a good enough reason may be the challenge, especially if it is NOT considered impossible to sprinkler below the table. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. Mark, When I first started with Factory Mutual, I saw a lot of textile cutting tables, back when SE MA had a textile industry. The combustible loading was obvious. However, 13 says that anything over 4 ft wide has to have a sprinkler under it. The question here is can they be eliminated if the clearance to the floor is such that installing sprinklers is impractical, treating it as a concealed space instead of an obstruction. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) > On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:28 PM, "Mark A. Sornsin, P.E." > wrote: > > Textile cutting tables also tend to have significant combustibles (besides > their construction) under and around them (a la Triangle Shirtwaist factory). > Something else to figure into the mix. > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Todd - Work > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:22 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. > > However, a traditional "cutting table" as referenced in .1 comes from the > textile industry. The tables were 4 ft wide or wider and very long (some > around 40 ft). These tables were wooden and were heavily built. They could be > moved but generally remained in place since they were extremely heavy and > took significant manpower to do so. My guess is that these tables (9 ft x 20 > ft framed with 2x8s) more likely resemble these than a piece of furniture. I > am trying to determine if they are being fixed to the floor. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > www.fpdc.com > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" >> wrote: >> >> 8.5.5.3.2 Sprinklers shall not be required under obstructions that are not >> fixed in place, such as conference tables. >> >> Duane Johnson, PE >> Program Manager >> Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services >> National Institutes of Health >> 301-496-0487 >> >> "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Todd - Work [mailto:t...@fpdc.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:02 PM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. >> >> NFPA 13 (2002) section 8.5.5.3.1 and equivalent sections of subsequent >> editions. >> >> Todd G Williams, PE ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Flow Test Residual and Pitot The Same?
Correct me if I'm wrong - I was a C+ student in college after all - but I believe it is possible to have a residual the same as the Pitot, but highly unlikely. In order for it to happen, you must convert all the energy (pressure) in the system to velocity, with no measurable losses. In the case of the one hydrant test, you would take your static, then open the hydrant and take your residual on the butt opposite the flowing outlet. You could have a residual close to or the same as the Pitot, since the residual pressure is measured so close in proximity to the velocity pressure (Pitot). The one-hydrant test is therefore more conservative, because the residual pressure includes losses in the hydrant barrel and is thus not reflective of the total pressure in the system (at the main). But I digress... Since they describe a two hydrant test, I am more suspicious. How much friction loss is there within a 5" hydrant barrel? If it were equivalent to 5" sch. 40 pipe, there'd be at least 1/2 psi through 9' of barrel at 750 gpm. Seems the Pitot therefore, should not be the same pressure. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:44 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Flow Test Residual and Pitot The Same? I have a flow test report showing the residual and pitot pressure being the same. 60 static, 20 residual with a 20 pitot on a 2.5" opening for 750 gpm. I talked to the contractor and they described doing it correctly, two hydrants one static/residual, one flowing. I don't believe it's possible to have the residual and pitot the same pressure but I'm having a hard time articulating why not. I know I've never seen this before and probably have done almost 1,000 tests in my life. Any input? Is it possible? Either way why or why not? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com<mailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com> www.burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/> Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Flow Test Residual and Pitot The Same?
Tim - If I may speak for Chris - he is not confusing the residual with the Pitot. He's simply noting that a contractor has told him their test shows a Pitot pressure that is the same value as the Residual pressure. So the question is "Is this possible?" Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 5:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Flow Test Residual and Pitot The Same? Chris, My understanding is that you are asking about 2 different pressures. The Static and Residual pressure readings we acquire are acting in all directions inside a pressurized pipe. Static or dynamic represents pressure of at rest or non moving/flowing condition while the residual lower change in pressure we expect to see when water is allowed to flow from an open valve. >From the next hydrant that is allowed to flow we are measuring for GPM by use >of the Pitot which is measuring the pressure at the center of that water flow >stream and that pressure is created by the force of that moving water past the >end of the Pitot. These are two different pressures and should not be confused. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Cahill, Christopher > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:44 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Flow Test Residual and Pitot The Same? > > I have a flow test report showing the residual and pitot pressure > being the > same. 60 static, 20 residual with a 20 pitot on a 2.5" opening for > 750 gpm. I talked to the contractor and they described doing it > correctly, two hydrants one static/residual, one flowing. I don't > believe it's possible to have the residual and pitot the same pressure > but I'm having a hard time > articulating why not. I know I've never seen this before and probably have > done almost 1,000 tests in my life. Any input? Is it possible? > Either way why or why not? > > Chris Cahill, PE* > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > Burns & McDonnell > 8201 Norman Center Drive > Bloomington, MN 55437 > Phone: 952.656.3652 > Fax: 952.229.2923 > ccah...@burnsmcd.com<mailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com> > www.burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/> > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > *Registered in: > MN > > > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum- > firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Combustible soffits
BJ - my short response (without substantiation) is that you can protect those soffits as a light hazard occupancy above the ceiling. Cover an area up to 15 ft. beyond the soffits. If the room is small (30 ft. square for instance, you gain nothing as you wouldn't eliminate any head above the ceiling. Obviously on a 100 ft. square room, you may see more substantial savings. Also be aware of the rule to use concealed space sprinklers is the height of the ceiling space is less than 3 ft. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of BJ Newlin Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 4:03 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Combustible soffits Forum, We are performing a retrofit in an existing library. While the building is built out of completely non-combustible materials (ie steel and concrete) there are several existing soffits that are framed out of wood and open to the rest of the areas above the ceiling. My assumption is that we need to protect above those soffits to protect the combustibles. However I was wondering if section 8.15.1.2.1 and 8.15.1.2.2 would apply as options that would preclude us from installing fire protection above the ceiling. If we are required to protect above the ceiling as I suspect, are we required to protect the entire space above the ceiling, or a smaller amount? Thanks in advance! Barnabas (BJ) Newlin Fire Protection Division Manager bnew...@prairiesons.com Phone: (605) 582-8611 Fax: (605) 582-8618 Cell: (605) 951-6392 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Fredrick MD, Seismic Zone?
"Make someone do the job they were paid to do." -Craig L. Prahl, CET But-but...Craig! The specs said "do it per code". They DID their job right? And they also said "make sure the water supply is adequate"; and "get the approval of the authorities"; and only use certain types of copper pipe, etc.; and no extended coverage sprinklers, 'cuz that's "untested technology"... What more needs to be done? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Dry System with Galvanized Pipe and Black Fittings
He's talking about the fittings. Galv pipe with black fittings. I have never seen a restriction against using C=120 on dry systems as long as the pipe was galvanized (until the 2013 edition of NFPA13). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:46 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Dry System with Galvanized Pipe and Black Fittings You have never been able to use a C factor of 120 for black steel pipe on a dry system. > From: jdwa...@flsamerica.com > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Dry System with Galvanized Pipe and Black Fittings > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:42:01 + > > What I was looking for (and thought I'd seen before) was that even if I used > black steel fitting on galvanized pipe I could still calculate the system > using a C factor of 120. I thought I remembered seeing it way back in 2002, > and was trying to trace it forward. > > Jimmy Waite, CET - Design Manager > Fire & Life Safety America- Raleigh District > 7711 Welborn Street, Suite 103 > Raleigh, NC 27615 > Office: 919-872-3250 > Cell: 919-868-3546 > Fax: 919-877-5775 > www.flsamerica.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Mackinnon > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 9:35 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Dry System with Galvanized Pipe and Black Fittings > > For dry and double interlocked pre action systems, black pipe is c of 100. > Galv is c of 120. > For wet and single interlocked pre action systems, all steel piping is 120. > > Steven MacKinnon > Fire Protection Division > Hartcorn Plumbing and Heating, Inc. > 850 South Second Street > Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 > Office 631-580-2300 Fax - 631-580-1090 > > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Aaron Peck > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 9:32 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Dry System with Galvanized Pipe and Black Fittings > > I got the 2010, 13 code on my iPhone but I'm still useless trying to find > anything. Give me the book and I can turn right too it. Go figure. > > It may have been 100 before, did they change it in 2013? > > Sent from my iPhone > Aaron M. Peck, SET Fire Protection > Skype +1(202)407-9079 > Cambodia +855(0)78700407 > > > On Feb 14, 2014, at 9:16 PM, John Denhardt > > wrote: > > > > Not with the 2013 edition of 13. Changed all steel pipping to 100 for dry > > and preaction systems. > > > > Thanks, > > John August Denhardt P.E. > > > >> On Feb 14, 2014, at 9:06 AM, "Aaron Peck" wrote: > >> > >> If you use black pipe is a reduction of your pipe C-Factor. I believe it's > >> reduced to 120... but I don't have the code in front of me. > >> > >> Galvanized pipe lets you retain you C-Factor. > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> Aaron M. Peck, SET Fire Protection > >> Skype +1(202)407-9079 > >> Cambodia +855(0)78700407 > >> > >>> On Feb 14, 2014, at 8:54 PM, John Denhardt > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Why will it not be allowed? No restrictions. Used to be done all the time > >>> especially with Navy projects. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> John August Denhardt P.E. > >>> > >>>> On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:27 AM, "James D. Waite" > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Didn't there used to be a section in 13 that specifically allowed black > >>>> steel fittings with galvanized pipe on dry systems? I've been looking > >>>> for a few days and haven't been able to find it. > >>>> > >>>> Jimmy Waite, CET - Design Manager Fire & Life Safety America- > >>>> Raleigh District > >>>> 7711 Welborn Street, Suite 103 > >>>> Raleigh, NC 27615 > >>>> Office: 919-872-3250 > >>>> Cell: 919-868-3546 > >>>> Fax: 919-877-5775 > >>>> www.flsamerica.com > >>>> > >>>>
RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
My comparable story relates to a small town community wellness center. It included Gymnasium spaces, swimming, etc. We were hired only to provide a 'performance specification', but we thought it might be novel to include performance criteria... For the gymnasium we talked with the architect about potential uses beyond athletics, and he confirmed that there could be trade shows, receptions, etc. We specified OH II. The contractor submitted shops to the Fire Marshal who commented that the Gymnasium didn't require OHII, just Light haz., so naturally the contractor wanted us to allow the LH design. I don't blame them, but this highlights what we're discussing on this thread: classification and hazard are different animals. Sometimes a gymnasium, is just a gymnasium; sometimes a banana, is just a banana; and sometimes the engineer has done his homework and specifies a design for a good reason. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Tower Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard It seems that semantics are everything in this industry; however, certain terms tend to be used interchangeably by certain people. Code vs. Standard, hazard occupancy vs. IFC occupancy group, etc. I've had very heated discussions with GC's and MEP's concerning the differences. I once had a full blown argument with an individual over a "community center" project in a small Texas town which was blanket classified as IFC Group A-3. As we later found out, every third weekend, this community center, which had a large, multi-court gymnasium would be hosting a swap-meet inside. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what would have been considered a light hazard occupancy per the standard is being utilized as an IFC Group "M" or "S-1" occupancy which would necessitate a higher density requirement per the standard. Given that it's a "swap-meet" there is absolutely no telling what sort of commodities might be present. I imagine that the commodities would not exceed 8'0" under most any circumstance and the majority of the merchandising would be on collapsible tables, but I was attempting to apply a conservative approach by implementing an ordinary hazard II density. Curtis Tower -Original Message- From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard Humble enough, Sir Roland. I will have to think quite a bit more about everything else you said, however. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard
Agreed. Though these questions are best asked during the bidding process, not during shops review. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard When you have to specify a non-standard design criteria it's best to provide some clarification in the documentation as to why you chose what you did. It could help prevent these types of questions (or at least minimize them somewhat). Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard My comparable story relates to a small town community wellness center. It included Gymnasium spaces, swimming, etc. We were hired only to provide a 'performance specification', but we thought it might be novel to include performance criteria... For the gymnasium we talked with the architect about potential uses beyond athletics, and he confirmed that there could be trade shows, receptions, etc. We specified OH II. The contractor submitted shops to the Fire Marshal who commented that the Gymnasium didn't require OHII, just Light haz., so naturally the contractor wanted us to allow the LH design. I don't blame them, but this highlights what we're discussing on this thread: classification and hazard are different animals. Sometimes a gymnasium, is just a gymnasium; sometimes a banana, is just a banana; and sometimes the engineer has done his homework and specifies a design for a good reason. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Tower Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard It seems that semantics are everything in this industry; however, certain terms tend to be used interchangeably by certain people. Code vs. Standard, hazard occupancy vs. IFC occupancy group, etc. I've had very heated discussions with GC's and MEP's concerning the differences. I once had a full blown argument with an individual over a "community center" project in a small Texas town which was blanket classified as IFC Group A-3. As we later found out, every third weekend, this community center, which had a large, multi-court gymnasium would be hosting a swap-meet inside. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what would have been considered a light hazard occupancy per the standard is being utilized as an IFC Group "M" or "S-1" occupancy which would necessitate a higher density requirement per the standard. Given that it's a "swap-meet" there is absolutely no telling what sort of commodities might be present. I imagine that the commodities would not exceed 8'0" under most any circumstance and the majority of the merchandising would be on collapsible tables, but I was attempting to apply a conservative approach by implementing an ordinary hazard II density. Curtis Tower -Original Message- From: Brad Casterline [mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard Humble enough, Sir Roland. I will have to think quite a bit more about everything else you said, however. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by
RE: P-A System Pendent Sprks
Ron, I think you have to use return bends. I know you don't have drops but I have to wonder if the risk of blockage from corrosion isn't still present. In my contracting years we modified a preaction system with 1" drops to pendent sprinklers (installed by others). A number of those drops included water trapped within; some had corrosion to the point that a rust cap was formed across the diameter of the pipe. I think over time products of corrosion could build up in the 1/2 Tee outlets above your sprinklers. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: P-A System Pendent Sprks Here is a new one, for me anyway. Had a designer ask if it was okay to use exposed pendents on a pre-action system. He had it designed with uprights but due to field conditions the pipe was installed higher than designed and the foreman changed the heads to pendent. 13 says pendents have to be on return bends but there is no ceiling. No freezing to worry about here in Phoenix. Ron F ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Hibachi Restaurants Occupancy Hazard
Travis, let me handle this: Steve, "Oh, yeah?!?" Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hibachi Restaurants Occupancy Hazard Travis: First, thank you for what is finally a lucid and concise assessment of the issue that was originally raised. 597 emails later ... Second, it's a true statement that "FPE's are often sprinkler morons." Just sayin ... ;-) Steve Leyton, ABCDEFG -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org on behalf of Travis Allen Sent: Thu 3/13/2014 9:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Hibachi Restaurants Occupancy Hazard Catching up on this thread. Had to respond to my (former) friend Ron's comment about "FPEs are often sprinkler morons". Ok, I'll let that one drop. As detailed in the email chain, the IBC would set the occupancy classification as B or A-2 depending on the occupant load. As far as the sprinkler protection, obviously, no amount of sprinkler protection will aid if these are gas heated units, which is typical, without shutting the fuel off. We addressed one of these locally. Since the sprinkler design is based on combustible loading, apart from full scale fire tests, it would indeed be hard to "prove" where this lands. IMHO, the bigger issue is protection of the downdraft duct work. We've seen some nozzles placed above the tabletop (over-kill) treating these as a larger grill. Downdraft systems will run their ductwork under the floor (typically combustible). LH or OH sprinklers in the room is not going to make a bit of difference if there is a subfloor duct fire. If need be, I can draw a Mohr's Circle to better illustrate this ;-) Travis Allen, FPE Hibachi Restaurants Occupancy Hazard rongreenman . rongreenman at gmail.com <mailto:sprinklerforum%40lists.firesprinkler.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Hibachi%20R estaurants%20Occupancy%20Hazard&In-Reply-To=%3CCAKSKedaLFXK2pL3_zGbd5TL2w0Os etAj%3DA5-vKne-q%3D%2BGNXWNQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E> Sat Mar 1 08:11:38 PST 2014 * Previous message: Hibachi Restaurants Occupancy Hazard <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org /2014-March/003586.html> * Next message: Redrawing Cadd Backgrounds <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org /2014-March/003587.html> * Messages sorted by: [ date ] <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org /2014-March/date.html#3573> [ thread ] <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org /2014-March/thread.html#3573> [ subject ] <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org /2014-March/subject.html#3573> [ author ] <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org /2014-March/author.html#3573> _ John, The occupant load never entered my mind about restaurants. Always stuck in 13 with LH for seating and OH for kitchen. But you're point is what I, and several other contributors were getting at: What actually is the fire load and ignition treat in these types of restaurants. I'm going to venture your example of the warming table is greater. Something that moves is usually more subject to an accident than a fixed appliance. You have Joe Public messing around with it. It may or my not be attended, and I'll bet those Teppen cook/jugglers are trained in where the manual pull is on the suppression system (something missing on the buffet line). Then there's the skirt on the table supporting the warming trays heated by...? Open flames typically. I got lunch at the coffee/sandwich shop across the street from the college yesterday. While I had a cold sandwich I could have had a hot one. And they do have a grill covered with a Class I hood and UL 300 compliant system. They are on the ground floor of a six story building, all residential above. While this building would be sprinklered if built today it wasn't so it isn't. So zero sprinklers and reliance completely on the special hazard fire protection systems (welded seam hood and duct, extraction fan, local chemical protection, regular hood and duct cleaning compliant distances from combustibles) isolating the special hazard. How about a Chuck Berry type burger joint, a McDonald's, or even a "classier" burger joint like Red Robin, where the building isn't sprinklered at all and the activity is essentially a grease p
RE: heat collector vs heat director
Where I have seen engineers specify these is in situations where the ceiling is considerably higher than the sprinkler - like when a false ceiling is removed and they think they can just add 'heat collectors' without otherwise modifying the system. I.e., the sprinklers is several feet below the ceiling, so the whole concept of the 'vertical heat director' seems to be a purely academic exercise. Bottom line: heat collectors don't exist and should be shunned at their first mention in virtually all settings. 'Heat directors' seem clever, but I fail to see a realistic application. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 9:40 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: heat collector vs heat director https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuuJTxUtPMk&feature=youtu.be for what it is worth. 16" deflector distance under smooth ceiling. horizontal heat collector does not work but turning it vertical does. thanks, Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: closely spaced sprinklers and draftstops at floor openings
Just a reminder to the casual observer (further to John's post that I just saw), but closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops are NOT required by NFPA 13 (as of the 2007 edition) UNLESS there is a building code requirement for a vertical fire separation. I.E., the draft stops and sprinklers serve and an ALTERNATIVE to a passive fire separation. If the separation is required by code, but there is a desire to keep the opening 'open', then this arrangement can be used - along with the requisite calculations to prove the water flow component of the design. Of course, if you are being held to an edition of NFPA 13 prior to 2007, then draft stops and sprinklers COULD be interpreted as a necessity around ALL vertical openings, regardless of building code requirements. If this is your situation, you might fight the requirement based on newer editions. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:10 PM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: closely spaced sprinklers and draftstops at floor openings I had a customer ask about where the 6'-0" spaced sprinks and 18" draftstops came from. Anyone know how this design came about (or where I could look for info). Thanks, Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS & MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Recessed heads and escutcheons
Please clarify your intent. Do you want to install a recessed head without any escutcheon, or do you want to use a different brand/model escutcheon from that which is listed with the head? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:55 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Recessed heads and escutcheons Are all recessed heads listed to be installed with their escutcheons? Sent from my iPad ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: galvanized piping
I thought they weren't in business anymore... Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: galvanized piping I went to IDOD's website to get some info on their products, and man, for some reason their website is really messed up. If you click any link on their main page, it takes you to a 404 error page. When you look at the actual URL, it looks like they added an extra "..\" to every link! Click on this, and you get the error: http://www.idodsystems.com/. .\crrvaluecomparison.html Take out the ..\ and you get this: http://www.idodsystems.com/crrvaluecomparison.html Who does that to their own website? Benjamin Young On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:36 AM, rongreenman . wrote: > I think (emphasis on think only) that Idod will last longer because of > the manufacturing process. It's more a steel/zinc alloy than coated > steel. That said I don't know for sure. Rust/corrosion does not occur > in environments without oxygen, consider Lake Michigan where nothing > lives below 100 feet and all those sunken ships have uncorrupted cargo > waiting for salvage, so a nitrogen environment in place of an > oxygen/nitrogen (air) environment (inside the pipe) should be devoid of any > deterioration at all. > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Rod DiBona wrote: > > > > > A general question. Do you still believe that galvanized piping > > should be used for most dry systems / dry standpipes? The makers of > > idod pipe say yes. The makers of nitrogen generators say no. I had > > always thought that > it > > was better and that in GENERAL galvanized would last longer. Over > > the > last > > few years it seems like the tide has changed and I have read studies > > that come to different conclusions. I understand there are many > > variables but thank you for your thoughts. > > > > Rod at Rapid > > ___ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, > inventor and engineer (1876-1958) > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: pump test - flow meters
I have always had a bias against the use of flow meters - I think mostly because I was taught at FM right out of college that they are unreliable. I have certainly seen my share of water flow meters that bounced all over the place and didn't seem to give a good reading, but I am more inclined of late to believe those instances are the result of installation errors. I think in an ideal world, if someone wants a flow meter, it should be installed correctly (duh) but also include a test header arranged such that one can verify the flow meter performance simultaneously with the flow through the test header. I believe that is the current requirement in NFPA 20 (ability to flow water to periodically verify flow meter performance). As for test headers - my favorite arrangement was the single 4" diameter smooth bore nozzle installed out the side of the pump house that sprayed back into the suction pond. This was at a saw mill not far from the landslide in Oso, Washington. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: pump test header valves We have jurisdictions out here with very specific requirements and one city mandates a proprietary test header design for high-rise buildings that is only to be located in the pump room. Because we typically cast high-rise tanks in place with concrete, it's a simple exercise to block out an opening and then build a play-pipe rack in front of the opening. This FD doesn't want to use flow meters (why that is, I have no idea) and requires a pitot be taken from each stream as it flows from the pump test main back into the tank through the opening. Uh huh, I know, California, blah blah blah. SML -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 3:02 PM To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' Subject: RE: pump test header valves NFPA 20 was modified recently. It does not allow the header in the room. I was told the intent was not to allow the fire hose connection in the room under any situation. We used to install the header in the room all the time. John John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 5:58 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: pump test header valves Or, if possible keep headed in the pump room without valves, run hoses out to a truck mounted test rack with hose gates on the rack. This way the person reading the pitot can adjust the valves, Sent from my iPhone3200 USA Parkway McCarran NV 89434 United States > On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:49 PM, "John Denhardt" > wrote: > > Funny but true story: > > I had a client who was worried about security with the test header > penetrating the exterior of the building. They had us remove the test header > after each test and store in the fire pump/mechanical room. We were > instructed to install a blind flange using sealant on the bolts so the blind > flange would not be easily removed. Well, the client decided to have the > area cleaned up. To everyone surprise, when showed up for the annual fire > pump system test, no test header was in the room. After the investigation, > the employee that cleaned the room said he did not know what it was but it > was big, heavy and had brass valves. He made the decision to throw it away. > > Amazing - you can not make this stuff up! > > John > > > John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE > Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated > 5113 Berwyn Road > College Park, Maryland 20740 > Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: > 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > David Autry > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 2:32 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: pump test header valves > > LOL, I was think of one that I did
Re: Finding a formula
System size, temperature change, piping material... Sent from my iPhone Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com > On Apr 15, 2014, at 8:51 AM, "Aaron Peck" wrote: > > Doesn't system size effect the pressure loss? > > Sent from my iPhone > Aaron M. Peck, SET Fire Protection > Skype +1(202)407-9079 > Cambodia +855(0)78700407 > >> On Apr 15, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Brad Casterline wrote: >> >> you are welcome Aaron, I hope it is correct, I kinda pulled it out of the >> thin Kansas early morning air. >> If it is correct, 50 psi would be 6 gallons, and you would be leaking 1.2 >> GPM. >> >> Brad >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Aaron Peck [mailto:amp...@me.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:40 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: Re: Finding a formula >> >> No, I got that. >> >> The plumber is telling me that it's not a leak in the underground but in the >> lead-in connections for individual office containers. Got 20 individual >> containers outfitted for office and living quarters. There's aboveground PE >> pipe and where they connect he says that's the area of leaks. Dropping about >> 50 psi from 200 psi over 5 mins. >> >> Trying to figure out how many gpm need to leak for a 50 psi drop. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> Aaron M. Peck, SET Fire Protection >> Skype +1(202)407-9079 >> Cambodia +855(0)78700407 >> >>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 3:42 PM, craig.pr...@ch2m.com wrote: >>> >>> Are you talking about the allowable loss for underground systems? >>> >>> Craig L. Prahl, CET >>> Fire Protection Group Lead >>> CH2MHILL >>> Lockwood Greene >>> 1500 International Drive >>> Spartanburg, SC 29303 >>> Direct - 864.599.4102 >>> Fax - 864.599.8439 >>> CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >>> craig.pr...@ch2m.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Aaron >> Peck >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:54 AM >>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> Subject: Finding a formula >>> >>> I can't seem to find one but I'm trying to find the volume of water loss >> during a pressure test. I can get the total volume of water in the pipe but >> can't seem to find a formula to help with finding the volume loss. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> Aaron M. Peck, SET Fire Protection >>> Skype +1(202)407-9079 >>> ___ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> ___ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > __ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13?
A word of caution regarding semantics: The building is either designed to 13 or 13R. There is no "13 for this area and 13R for that area." If the garages are considered part of the building and the building is eligible for 13R (as this one appears it may be) then the building is designed to 13R. The garage calculations would be done to 13R (which happens to reference 13 rules, except for the hose allowances). Only if the garages are determined to be separate buildings would be able to say 13R for the main building and 13 for the garages. This sounds petty on the surface, but when we use these terms loosely, the Architects and plumbing engineers pick up on it and start spreading false premises: "We're gonna design these rooms to that 13R code and these areas to 13." "You need residential sprinklers everywhere, except the laundry rooms, because those have to be designed to 13." "The apartments above are to 13R but the first floor mercantile - including the open stair to the apartments- is designed to 13." No, No, and No. One building - one design standard. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Medina Jr Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:18 AM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13? Forum, Can anyone please add there 2 cents in and help clarify when to classify as a 13 system versus a 13R I have a project that consist of 3 stories with an occupancy of R2/S2 and Construction Type VA. The project is lay ed out like a horse shoe with 3 sides and a corridor running down the middle from 1 required stairwell to another on the opposite end, with a court yard in the middle. There are private garages around the perimeter of the building (which all have access from a common 1st floor corridor only) All the Garages have a 2 hour separation between them and the 2nd level residential units and the 1st floor corridor. There are residential units on the 1st floor (opposite the garages) facing the court yard. I figured the Garage calculations shall conform to NFPA-13, based on NFPA-13R (2013ed.) Sec. 7.3.1. My question is if the building can be classified as a 13R (with garage areas calced at NFPA-13) or should it be classified as a NFPA-13 with dwelling units & residential heads (calculations based on the greater of the area/density @ .10 or the head listing). If not, what is the determining factor or the threshold. George Medina Jr. Mobile: 323-906-5701 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Flow test and 13D
Maybe approach the AHJs with plots of the flow tests and typical 13D design points. It may be more apparent graphically that what is really needed for 13D design is just the normal low static pressure. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:20 PM To: Subject: Flow test and 13D In a few cities they require a full blown flow test for a proposed 13D system. This can be expensive and time consuming. My question is, would the AHJ have to have a code amendment in order to require a flow test because it goes beyond 13D and is an additional cost? Any suggestions on how to argue the uselessness and waste of time and money this requirement is? Owen Evans Sent from my iPad ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: esfr FM Global
Rod - I believe all ESFR design requirements are contained in the respective Storage Data Sheets (e.g. 8-9 for Class I-IV and Plastics). The installation criteria formerly included in a separate data sheet has been compiled within Data Sheet 2-0 - Installation Guidelines for Automatic Sprinklers. Likewise, the calc procedures are contained within Data Sheet 3-0 - Hydraulics for Fire Protection Systems. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: esfr FM Global I looked and didn’t see a data sheet specifically for esfr (storage in their terminology). Did go through data sheet 8-9 (storage of class 1-4) but didn’t see anything that special to FM. Thanks. Rod at Rapid From: Matthew Willis [mailto:matthewwillis1...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:45 AM To: Rod DiBona Cc: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: esfr FM Global Get the FM data. They have "confidential" in house documents that sometimes exceed what we think of as norm. Like going from 12 to more flowing, higher end head etc. Learned this on a tissue paper project one time. R/ Matt On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Rod DiBona mailto:r...@rapidfireinc.com>> wrote: I am wondering if there are any major issues to watch for when bidding an ESFR (FM = Storage sprinkler) to meet FM rather than NFPA? The only things that come to mind is the 12 head calc not 14. Starting head Psi looks like 50 for FM compared to 52 for NFPA. Not wanting anybody to look anything up or spend anytime on this. Just wondering if there is anything obvious that I need to be looking out for? Thanks! Rod at Rapid ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ?
Steve - you seem to be off on a tangent and did not understand the question. Its o.k. - that happens at your age. I agree with Travis. I have done several water flow tests using the 4-1/2" port. Apply the proper coefficients and life is good. Of course, flowing that port can have logistical problems due to the large amount of water and/or damage cause by the discharge - so be careful, plan accordingly, or find an alternative approach if necessary. But he raises another peeve of mine. Further to Ron's comments, why do we have to reduce residual pressure to the point of being at least 25% lower than the static? If my sprinkler design anticipates 700 gpm for sprinklers and hose combines, and I run a flow test that produces 1,000 gpm with only a 1 psi drop in pressure, why would I attempt to open more ports or hydrants? In this example we have a flat curve. We're going to need to flow a huge amount of water relative to my design demand to achieve the prescribed 25% drop. To what benefit would we do such a thing? The only reason I can imagine is "because our contract/AHJ says so" - which a crappy reason, but may be legit, sadly. My personal belief is that 291 requires a certain drop in pressure because they want better accuracy for when they extrapolate to a residual pressure of 20 psi. I.e., the flow test is for fire departments to evaluate available firefighting water for their purposes - not necessarily for sprinkler design purposes. Will this method give more accurate result for sprinkler design as well? Yes - but too often it is a level of accuracy not needed (as in my example above) and is not worth the effort expended. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? Are you asking if you can do a flow test from the pumper connection? If so, then sure you can. You just need to modify the coefficient based on your pitot. How are you inflating the gpm? If you measure 1200 gpm from the 2½" and you measure 2000 gpm from the 4.5", how is that inflating flow? You should typically have a lower residual pressure when flowing the pumper connection than the 2½" connection. If you are looking to 291 for direction, are you getting the required 25% drop in static and residual from your 2½" flow? If not, what do you do? You are required to open up additional hydrants to get the flow. So, to get additional flow, you can also flow from the pumper connection. Maybe I am misunderstanding your question. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ?
Craig, it has been my understanding that the 20psi number represents the lowest residual pressure fire departments 'generally' want to see when drawing from a municipal supply - to avoid the potential for collapsing mains at some higher elevation than where the water is being drawn. There are exceptions such as in flat areas like Fargo where they can safely drop below 20 psi in most circumstances. So the flow at 20psi generally represents the maximum flow rate they can safely achieve at that point on the system. It is a 'fictional' number since in most cases they are using extrapolation to get to it. On the other hand, it's not all that fictional if your test from which the extrapolation is run produced a 25% pressure drop from the static. That drop helps define an accurate 'slope' on the N^1.85 graph. Determining the flow at 20 psi does not warrant multiple significant digits - certainly fewer than in sprinkler design (which should use a couple at most). The extrapolation won't be that far off from reality. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: craig.pr...@ch2m.com [mailto:craig.pr...@ch2m.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:42 AM To: Mark A. Sornsin, P.E.; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? And there's another point of discussion, how about that extrapolation at 20 psi. What is the value of that number in reality? I've seen 20 psi flow rates that we knew without any doubt were unachievable by the municipal water supply yet when trying to convince an owner that the water supply would not meet his system demand and the site would require a pump and tank, they would quickly point to the 20 psi flow rate and say "there, see we've got lots of water!" It just confuses the uninformed. I've also seen the additional data point of how much flow you get when at 0 psi. I'm still trying to get my head around that one. Maybe someone can explain it. So why put these fictional numbers on a test report? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 craig.pr...@ch2m.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:34 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the hydraulic calculations ? Steve - you seem to be off on a tangent and did not understand the question. Its o.k. - that happens at your age. I agree with Travis. I have done several water flow tests using the 4-1/2" port. Apply the proper coefficients and life is good. Of course, flowing that port can have logistical problems due to the large amount of water and/or damage cause by the discharge - so be careful, plan accordingly, or find an alternative approach if necessary. But he raises another peeve of mine. Further to Ron's comments, why do we have to reduce residual pressure to the point of being at least 25% lower than the static? If my sprinkler design anticipates 700 gpm for sprinklers and hose combines, and I run a flow test that produces 1,000 gpm with only a 1 psi drop in pressure, why would I attempt to open more ports or hydrants? In this example we have a flat curve. We're going to need to flow a huge amount of water relative to my design demand to achieve the prescribed 25% drop. To what benefit would we do such a thing? The only reason I can imagine is "because our contract/AHJ says so" - which a crappy reason, but may be legit, sadly. My personal belief is that 291 requires a certain drop in pressure because they want better accuracy for when they extrapolate to a residual pressure of 20 psi. I.e., the flow test is for fire departments to evaluate available firefighting water for their purposes - not necessarily for sprinkler design purposes. Will this method give more accurate result for sprinkler design as well? Yes - but too often it is a level of accuracy not needed (as in my example above) and is not worth the effort expended. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used for the h
RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used forthe hydraulic calculations ?
It hasn't been often, but I have had experiences where the water purveyor insists all valves are open. One case if was an Air base saying the same thing. "We checked all of the valves - your test has to be wrong" After more extensive investigation, they eventually find the shut valve. Or the valve that has backwards threads - or whatever crazy scenario. I have also worked with third party water modelling firms that seemed to have extremely conservative flows that just didn't seem to correlate with actual testing. "Better to be conservative" Maybe, if t you're the EOR declaring what the contractors should use in their design. Then again, forcing the installation of a pump based on theoretical flows that may be over-the-top conservative doesn't seem wise. Maybe that firm just sucked at modelling. In the end, Steve's right about the politics of flowing water - not just because of draught but often due to ecological reasons (Portland, OR as an example, used to forbid hydrant tests because it would send chlorinated water and any surface pollutants into the Willamette River). So there may be no choice in the matter. But ideally, I'd still much rather flow a hydrant than trust a model. Mr. Leyton, I said, I'D STILL RATHER FLOW A HYDRANT THAN TRUST A MODEL. (WASN'T SURE YOU COULD READ SUCH SMALL PRINT, WHAT WITH YOUR ADVANCED AGE AND ALL) Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:14 PM To: Bill Brooks; Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Can a hydrant flow from the pumper connection be used forthe hydraulic calculations ? Obviously that's not likely. But they are now more accurate than flow tests insofar as they can predict performance at peak day demand during peak annual windows. And whether I/you/we like it or not, the politics of drought are pushing more and more water purveyors away from flow testing if they have the capability to model.Regarding the issue of closed valves, here's a neat idea: fire and water departments inspect, test and maintain the public fire protection water supply in accordance with the existing and applicable standards. I'm not naïve and we all know it happens all too frequently, but should a dopey sprinkler designer or contractor the lexis for discovering a potentially serious deficiency in the public water supply? SL ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Thermal Barrier for Bathrooms
Roland, Isn't the concern that fire will spread to the unprotected concealed space, spreading heat and smoke to other parts of the building - potentially igniting other shower enclosures leading to mass hysteria and dogs and cats living together? Whereas, the open door adjacent to the unprotected bathroom leads to a sprinkler-protected space. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:48 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Re: Thermal Barrier for Bathrooms That is my understanding (despite the fact that a door is not required to the adjacent room). Never said it ad to be logical. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Licensing Laws. State-by-State.
Cecil - I can only help with North Dakota. Here we have strict licensing laws for sprinkler design... wait. No, I'm sorry. We have licensing requirements for hairdressers. NOT for the design of fire sprinkler systems. My bad. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 3:08 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Licensing Laws. State-by-State. I have searched the AFSA website but apparently am not entering the right keywords. Would anyone have a copy of the latest state licensing requirements from SprinklerAge? Thanks in advance, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com ce...@sprinkleracademy.com OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Tank installation - NFPA 22 - 03 ed
How many "MEs" have spec'd fire sprinkler work for decades and have thus 'earned' the respect of various owners as being 'experts in their field.' They must be - they've been doing it for years. Just like the schlock contractor, both benefit from the reality that fires are rare events. Even more rare are the fires that actually push our systems to the limits (storage fire in the remote area vs. a single sprinkler in the closet). But you can bet that the day I get lazy in my engineering and allow a buried tank to be installed without proper engineering, exactly 13 months later there will be heavy rains that raise the water table; and a sprinkler discharge that runs all night because the alarms malfunctioned; and the resulting empty water tank rising up through the floor slab just in time for the peak production period of the client. In short, we must always be diligent, like Dewayne, and ask these questions rather than going on assuming everything will just work out. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Martinez, Dewayne Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Tank installation - NFPA 22 - 03 ed Thanks guys, I didn't know that all this was involved. At one point in my career I had asked the "bobber" question and was told that once the tanks were filled with water they wouldn't budge so I left it at that. Usually we would just hire a plumbing contractor who did UG / Tank work and they did it all for us. I never questioned their methods since I considered them the experts at what they were doing. I only had one consulting engineer make us pour a concrete base and anchor the tanks down. This is out of about 50 tank installs. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Tank installation - NFPA 22 - 03 ed Right. I'm troubled by the statement "It does not appear that the tanks will need to be anchored". One of the very first things I was taught about buried tanks was the quick calculation of the weight of concrete vs. the buoyant force of water, in order to assure that the slab was of sufficient mass to keep the tank from being pushed out of the ground in case of an Act of God class event, such as flooding or water table rising or ... whatever. I would say that a civil and/or soils engineer at least needs to at least evaluate the excavation, consider stability of the edges, factor the fill (I've always used pea gravel and not recompacted native fill), blah, blah, blah.A structural engineer along with the soils engineer should sign off on reinforcement of any slab as well. See - you already have a dinner party. A boring dinner party, but still a party. SML -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Tank installation - NFPA 22 - 03 ed What Ron said, unless you understand soil mechanics and have the test data from this site guy. Each tank weighs 32000# plus the weight of the tank. There is a lot to go wrong if it is not supported correctly. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com > On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:12 AM, "Martinez, Dewayne" wrote: > > At my past companies there was never a civil involved besides telling > us the general area to locate the tanks. > Is it really that complicated? Basically they are burring a couple of > concrete septic tanks and pitching the pipe down to the inlet at the > building. I was never really too involved in > the whole digging process. > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > rongreenman . > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:14 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Tank installation - NFPA 22 - 03 ed > > DeWayne, > > There must be a civil involved. You might want to consult. This not > the type of conversation to start with, "... I was thinking" > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Martinez, Dewayne < > dmarti...@total-mechanical.com> wrote: > >> We have to have 2 - 8000gal concrete suction tanks installed below >> grade and the GC was asking me how far apart to put the tanks and >> what > >&g
RE: Pressure tanks
The only tank with which I dealt was for an existing system modification. The tank was about 6,000 gallon is I recall. The maximum demand was light hazard - or ordinary with a "room design" - either way, it limited the total volume. It was something like 8' diameter by 15' length - horizontal. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:32 PM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: Pressure tanks Thanks to everyone who helped out yesterday. We've found that this old (40's) sprinkler system was retrofitted with new sprinklers in the late 70's and the two F950 sprinklers that have failed are from the run of 1977-1982 that have been identified (alleged?) to be prone to solder failure at the cups. The info was VERY helpful and we're already pointed toward resolving this issue.Not to be greedy, but I have another survey-type question: What's the largest capacity pressure tank that is practical for sprinkler applications? Anecdotally, what's the largest one you've ever used? For me, they've been very small, residential-only applications. This would be for an over-seas installation, so fire protection listing isn't the singular criterion. Steve L. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Location of Flow Test in Calc's
Brian - I suspect he is misguided (or he misunderstands) based on confusing the rules for looped city mains with mains that are dead end. As a general rule, if your test was taken off looped mains, then you wouldn't have to take the calcs back to the gauge hydrant because the supply flow comes from different directions. I can easily see someone taking that as an absolute rule - especially if they only design systems off well looped mains in the middle of cities. Yet another reason why third party engineers supposedly responsible for sprinkler specs should be the ones either conducting, overseeing, or at least approving the hydrant flow test for a project (assuming they are competent, of course, which really IS supposed to be the baseline assumption...). It can be difficult to bid and win a project supplied off a dead-end main when your competition is under the assumption that they can take that flow test from 1,000 ft. upstream and apply it to the point of connection to the main. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:19 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Location of Flow Test in Calc's Was just told by one of our new designers that he was taught that it didn't matter where the flow test was taken on the underground that you just need to take it back to the tie in point at the main & that everywhere he's worked does it that way. News to me, any of you guys do it that way? If so how do you account for the loss in the underground to the test hydrant, elevation, etc ? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Sprinkler Division bvssystemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/> Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Location of Flow Test in Calc's
..and it's also a bigger problem if you're not dealing with 8" DIP, but 50 yr old cast iron pipe. I have seen that differentiation blown off many times, but the repercussions CAN be significant. What is the C factor on 50 yr. old cast iron? If you can't determine it empirically, then FM may tell you 75 to as low as 40. Which equates to about 3.5 psi to 11 psi, respectively, at 400 gpm (& 1,000 ft.). So which coefficient would you use if FM was not on the job? What would "code" require? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:21 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Location of Flow Test in Calc's Totally agree, however if the concept isn't understood it morphs to the email that started this thread. 400 gpm through old 4" or 6" is a bigger problem. The right way is to calculate to the flow, get the information to do it right. If it is a single-feed loop and you are on the remote end of that loop from the supply and the test, you need to account for the loss. Scott (763) 425-1001x12 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of IPA Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:08 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Location of Flow Test in Calc's In light & ordinary hazards it's usually not a big deal as long as you've accounted for elevation differences. 400 gpm flowing through a thousand feet of 8" DIP equates to a little over 1 psi friction loss. __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot?
Just off the top of my head: It is my understanding that the pitot pressure reading is the more accurate method because it measures what we need - velocity pressure, which we can then convert to flow based on known orifice diameter and C factor. Taking the reading off the opposite hydrant butt is a close approximation and can be used in a pinch. If I recall correctly, the pressure at the non-flowing butt measures the normal pressure near the flowing outlet, prior to being converted to velocity pressure. Since there's not much friction between this gauge and the outlet, an assumption is made that all the normal pressure is converted to velocity pressure. This isn't entirely true, but, as I said, may be close enough to true in a pinch. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 8:05 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: to Pitot or not to Pitot? Yesterday's flow test thread, along with talk of "because that is the way we have always done it" reminded me of something I have been wanting to post since last Christmas-- I was 'calculating' flow tests and looking for any info that might help and I discovered something that surprised me, that being NFPA 13 (2007) A.23.2.1 (2). For the flowing hydrant we can either attach a second gage or use a pitot. I have always used a pitot because that is the way the person who taught me had always done it. No question here, just thought I'd throw this out there on a Friday morning. thanks, Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot?
Oh, and BTW, taking those seasonal/local/whatever fluctuations into account IS noted in NFPA 13 - so one could argue correctly that it is a requirement of "code" (assuming your code references NFPA 13). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot? How many people, when requesting or performing a flow test or flow model, specify that the values be measured at peak seasonal and peak day demands? How much fluctuation does a given water system or zone experience in a day/week/month/year? How many of us review those fluctuations and factor them into a flow test once it's taken? __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot?
...well, technically it in the Appendix material, so it may not be "code." Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 1:39 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot? Oh, and BTW, taking those seasonal/local/whatever fluctuations into account IS noted in NFPA 13 - so one could argue correctly that it is a requirement of "code" (assuming your code references NFPA 13). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot? How many people, when requesting or performing a flow test or flow model, specify that the values be measured at peak seasonal and peak day demands? How much fluctuation does a given water system or zone experience in a day/week/month/year? How many of us review those fluctuations and factor them into a flow test once it's taken? __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 8.15.1.2.1 and A8.15.1.2.1 NFPA 13 (2013)
My personal thought is that it probably doesn't need the protection. However, the standard can be interpreted to say that it is required. At this point, I'd have the AHJ (code authority and/or insurance) make the call. If I were the EOR, I could live with either answer (then again, I'd like to think that if I were the EOR, I would have addressed this issue prior to a contractor bidding the job). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:07 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 8.15.1.2.1 and A8.15.1.2.1 NFPA 13 (2013) That is my thoughts. The sprinkler contractor and builder are fighting it. Also, since the space is less than 36" deep, I feel it needs specially listed sprinklers. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 16, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Pete Schwab wrote: > > It's a combustible concealed space. Sprinkler it or fill it with > insulation > > > Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. > 222 Capitol Court > Ocoee, FL 34761 > > Mobile: (407) 468-8248 > Direct: (407) 877-5570 > Fax: (407) 656-8026 > > www.waynefire.com > > > > We’re hiring great people at all of our locations! Please check out our > website for the details! > > > From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > on behalf of Greg McGahan [g...@livingwaterfp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:59 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: 8.15.1.2.1 and A8.15.1.2.1 NFPA 13 (2013) > > We just a huge discussion about a similar issue and we were not able > to get a consenus..it is quite vague... > > Greg > > > Greg McGahan > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > 1160 McKenzie Road > Cantonment, FL 32533 > 850-937-1850 > fax 850-937-1852 > > >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Travis Mack wrote: >> >> Has anyone been able to determine what is an acceptable amount of >> non-structural wood? We have a hotel project. It is TJI >> construction with sheet rock to the bottom of the TJI throughout the >> building construction. >> Under that, in the corridor, they have a dropped ceiling that is >> acoustical tile and then every +/-40', there is a 15' span of gyp >> board ceiling. The builder is framing the gyp board ceiling with >> wood structural members. In a 200' corridor, there is about 60' of these >> gyp board areas. >> Would this qualify as an area needing sprinklers or would you not put >> sprinklers in this area? >> >> -- >> Travis Mack, SET >> MFP Design, LLC >> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive >> Gilbert, AZ 85298 >> 480-505-9271 >> fax: 866-430-6107 >> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com >> >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. >> org > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Blazemaster CPVC Underground
This issue seems to be addressed in the commentary of the NFPA 13 Handbook (2013) under a Frequently Asked Questions section within 10.1.1. First, there is nothing I'm finding in Ch. 10 that suggests Underground Piping is limited to the "system" side of the sprinkler control valve. The FAQ mentioned above notes that the 2010 edition of '13 clarified "certain types of products are acceptable based on their listings alone, such as ...CPVC..." Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tony Liddic Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:18 AM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Blazemaster CPVC Underground I have a client that does a lot of typical apartment building in various jurisdictions. The buildings are 3 stories with breezeways 1/3 of the way down the length of the building. They are 13R systems and the client has always used Blazemaster CPVC. They run a main down the center of the 1st floor, drop below the breezeway underground then back up in a wall on the other side. This has never been an issue until now. An AHJ is stating that the CPVC is not approved for underground use on the system side of the riser, only the supply side. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tony Liddic, CET MRH Sprinkler Design LLC 356 Laurel Glen Dr. Springboro, OH 45066 937-369-7926 http://mrhsprinklerdesign.com tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Sprinklers on cross mains
Gee, do you think he was throwing out logic to meet the exact letter of the standard? Mr. AHJ, under what scenario would there be a problem when the 'branch line" is 4 in. or larger? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tony Liddic Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:34 AM To: sprinklerforum Subject: Re: Sprinklers on cross mains By definition, the 4" pipe is considered a branch line because it has sprinklers directly attached. See NFPA 13 Chapter 3. Be careful with this arrangement when the FDC is fed from the end of a Cross Main that also has sprinklers attached. Had an AHJ disapprove this arrangement because NFPA 13 8.17.2.4.1.1 states "The fire department connection shall not be attached to branch line piping. I had to run a separate branch line next to the main just to satisfy the definition. Thanks, Tony Liddic, CET MRH Sprinkler Design LLC 356 Laurel Glen Dr. Springboro, OH 45066 937-369-7926 http://mrhsprinklerdesign.com tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Massachusetts PE
Several times now I have been paid by an Omaha architect to conduct flow testing at Minot AFB to meet these very requirements. It's cheaper than sending their Omaha FPE - because I'm local (i.e. I only have to drive 285 miles one way). Chris, I'd be happy to help you out, though I suspect it'd be cheaper for you to do it yourself. If not, then my rates aren't high enough. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:00 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Massachusetts PE No, I meant that was a wasted opportunity to make them do the flow hydrant reading! ;) On Aug 5, 2014 8:06 PM, "Chris Born" wrote: > Client requirement. It's not much different from the UFC 3-600-01 > requirement that a flow test be witnessed by an FPE or a civil > engineer familiar with flow testing. In fact, that may be the exact > reason for the requirement. > > Chris Born > Clark Nexsen, Inc, > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Aug 5, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Ben Young wrote: > > > > Why on earth are you requiring a pe to witness a waterflow test? > >> On Aug 5, 2014 3:10 PM, "Chris Born" wrote: > >> > >> My firm is working on a federal project at Westover AFB in > >> Chicopee, MA and we have a requirement that a waterflow test be witnessed > >> by a PE. > Can > >> anyone provide recommendations of someone that might be able to do this? > >> We can travel and do it if necessary, but it may be more > >> expeditious to engage someone local. Please email me directly at > cb...@clarknexsen.com > >> or call me at 757-961-7933 if you can offer any assistance. > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> Christopher H. Born, P.E. > >> Department Director/Principal, Fire Protection Clark Nexsen, Inc. > >> 4525 Main Street, Suite 1400 > >> Virginia Beach, VA 23462 > >> 757-961-7933 > >> 757-455-5638 FAX > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> ___ > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > >> > >> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > ___ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Modifications to C-Factor due to age of pipe
Travis, Off-hand I can offer no help. But I am curious to see the responses. Had the engineer denoted the requirement in the project drawings or specs, I'd definitely side with them. If not, then I want to know if he has a leg to stand on (i.e. code reference). This CAN be a significant issue and is another example of a potentially serious 'miss' by engineers who don't do their jobs with regards to sprinkler system drawings/specs. E.g., take a 200 ft. run of existing 6 in. pipe - 50 years old. They tell you to use it to modify the existing pipe schedule sprinkler system to meet the new occupancy. Most often, a contractor can get away with simply assuming it is 6" ductile with a c-factor of 140. But what if in reality it is unlined cast iron? What C-factor are you to use? FM taught me that it depended on the water corrosiveness. Who determines that? I don't know if the FM data is acquired from anything that could be cited by code. Their tables say 50 yr old cast iron in mildly corrosive ware should have a C-factor of 75; if corrosiveness is severe, it should be 40. At an extra Hazard, Group I demand of 750 gpm, the friction though 100 feet of pipe can vary from 1.5 psi at C=140; to 4.6 psi at C=75; to 14.9 psi at C=40. Pretty significant variance and not something that should be blown off by the engineer or designer. Ideally you'd do a water test THOUGH that pipe to verify actual friction losses - but that is almost never a viable option. Then again, if you were able to do so, you may be able to get a change order when you prove that the engineer overlooked a serious issue. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Modifications to C-Factor due to age of pipe Does anyone know if there is any requirement in NFPA or Uniform Facilities Criteria to modify the C-Factor of existing underground piping based on the age of the pipe? If so, do you have a section reference so I can look it up. An engineer is requiring us to do it, but won't provide the reference. Yeah..It is one of those days. -- Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Modifications to C-Factor due to age of pipe
If it is in fact ductile iron, it is probably lined - at least I think so. If it is lines then the C-factor is probably supposed to be 140. Not very definitive, I know... But who's to say there isn't something else wrong with the lead-in? Any chance of a partially shut valve somewhere? If I don't see anything posted, I may dig into this this weekend... Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 4:31 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Modifications to C-Factor due to age of pipe This was not brought up in project specs or plans. Nor was it brought up in plan review. This was a project that had an existing 4" ductile supply line. It is supplying some paint booths and some exhaust ducts in an otherwise unsprinklered building. When the guys did the forward flow test of the new backflow preventer, there was an issue that they weren't getting as much water as they thought it should have. So, the EOR for the project comes back and says something about the calcs. According to my customer, the EOR says per a "chart" the C-Factor should have been 60 instead of 140. For 3 of the 4 paint booths, it is not a problem. They are small and plenty of margin. For the 4th, we end up with a problem. But, if there is nothing in the specs or criteria to cause the modification of that pipe, I am not sure where it will go. The good thing is that we still have a margin on the system, but it is less than the 10% required. I have just never heard of having to do this modification. I wanted to make sure it was something I have not been missing. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com On 8/29/2014 2:20 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. wrote: > Travis, > > Off-hand I can offer no help. > > But I am curious to see the responses. Had the engineer denoted the > requirement in the project drawings or specs, I'd definitely side with them. > If not, then I want to know if he has a leg to stand on (i.e. code reference). > > This CAN be a significant issue and is another example of a potentially > serious 'miss' by engineers who don't do their jobs with regards to sprinkler > system drawings/specs. E.g., take a 200 ft. run of existing 6 in. pipe - 50 > years old. They tell you to use it to modify the existing pipe schedule > sprinkler system to meet the new occupancy. Most often, a contractor can get > away with simply assuming it is 6" ductile with a c-factor of 140. But what > if in reality it is unlined cast iron? What C-factor are you to use? > > FM taught me that it depended on the water corrosiveness. Who determines > that? I don't know if the FM data is acquired from anything that could be > cited by code. Their tables say 50 yr old cast iron in mildly corrosive ware > should have a C-factor of 75; if corrosiveness is severe, it should be 40. At > an extra Hazard, Group I demand of 750 gpm, the friction though 100 feet of > pipe can vary from 1.5 psi at C=140; to 4.6 psi at C=75; to 14.9 psi at C=40. > Pretty significant variance and not something that should be blown off by > the engineer or designer. > > Ideally you'd do a water test THOUGH that pipe to verify actual friction > losses - but that is almost never a viable option. Then again, if you were > able to do so, you may be able to get a change order when you prove that the > engineer overlooked a serious issue. > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Travis Mack > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:52 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Modifications to C-Factor due to age of pipe > > Does anyone know if there is any requirement in NFPA or Uniform Facilities > Criteria to modify the C-Factor of existing underground piping based on the > age of the pipe? If so, do you have a section reference so I can look it up. > An engineer is requiring us to do it, but won't provide the reference. > Yeah..It is one of those days. > > -- > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 2508 E Lodgepole Drive > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > email:tm...@mfpdesign.com > > ___
RE: Commodity classification
My instinct tells me class III for the food-grade powders, with maybe a classification reduction if they can easily flow out of broken containers. But then a class upgrade for the plastic pallets...?...back up to class III or maybe IV of not 'flowable." Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:53 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Commodity classification Is the powdered product combustible? Likely yes. Then It is likely class 3 . Powder may be explosion hazard like flour or grain dust. ART ATCO Fire -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jay Stough Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:34 PM To: Sprinkler Forum Subject: Commodity classification I am trying to figure out the correct classification ( NFPA 13 2010 or 2013) for a warehouse. It is food grade powders used in food and medical use. it is stored in fiberboard containers on pallets exactly as shown in this link ( http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23417&catid=692). I have gone through the examples and read the paragraphs on classification, but am not sure which it is. I am thinking Class II and 1 upgrade for the pallets. I don't think they are reinforced since they are always breaking them. -- *Jay Stough* NICET IV LAYOUT NICET III ITM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Porte Cochere
Without researching this, I believe from experience that it is considered a separate building. However, the close proximity may bring into play other code issues - such as having an unsprinklered structure too close to unprotected building openings Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tony Silva Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Porte Cochere A building is designed to NFPA 13R. However, the local building code requires the sprinklering of "porches and balconies" notwithstanding the 13R permission for deletion. So say it is a 13 building. This building has a portico or porte cochere near the main entrance of the building, which is not attached to the building. I don't know the exact clearance between the two structures, but for argument sake, say they are 3 feet apart. The contractor claims the portico is not attached to the building, so doesn't need to be sprinklered. Any views from the forum? Tony ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Pipe Schedule & velocity limitations
I have no way of knowing for sure, but I suspect most engineers calling for velocity restrictions are doing it because it was what they were taught and/or it was in their company's specs. WHY it is in the specs is most likely due to plumbing standards being intermingled with sprinkler standards, which makes some sense when you consider all mechanical was lumped together in Div. 15 (until CSI changed their format and put sprinklers into Div. 13, then Div. 21). The plumbing standards want lower velocities to reduce noise as well as to eliminate pitting from high velocity flow. We all know these are bogus reasons for sprinkler systems that almost never flow, and have an even lower chance of flowing at the design flow rates. Has anyone else heard different reasons (regardless validity) for velocity restrictions? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:24 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe Schedule & velocity limitations So the next time I see a spec that limits the velocity I'll know that is from the old days- when the pipe size was the same whether the water supply was very poor or very good ;), and I will question everything else the specifier has to say! Brad Casterline AFSA Designer Member *** __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill
There are two lines of reasoning I have seen on matters such as this: 1."We aren't following the newer NFPA 13 - period." 2."The newer standard may have what the NFPA committee believes to be the best criteria, but the ICC and our local codes folks have not weighed in on the changes to the standard. Therefore, we cannot accept those 'clarifications.' WE may KNOW that the changes won't affect the future code revisions; but the AHJ doesn't know and most times won't take the chance. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of svang...@aerofire.com Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 7:02 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Shadowed area behind built in cabinet and in widow sill We are bound to NFPA 13 (2002). We have an ECHSW above the door in a room. On the opposite wall is a window and sill that does not create an additional floor area. There is a built in cabinet that partially obstructs the window sill and creates a shadow of 2 sq.ft. between the cabinet and the window over the window sill. We informed the AHJ that per NFPA 13 (2007) 8.5.3.2.4 sprinklers are spaced to walls and not windows if they do not create additional floor area. We also pointed to NFPA 13 (2013) 8.1.1(3) & A.8.1.1(3) which indicate shadow areas are acceptable so long as the other obstruction guidelines are followed. The AHJ stated they cannot accept the newer standard clarifications on this issue. Is there something I am missing in NFPA 13 (2002) that states this design is acceptable? Thanks, Sean ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 3/4" Outlets
Steve, what are some of the examples of poor workmanship you see with field installed mech tees? Leaks? Missing cut-outs? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:55 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 3/4" Outlets I don't think that arrangement meets the intent of the standard, especially on a new system. You would have to talk to the manufacturer of the sprinkler to get a net K-factor if they'd even give the "okay", but in my mind that would be an extreme measure to salvage the existing outlets on a system being improved. As a 3rd party, I'd never allow it on a new system. And the bad news for the contractor would also be that our standard specification doesn't allow mechanical tees on new piping - we've seen such poor workmanship on field-fabricated systems that we require threaded or welded or outlet couplings, but not saddles or mech' tees. SML -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 7:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: 3/4" Outlets I thought about that but is it "legal" on a new system? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of IPA Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:49 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: 3/4" Outlets 1X3/4" bell reducer w/ nipple and revised calcs? On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Brian Harris wrote: > Dumb question but I'm gonna ask anyway. We have a job that is using > EC-25 heads with 1" npt and the fab shop welded all ¾" outlets. Short > of plugging them all and using mechanical tee's has anybody else done > anything easier ? > > Brian Harris, CET > BVS Systems Inc. > Sprinkler Division > bvssystemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/> > Phone: 704.896.9989 > Fax: 704.896.1935 > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: FM Global requirements
Actually, if you want to get technical, FM Global IS an AHJ. So is the engineer of record, if there is one. It's just that in most cases, the government authority is the AHJ whom you must satisfy first. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 5:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: FM Global requirements If your contract requires you to meet both I would double check everything you do against the FM Global data sheets. We have come across some differences that are, let's say counterintuitive. For instance FM no longer seems to recognize concrete twin tee construction like NFPA does. FM limits the deflector distance to 22" max and doesn't allow 1" below the bottom of the tee like NFPA. Also the FM hazard classifications can result in some unusual area densities, like a parking garage at .30/1000. Recently we had to do two submittals, one to the AHJ using NFPA and one to FM with their requirements. It really gets interesting when a core and shell job done to NFPA becomes a FM Global property for TI. FM will write a review letter that lists deficiencies in the core and shell based on their base requirements. We are just finishing a job where FM even recommended moving the existing riser locations requiring new underground lead-ins. As Craig said most of FM's requirements are negotiable, they are not an AHJ. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:16 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: FM Global requirements What Craig said, but FM typically does not recognize QR sprinkler reductions. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) > On Nov 10, 2014, at 11:40 AM, > wrote: > > One thing that needs to be understood is that FM is not an AHJ, they make > recommendations not requirements. > > FM should provide a letter or review of the project and provide > recommendations to the owner. Then the owner takes those recommendations and > tells you as the contractor which ones they want to consider. It's not a > blanket set of requirements. You should not have to determine which Data > Sheets to follow and which not and to what extent. > > I have had some clients that negotiate everything with the FM rep., others > take all the recommendations at 100% so your results may vary. > > Also I have found that FM opinions and directions vary depending on which > office and which individuals you deal with. > > This is not a slam or criticism of any of the FM people I've dealt with over > the years. Just an observation. > > So you need to let the owner know there may be changes but he needs to get > with the FM rep, receive FM's recommendations and then the owner directs > which ones he wants you to employ. > > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29303 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > craig.pr...@ch2m.com > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Dewayne Martinez > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:27 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: FM Global requirements > > I have a project that may be switching to FM global requirements. I haven’t > worked with FM for a while so what are the main differences between NFPA 13 > and FM? The plans have already been approved by the AHJ so the owner is > looking for any potential cost impact. I know that the products used should > be FM approved. I did take a reduced design area for my light hazard areas. > > Thanks, > > > > Dewayne > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __
RE: Hide Those Sprinklers
How about taking the approach of dispelling some myths about ways to improve aesthetics. E.g.: -Sidewall sprinklers can't throw up a slope so you can't run a line along the perimeter of a room with a sloped ceiling and expect to throw the spray upwards. -You can't throw standard sidewalls 12 ft. across the commercial kitchen (Ord. Haz.). -You can't hide the sprinkler pipe in the unheated ceiling/attic space and expect to use antifreeze as a means to avoid freezing (at least not in most freezing climates). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 9:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Hide Those Sprinklers I'm presenting at the AIA convention this week. The talk is on the IBC advantages and allowances with sprinklers. For example, bigger and less costly construction when sprinklered. One thing I want to also spend a very short time on is dispelling two myths, all sprinklers operate and aesthetics. I realize there are many myths and that could be a presentation in itself. With a short window in the presentation I think all going off is a big one and aesthetics, well who but architects push the most on this? I think I have the videos covered for how sprinklers do and don't operate. Any further info I'd consider. What I'm really lacking is on the aesthetics. If you have any pictures of the work you are proud of where you hid the sprinklers from view effectively I'd love to show some. About all I can do is give your company credit in the presentation. This is someplace north of 100 architects from the greater Minnesota area. So that's your marketing target. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns & McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com<mailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com> www.burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/> *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Antifreeze-recipe for disaster?
C'mon, Todd. WHY is he the missing link? ...because there is no way of know with certainty how much water will enter the AF piping after all of the N2 eventually leaks out. The presents the possibility of a freezable AF system. I suppose one could calculate the exact volume of the AF piping and measure the exact amount of AF pumped into the system prior to charging with N2, proving that the water couldn't migrate too far I would hope that approach was well documented prior to the freeze event and lawsuit. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze-recipe for disaster? No, but I think the guy that did it is the missing link. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com > On Nov 12, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Thomas Watt > wrote: > > I recently encountered a scenario which I felt this group would enjoy > chewing on. > While draining an AF system to replace another leaking(@brass/steel > interface) no-torque head adapter, huge bursts of mist, aerosolized > glycerin mix, came out. > It seems that this company has an s.o.p. of pumping af into dead end > system(no purge) using a cheap pump which only permits about 50psi. > They then jack the system pressure above static with compressed nitrogen. > Has anybody ever seen this done before? Am I off base here or is this > possibly the missing link? > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Antifreeze-recipe for disaster?
So as the N2 is absorbed by the antifreeze, is there any loss of volume (and subsequent reduction in pressure) in the piping that would allow water to migrate into the AF lines? If so, how much? Or does the 'Nitrogenated' AF solution simply expand to occupy the space held by the pure N2 under the same pressure? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze-recipe for disaster? I would bet the nitrogen never "leaks out of the system", based on Henry's Law, as the nitrogen dissolves into solution under pressure. And by using nitrogen as the pressurizing agent, no increase in oxidation (corrosion) is imparted. I'm aware that nitrogen has been used to pressurize sprinkler piping for various reasons for at least thirty years. Mark at Aero -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 9:01 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Antifreeze-recipe for disaster? C'mon, Todd. WHY is he the missing link? ...because there is no way of know with certainty how much water will enter the AF piping after all of the N2 eventually leaks out. The presents the possibility of a freezable AF system. I suppose one could calculate the exact volume of the AF piping and measure the exact amount of AF pumped into the system prior to charging with N2, proving that the water couldn't migrate too far I would hope that approach was well documented prior to the freeze event and lawsuit. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:13 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Antifreeze-recipe for disaster? No, but I think the guy that did it is the missing link. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com > On Nov 12, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Thomas Watt > wrote: > > I recently encountered a scenario which I felt this group would enjoy > chewing on. > While draining an AF system to replace another leaking(@brass/steel > interface) no-torque head adapter, huge bursts of mist, aerosolized > glycerin mix, came out. > It seems that this company has an s.o.p. of pumping af into dead end > system(no purge) using a cheap pump which only permits about 50psi. > They then jack the system pressure above static with compressed nitrogen. > Has anybody ever seen this done before? Am I off base here or is this > possibly the missing link? > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symante
Re: NFPA-13 & Domestic
Greg, Mn does have that requirement but only if you do not have a allowance for the domestic flow in your calcs. IMHO, adjusting the calcs is the better approach (when possible). Sent from my iPhone Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:12 AM, "Gregory Lindholm" wrote: > > 95% of the projects in Minnesota, Iowa & South Dakota are this way. I don't > believe there is anything in NFPA about it, but Minnesota requires a solenoid > valve on the domestic line if the domestic line is larger than 25% of the > underground size. (eg: 1" off 4", 1 1/4" off 6") > > Greg Lindholm > > >> From: bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com >> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:06:20 -0500 >> Subject: NFPA-13 & Domestic >> >> Is there anything in NFPA that prohibits supplying the domestic from the >> Fire Riser? I'm working on a grocery store and the engineer has asked for a >> 2-1/2" connection on the Riser to supply domestic. I know in 13R domestic >> demand needs to be added in the calculations but per NFPA13(2007) 11.1.4 I'm >> guessing it does not. Is there anything else I would need to worry about >> other than proper backflow protection? >> >> Brian Harris, CET >> BVS Systems Inc. >> Sprinkler Division >> bvssystemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/> >> Phone: 704.896.9989 >> Fax: 704.896.1935 >> >> -- next part -- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121227/69feabc9/attachment.html> >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121227/7359dee6/attachment.html> > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > __ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: NFPA-13 & Domestic
David - that's certainly one option - On the ND side of the river that has been the requirement. It's a shame there are jurisdictions requiring a solenoid in spite of calculations - that's just one more long-term maintenance headache for the owner. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Williams Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 8:21 AM To: Cc: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA-13 & Domestic Actually, some jurisdictions in MN still want the solenoid valve, even with the calculation, so we have just been bringing in separate domestic and fire services. David Toshio Williams, FPE LHB, Inc. Performance*Driven*Design ...sent from the cloud through the tubes! On Dec 27, 2012, at 6:23 PM, "Mark A. Sornsin, P.E." wrote: > Greg, > Mn does have that requirement but only if you do not have a allowance for the > domestic flow in your calcs. IMHO, adjusting the calcs is the better approach > (when possible). > > Sent from my iPhone > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:12 AM, "Gregory Lindholm" > wrote: > >> >> 95% of the projects in Minnesota, Iowa & South Dakota are this way. I >> don't believe there is anything in NFPA about it, but Minnesota >> requires a solenoid valve on the domestic line if the domestic line >> is larger than 25% of the underground size. (eg: 1" off 4", 1 1/4" >> off 6") >> >> Greg Lindholm >> >> >>> From: bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com >>> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >>> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:06:20 -0500 >>> Subject: NFPA-13 & Domestic >>> >>> Is there anything in NFPA that prohibits supplying the domestic from the >>> Fire Riser? I'm working on a grocery store and the engineer has asked for a >>> 2-1/2" connection on the Riser to supply domestic. I know in 13R domestic >>> demand needs to be added in the calculations but per NFPA13(2007) 11.1.4 >>> I'm guessing it does not. Is there anything else I would need to worry >>> about other than proper backflow protection? >>> >>> Brian Harris, CET >>> BVS Systems Inc. >>> Sprinkler Division >>> bvssystemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/> >>> Phone: 704.896.9989 >>> Fax: 704.896.1935 >>> >>> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was >>> scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/at >>> tachments/20121227/69feabc9/attachment.html> >>> ___ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was >> scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/att >> achments/20121227/7359dee6/attachment.html> >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> _ >> _ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud >> service. >> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >> _ >> _ > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Auxiliary Dry Pipe Question
Vince, The main drain test is for verifying the relative strength of the water supply during annual tests and after work has been completed on the system. It also can help identify if a valve (control, check, or other) is partially shut or other obstructions are present. Logic would say that a dry system downstream of a wet system shouldn't require full-flow main drain tests unless there are sectional valves located between the wet controls and the dry valve. But at the very least there will be the dry system control valve. I'm sure one can argue that the main drain test at that dry valve will help identify the unlikely -but plausible- scenario of the dry system control valve being 'broken', where all exterior indication says it's wide open but the disc or gate is partially shut. But Todd's point is valid, too. If you didn't pipe to the exterior, can you be assured that the interior drain can handle full gravity flow of the dry system drain in an emergency? - you wouldn't want to throttle the drain valve when you are trying to prevent a false trip from freezing. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Vince Sabolik Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 8:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Auxiliary Dry Pipe Question Good morning & Happy New Year! A 2" main drain test is required for system acceptance. We're installing a dry pipe valve downstream and auxiliary to a wet system with an alarm valve and a 2" drain. My question is , would a 2" main drain test from the existing wet system stand for an acceptance test or do we have to find a way to run a worthless 2" drain line from the new dry system (at an inside wall) to an outside wall? Thanks! Vince Vince Sabolik, West Tech Fire Protection, Inc. 11351 Pearl Road / Strongsville, Ohio 44136 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Car Storage Racks
Daniel - one good thing about this scenario vs. the boat storage one is that you shouldn't have the open top container issue. But hopefully your shielded areas are more limited, too. It seems reasonable to assume that the largest unbroken shielded area will be that of a single automobile or pickup truck. Having absolutely no first-hand experience with testing of this sort of arrangement, the SFFD seems like a reasonable approach: higher density (than normal car port); larger design area to account for shielded fire; sidewall coverage to attempt to get water below the shielded area (though it is likely a crap shoot as to whether or not the sidewall sprinklers will activate). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 8:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Car Storage Racks Daniel, This is somewhat parallel to the boat storage rack issue, for which there is no definitive answer. The SF Bulletin sounds like a reasonable approach. Our European brethren have a little more experience with this type of facility. Hopefully some of them will chime in. Great city. Long overdue for a visit. At 08:43 AM 12/28/2012, you wrote: >Question for members of the forum, > >We have a building owner that has installed car storage racks in their parking >garage to double the available amount of parking in the garage. Each rack is >a solid shelf approximately 12' x 8' and rise about 5' to 6' off floor with >room to park a second compact car underneath. > >I have reviewed NFPA 13, 2010 and only found information on car parts on >movable racks, nothing that addresses this situation. The City of San >Francisco Fire Department has posted an Administrative Bulletin calling for a >wet-pipe EH-I with sidewall sprinkler under each car rack. The calculations >shall include all ceiling and sidewall sprinklers in the most remote 2500 sqft >area. > >We are looking to see if anyone has run into a similar situation and provided >a different type of sprinkler protection. > >Thank you for any assistance that can be provided. > >Daniel S. Failla Jr. >Assistant Fire Marshal >Charleston Fire Marshal's Office >75 Calhoun Street >3rd Floor >Charleston, SC 29401 >Office - 843 - 724 - 5960 >Email: fail...@charleston-sc.gov >Web: www.charleston-sc.gov/dept/content.aspx?nid=2127.html > > >___ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: alarm check valve vs. riser check valve
Burton - you nailed it - mostly. The only thing I'd add is that a riser check valve is equipped with gage ports and usually (always?) a main drain outlet. THESE distinguish it from a regular check valve. Alarm check valves should be used only when it is insisted that a water motor gong is to be used. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ford, Charles Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 2:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: alarm check valve vs. riser check valve An alarm check valve is a fairly complicated piece of cast iron who's primary purpose is to ring a water motor gong with or without a retard (delay) chamber. It also serves as a check valve. The riser check valve is just a check valve. These days the alarm check has been largely replaced by a flow switch and an electric bell ( and a check valve) C. Burton Ford NICET Certified IV NFPA Certified Fire Protection Specialist Cintas Fire Protection Inc 1038 Conshohocken Rd Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel 610-233-1400 Fax 610-233-1401 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Easter, Timothy Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:11 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: alarm check valve vs. riser check valve What is the difference between alarm check valve versus riser check valve? Is it just that an alarm check valve has a retard chamber? Regards, Timothy Easter Fire Protection Designer URS Corporation 11832 Rock Landing Drive Suite 306 Newport News, VA 23606 Direct: (757) 383-6217 Fax: (757) 873-0634 timothy.eas...@urs.com<mailto:timothy.eas...@urs.com> This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130109/c96a6a6a/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to be confidential and privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you are not a named addressee you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please delete and otherwise erase it and any attachments from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
MSDS
Forum - Any of you experts at dealing with material safety and data sheets (MSDS)? My question is this: If I have 93% sulfuric acid and 40% sulfuric acid stored in a warehouse, why is it that the MSDS for the two are identical? This isn't about sulfuric acid specifically - that's just my latest example. The question is, why do the MSDS seem to only discuss the material in its most hazardous state (high concentration) when the lower concentrate solution is considerable less hazardous. In the case of sulfuric acid, 40% solution is NOT water reactive - yet the MSDS states it is, and gives the same NFPA hazard ratings as the 93% solution. This can have significant impact on allowable quantities. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: MSDS
Thanks to all respondents. My situation is that if you treat 40% Sulfuric Acid the same (hazard-wise) to that of 93%, then my client has too much to keep in their facility and would be forced to put it in a detached building. Turns out after some digging that the supplier did as you said - they simplified things by treating the 40% the same for an MSDS as their 95% solution. Ooops. Just give us the facts and don't cut corners and we'll avoid some code enforcement hurdles. Now we can say they don't need the detached building. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:55 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: MSDS Mark, Depends on who developed the MSDS for the product. Some chemical manufactures use software programs which identifies the major components of the product and produces a MSDS based on the components of the mixture of the liquid. Some chemical manufacturers do actual sampling and chemical analysis and produce MSDS which reflect the true hazard of the liquid. Getting the correct information is very important because of the way "Hazardous Use" is defined in the IBC and IFC. Sometimes it takes a lot of phone calls to various manufacturers to get the correct composition of the liquid or solid in question. Best of luck. Have a fire safe day! Regards Jim DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4010 Code ConsultantsGreenville, DE 19807-0010 Medical Gas Systems Engineering (302) 994-9500 Fax (302) 234-1781 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: MSDS Forum - Any of you experts at dealing with material safety and data sheets (MSDS)? My question is this: If I have 93% sulfuric acid and 40% sulfuric acid stored in a warehouse, why is it that the MSDS for the two are identical? This isn't about sulfuric acid specifically - that's just my latest example. The question is, why do the MSDS seem to only discuss the material in its most hazardous state (high concentration) when the lower concentrate solution is considerable less hazardous. In the case of sulfuric acid, 40% solution is NOT water reactive - yet the MSDS states it is, and gives the same NFPA hazard ratings as the 93% solution. This can have significant impact on allowable quantities. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Phantom Flow
This strikes me as overthinking run amok. I'm surprised it made it through to the final document. Is the logic that the area/density method requires flowing over the entire area? Thus, if your area is smaller than the required area you have a choice: use room design method, or add this phantom flow. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:46 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Phantom Flow Not what you think by the subject. Working out of NFPA 13 '13 23.4.4.1.1.5. This is new and confusing us greatly. I have a 20,000 sq.ft. heated LH building. And a 2,000 sq.ft. area that needs a dry system. Not an auxiliary dry system. My starting required design is 0.1/3,900. I calc the system at 2,000 sq.ft. (cuz that's all I have) and get for discussion sake 220 gpm. Then I subtract from 390 (3,900 x 0.1 per 23.4.4.1.1.5) and I get 170 gpm. Then I go back to the calc and redo but this time I add 170 at the end of the main. Now this has the effect of overflowing all the rest of the BL's such my final calc is more than 390. !@#$^# What if I have a 500 sq.ft. building and the next building is 20 miles away @#$@# are we calc'ing this extra area for? Can someone 'splain if we got it right and then why in the world this got into the standard? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com<mailto:ccah...@burnsmcd.com> www.burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/> Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Enclosed Parking Structures
Dick: You cited IBC, NFPA 1 and NFPA 101 and the applicable codes. You are correct - unless the codes reference NFPA 88A regarding the subject of sprinkler protection, 88A should have no bearing on the discussions. From your description, it is not referenced in this manner. If 101 and 1 do not reference this specific situation, then you are right again to fall back to IBC. It should be noted that the section you cited from IBC seems to suggest sprinklers are not required. After all, you said you have parking areas less than 12,000 sq.ft. and those areas are located beneath an apartment building (R-3). However, section 903.2.8 requires all R occupancies to be sprinklered throughout. It seems your architect has misinterpreted the code. The one possible exception is that you can somehow show the separation between the R-3 and the parking garages below constitutes a building separation - in which case one could argue 903.2.8 no longer applies to the parking areas. This topic has been covered on this forum many times before - it is extremely difficult to separate buildings vertically. But some jurisdictions I know are more than willing to buy into this. (this is a tangent from the architect's use of NFPA 88A to avoid sprinklers, but you should be aware of it just the same). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dick Culver Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:38 AM To: A.F.S.A Subject: Enclosed Parking Structures Good Morning, I have two Residential structures with an "Enclosed" parking structure below the first floor level. The applicable codes are IBC, NFPA 1 & 101 (2012), with NFPA taking precedence when there is a discrepancy between codes or standards . The parking area is noncombustible construction and there is the appropriate horizontal fire rating between the parking level and residential units above. Both parking areas are less than 12,000 ft². NFPA 88A section 6.4.3 (2011 has an exception for automatic sprinklers by having an approved, supervised, automatic fire detection and alarm system installed throughout the parking area in accordance with NFPA 72 and a mechanical ventilation system in accordance 5.3.2 of this standard. However IBC section 903.2.10 ), Group S-2 enclosed parking structures, indicates an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages in accordance with 406.4 as follows: (1.) Where the fire area of the enclosed parking garage exceeds 12,000 ft² or (2. ) Where the enclosed parking structure is located beneath other groups. Exception use Group R-3. The architectural code review has referenced NFPA 88A for eliminating sprinklers in the parking area for an alarm system. The IBC Code does not allow or defer to NFPA 88A as an exception for automatic sprinklers, that I can see. A standard cannot take precedence over a code which would be the case if 88A could be used without being referenced by the code. I have checked NFPA 1 & 101 with regards to enclosed parking garages below apartment use groups. The only reference is for "open" parking structures, therefore IBC should be the code to follow. Base on the above, I believe automatic sprinklers would be required in the parking garages. I would appreciate your comments and advise if I have missed something. Dick RN Culver Consulting, Inc. 142 Sand Hill Road Essex Junction, VT 05452 Ph: (802)878-8240 fax: (802) 878-9813 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130325/e1efd9b3/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: sprinkler dictionary
Add this to the dictionary: Sprinklered: To have provided automatic fire sprinkler protection to a building or other object such as a transformer. Sprinkled: The scattering of many small objects or drops of liquid. This is a key distinction that needs to be understood by those engaged in technical discussions regarding fire sprinkler systems. This last statement, Mr. Muncy, legitimizes this post because of the declaration of technical relevance. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Protection of rubber tires
David: Looking at the same Table 18.4(d) in the 2013 edition, I see 16.8K sprinklers require 20 heads (notes 3 & 4 apply) in the pendent position at a pressure of 52 psi, 3 hr. duration, and 500 hose allowance. It appears maybe it was a mistake in printing of the earlier editions. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Protection of rubber tires NFPA 13 (2007 or 2010) Table 18.4(d) outlines the protection criteria for rubber tires using ESFR heads. In certain cases (twice in 2010 edition, once in the 2007), the number of sprinklers column is blank. Does this mean that the particular protection option cannot be used, or is the number of sprinklers (12) missing due to a typo? I am trying to evaluate the adequacy of a system for storage of laced tires in portable racks using K-17 ESFR heads (max 25 ft storage in a 30 ft building). My interpretation is that such storage can be protected with a system designed for 12 heads at 52 psi. I would like to know if you agree with this interpretation. David Bitton, Eng. Quest Loss Control Services Inc. Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest inc. 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200 Montréal, QC H4P 1T8 (514) 341-4545 www.questlosscontrol.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130403/e44bb43f/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Protection of rubber tires
David - In my Handbook version of the 2013 edition, the 20 head option is duplicated below the line. Thus, both the K14 and K16.9 sprinklers have a 20 head option, with all of the same constraints, except with differing minimum operating pressure requirements (75 psi for K14; 52psi for K16.8). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:50 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Protection of rubber tires Mark, In my version of the 2013 Edition the 20-head option seems to apply to the K-14 heads. (That's how I interpret the horizontal line separating the two rows. For example, this line does not extend to the Duration and Hose Allowance columns, so I interpret that to mean that the same values apply to the K-14 and the K-17 heads.) I also thought that it might have been a typo but in the 2007 Edition, there's only one blank cell whereas in the 2010 Edition, there are two, implying that this was done on purpose. Thank you for your input. David -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Protection of rubber tires David: Looking at the same Table 18.4(d) in the 2013 edition, I see 16.8K sprinklers require 20 heads (notes 3 & 4 apply) in the pendent position at a pressure of 52 psi, 3 hr. duration, and 500 hose allowance. It appears maybe it was a mistake in printing of the earlier editions. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Protection of rubber tires NFPA 13 (2007 or 2010) Table 18.4(d) outlines the protection criteria for rubber tires using ESFR heads. In certain cases (twice in 2010 edition, once in the 2007), the number of sprinklers column is blank. Does this mean that the particular protection option cannot be used, or is the number of sprinklers (12) missing due to a typo? I am trying to evaluate the adequacy of a system for storage of laced tires in portable racks using K-17 ESFR heads (max 25 ft storage in a 30 ft building). My interpretation is that such storage can be protected with a system designed for 12 heads at 52 psi. I would like to know if you agree with this interpretation. David Bitton, Eng. Quest Loss Control Services Inc. Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest inc. 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200 Montréal, QC H4P 1T8 (514) 341-4545 www.questlosscontrol.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20130403/e44bb43f/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: Protection of rubber tires
True - but not all that unusual these days - especially as FM Global has moved in a different direction than tradition with the specification of protection schemes. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 11:20 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Protection of rubber tires I also looked at FM Data Sheet for the same storage situation, and they are asking for 20 K-17 heads but at a pressure of only 35 psi. So, if we interpret NFPA as asking for 20 heads at 52 psi, that would make it more demanding than FM Global. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: sprinkler thesaurus
LOL Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 2:12 PM To: John Drucker; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: sprinkler thesaurus Ducks: Airways made of shaped metal, usually for heating and ventilation. Mezzaline: An intermediate level of a building, that is not a complete floor. Joisteses: More than one joist, usually referring to an idiot designer who laid out piping , "that there ain't no way to get them full sticks into the joisteses!" Overhauls: Work pants for fitters. Drywall: Note paper for shop lists. Steve John Drucker wrote: Mortanize that fitting John Drucker - Mobile Email - Original Message - From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org To: Steve Leyton ; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Sat Apr 06 14:57:44 2013 Subject: Re: sprinkler thesaurus Yep. Can not imagine where our fitters come up with this stuff. Cheater makes sense, but Jody BLonde and dog robber? No clue Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Steve Leyton Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:45:03 To: Subject: Re: sprinkler thesaurus AKA (for obvious reasons) as a "cheater". Steve Spencer Allen wrote: This is also known as a dolly drop in the UK. On 6 Apr 2013, at 15:54, wrote: > Mark > > A "dog robber" is a 1/2"x1/2" brass extension. Used when a drop was > cut too short. > > > Mike Bell > Senior Designer > Aero Automatic Sprinkler Company > 21605 N Central Ave > Phoenix AZ 85024 > PH: (623) 580-7848 > FX: (623) 580-5230 > Mobile: (623) 229-4980 > mb...@aerofire.com > > > > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of mphe...@aerofire.com > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 5:42 PM > To: jac...@sympatico.ca; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: sprinkler thasaurus > > Its late on a Friday night, anyone ever hear the term "dog robins" ? > Mark at Aero > > - Original Message - > From: Jamey Prentice [mailto:jac...@sympatico.ca] > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 12:22 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > > Subject: RE: sprinkler thasaurus > > Velocity check-Ball drip > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 8:21 PM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: sprinkler thasaurus > > new this week: > rosette, mud leg, stub chuck, jodi blond. > still nothing for velocity check... > Mr. Vinning? Vince? > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, nor is it, unless specifically stated, intended to be relied upon by any person or persons other than the individual or entity named above and no warranties or representations are made or intended to persons or entities not named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
RE: Plastic Pallets for FM design
I apologize for no exhaustive research on the matter, but... Is it possible there IS no increase for plastic pallets when used with flammable/combustible liquids? Normally, we increase designs when plastic pallets are used in general purpose storage warehouses because the melting plastic adds a 'flammable liquids' element to what would have otherwise been a non-flammable liquids fire. But in a flammable liquids environment, what additional hazard do the plastic pallets bring? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 8:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Plastic Pallets for FM design Fellow forumites, I'm doing a flammable liquids storage area design under FM 7-29, and I cannot find any specific information on the need (or not) to increase the design requirements if plastic pallets are used. I'm storing an ignitable liquid with a flash point <200°F in 55 gallon relieving-style metal drums on-end in a palletized configuration. I'm using Table 7 from 7-29 for this. I did a search for plastic pallets in both 7-29 and 2-0 but found no references to having to increase the design for this. 7-29 does list some increases for the use of plastic pallets, but these only pertain atypical ignitable liquids, which mine does not fall under. I didn't find anything from searching 2-0 either. Did I skip something basic here, or does FM not really care about plastic pallets? Thanks for any assistance. Benjamin Young -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130408/e31351e9/attachment.html> ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
RE: calc procedure logic
My understanding of sprinkler design is that the cap is supposed to be ejected away from the sprinkler regardless of the pressure available. As soon as the element fuses, the cap springs free and clear - it should work whether its attached to a live system or sitting on your desk as a display. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:04 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: calc procedure logic Would the 7 psi minimum operating pressure from NFPA 13 Calculation Procedure apply to open head deluge, since the operating parts have already been ejected clear of the frame and deflector by a ball-peen hammer? Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Racks
Chris - there are a couple issues: 1. This was part of an inspection? If done per NFPA 25, you would not be evaluating the adequacy of protection - though as been suggested many times on this Forum, you may consider a separate note apart from the inspection forms indicating a concern that there may be an issue. I would suggest you recommend an evaluation by a qualified engineer. You've addressed a concern without declaring a position (a task for which you were not hired). 2. Ignoring 'why' you were able to see this arrangement, the answer to your question could very well be, 'yes, they need to add in-rack sprinklers.' Let's look at an extreme case: You have a warehouse of metal parts storage solid piled, with single row racks of expanded plastics to 20 ft. along the exterior walls. Certainly we can see that OH2 is inadequate for the plastics so in-racks would be needed (maybe even a higher density at the ceiling). Your case, while maybe not as stark a contrast in storage, isn't really different. It all depends on the shelving methods, storage heights, and the actual commodity classification of the misc. storage in those racks. But you very well could have a situation where one single-row rack requires in-racks. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Fire Protection Services Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: Racks Forum, I performed an Inspection a few days ago and the building is design as Ord2 with the exception of the shipping area which is Class 3. I noticed in a few areas they have installed on single rack against the outside wall with misc storage stacked at various heights. I have never seen one independent rack sprinklered but it looks like to me it should be. Has anyone ran into this before? What did you do? Thanks Chris Payne Fire Protection Services Owensboro ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: test header
Of course, if your design flow is high enough, you may not get enough flow out of the FDC inlet - especially one equipped with flappers. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: test header Why is the designer being required to perform this task usually performed by a Sprinkler Service crew? The old school method is to remove the check valve on the Fire Department Connection, Install a Spool piece of the same size and length and then flow water through the FDC outside the building. However if all the fittings are threaded, then you have a big job ahead of you. Regards, G. Tim Stone G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler Design and Consulting Services 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 tston...@comcast.net > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Easter, Timothy > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:39 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: test header > > Designer is required to do a forward flow test for BFP. However, the > riser is existing to remain, and does not have a test header. How can > a forward backflow test be done? > > Regards, > > Timothy Easter > E.I.T. > Graduate Fire Protection Engineer > > > > This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential > information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this > message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not > retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you > should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum- > firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: test header
Moreover, the engineer could specify Ron's solution up front. Doesn't help the design-build jobs - but you as the contractor could offer it up front...in such a way that makes you look like you're helping the customer, not just seeking a means to get more money out of them (easy to say...). I've been asked why we spec these test outlets on our jobs. When I ask the contractor how they do their annual full-flow testing thought the backflow assemblies, they answer with a description like we've discussed here - except that it is clear that they are answering a theoretical situation - they normally aren't doing the forward flow testing of the backflow assemblies - neither at the end of a job, nor during their annual testing. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: test header By the time toy've drained the system, removed the FDC and put in a spool, removed the FDc, done the flow, drained everything again, replaced all the parts, probably be compelled to do a hydro on the FDC line, and then are nearly due to do it again, you could have just put in a test header, or mech-teed a couple of fire hose valves onto the FDC line, or the riser quicker and for less money, and nobody has to go through that nonsense again. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:22 PM, G. Tim Stone wrote: > Take the flappers out or just remove the FDC fitting. > > Regards, > G. Tim Stone > > G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC > NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler > Design and Consulting Services > > 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 > CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 >tston...@comcast.net > > > -Original Message- > > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > Mark > > A. Sornsin, P.E. > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:16 PM > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > Subject: RE: test header > > > > Of course, if your design flow is high enough, you may not get > > enough > flow > > out of the FDC inlet - especially one equipped with flappers. > > > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > > > -Original Message- > > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of G. > Tim > > Stone > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:52 PM > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > Subject: RE: test header > > > > Why is the designer being required to perform this task usually > > performed by a Sprinkler Service crew? > > The old school method is to remove the check valve on the Fire > > Department Connection, Install a Spool piece of the same size and > > length and then > flow > > water through the FDC outside the building. > > However if all the fittings are threaded, then you have a big job > > ahead > of > > you. > > > > Regards, > > G. Tim Stone > > > > G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC > > NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler > > Design and Consulting Services > > > > 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452 > > CELL: (802) 373-0638 TEL: (802) 434-2968 Fax: (802) 434-4343 > >tston...@comcast.net > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf > > > Of Easter, Timothy > > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:39 PM > > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > Subject: test header > > > > > > Designer is required to do a forward flow test for BFP. However, > > > the riser is existing to remain, and does not have a test header. > > > How can a forward backflow test be done? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Timothy Easter > > > E.I.T. > > > Graduate Fire Protection Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail
RE: test header
Chris - the potential design flow for an ordinary hazard, group 2 system is 300 to 400 gpm. Can you get that from your 2" drain? How do you know what rate your 2 in. drain allows? Even if your system is designed to flow light hazard and has a maximum design flow of 125 gpm, how do you measure your flow through the 2" drain to prove you've achieved 125 gpm? One answer may be that you use judgment and declare that you'll have no problem reaching design flow via the drain - so at acceptance you take the elbow off outside the wall and flow wide open and take a Pitot reading to confirm your theory. If you're right, you can document at the riser that full flow can be achieved via main drain testing. Same could be done by someone completing an NFPA 25 test. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:58 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: test header This discussion is about the minority of systems right? Doesn't the 2" main drain take care of most LH and OH? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: test header I think we're talking about the 25 test here and this is an ongoing deal. When you find a system without means it is in the owner's interest to pay for installing a header, which can be as little as dropping the system and adding a couple of mech tees and hose valves to the FDC line, plus the cost of hose if you want to store onsite, when considering that all the given labor associated with reversing the check for a test and then restoring it to the proper orientation may be just as costly and would never take more than a couple of tests to amortize. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:03 AM, wrote: > NFPA 13 and 24 only require the forward flow test. Maybe they could be > changed to require a "means" to forward flow test? Around here most > BFP's are installed at the property line so they are not in the FP > contractor's scope. > > Ron F > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. > Sornsin, P.E. > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:13 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: test header > > Moreover, the engineer could specify Ron's solution up front. Doesn't > help the design-build jobs - but you as the contractor could offer it > up front...in such a way that makes you look like you're helping the > customer, not just seeking a means to get more money out of them (easy to > say...). > > I've been asked why we spec these test outlets on our jobs. When I > ask the contractor how they do their annual full-flow testing thought > the backflow assemblies, they answer with a description like we've > discussed here - except that it is clear that they are answering a > theoretical situation - they normally aren't doing the forward flow > testing of the backflow assemblies - neither at the end of a job, nor > during their annual testing. > > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron > Greenman > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:41 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: test header > > By the time toy've drained the system, removed the FDC and put in a > spool, removed the FDc, done the flow, drained everything again, > replaced all the parts, probably be compelled to do a hydro on the FDC > line, and then are nearly due to do it again, you could have just put > in a test header, or mech-teed a couple of fire hose valves onto the > FDC line, or the riser quicker and for less money, and nobody has to > go through that nonsense again. > > >
RE: Containing Sprinkler Runoff.
Is there any concern about water runoff from hose streams in the event the fire sprinkler system was shut off during a fire? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of MOWLE Kevin(K) - BRUCE POWER Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:08 AM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: Containing Sprinkler Runoff. We are looking at options for containing sprinkler runoff and so I thought to ask if anyone has dealt with the following scenario? The building is on a solid concrete pad and fully sprinklered and no drains. There are overhead loading doors at both ends and 4 access doors. Three of these doors open outside. Presently there is a waste treatment area in the building. The AHJ is concerned that if the sprinkler was to flow the runoff could carry contaminants outside with environmental concerns. One possible solution would be to seal the doors say 10" from the floor to contain the water. Is there any kind of inflatable seal that could be say tied into the flow switch signal to seal the door upon alarm? We are looking at cutting a grated covered trench which leads to a sump. The layout of the building is not easy for this idea. Any suggestions, ideas would be great. Thanks Kevin Mowle Bruce Power Tiverton, ON. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: George L. Church, Jr.
I met George through this Forum and through many off-forum email conversations. I had the privilege of spending time with him in person at a number of AFSA conventions and even at my brother's wedding in Mexico. I am glad that my wife and I were able to spend an evening alone with the Churches at the San Antonio convention; and for the day I spent visiting them in Selinsgrove as part of a business trip. Of course, during my visit to PA, we didn't just hang out at his house, but went for a ride in the Triumph to see the offices and shop of Rowe Sprinkler. He certainly was proud of his wife, daughter, and his family at Rowe. He was especially proud of being a member of this fire sprinkler and greater fire protection community nationwide. I can thank George for my University of Iowa golf shirt. While I am an alumnus, I hadn't owned one. But Iowa kept beating Penn State in football, so I simply HAD to have one to wear at the last San Diego convention. When George was speaking about the upcoming NFPA 3 in his first AFSA seminar, I wore it sitting in the front row to tease and to hopefully ease his nerves. We will miss your input on this Forum, including the rants and typos. Rest in peace. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: CPVC Applications
Whoohh - Save your breath, fella. Child care facilities (under the IBC anyway) fall into an I-4 classification. There is an exception that kicks them into an "E" classification; and there is a Day Care facility exception for 5 or fewer persons that kicks you into R-3. But otherwise Day Care or Child Care are to be classified I-4. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 9:30 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: CPVC Applications Rod, I can't imagine an AHJ calling a daycare 13R. Tell me how it falls into any R occupancy. I can see him granting a variance to 13 that allows omission of attic sprinklers if the design goal is life-safety only, but he's taking a big risk. My read is that daycare, except in that one special case where it's classified as an E, is a B occupancy and if configured properly not need a system at all. Not endorsing one thing over the other, just reading code. And how have you been? On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:25 AM, JD Gamble wrote: > I believe FlameGuard (Spears) is listed for Low Pressure Dry Systems > as well ... > > http://spearsmfg.com/**flameguard/FG-3-1010_0113_web.**pdf<http://spea > rsmfg.com/flameguard/FG-3-1010_0113_web.pdf> > > ** > Low Pressure Dry Pipe and Pre-action Systems In accordance with the > UL® Listing, Spears® FlameGuard® CPVC Fire Sprinkler Products may be > used in Low Pressure Dry Pipe and Pre-action System applications in > Light Hazard and Residential occupancies in accordance with NFPA 13, > 13D and 13R when subject to the following additional limitations: > A CPVC Low Pressure Dry Pipe or Pre-action System is a piping system > intended for use where piping could be subjected to freezing > temperatures and water filled pipe cannot be utilized. The minimum > rated temperature is -20° F (-29° C). Low Pressure Dry Pipe systems > contain compressed air or nitrogen > (gas) having an internal gage pressure of not more than 15 psig (105 kPa). > These specially designed systems require separate control valve > mechanisms for this application (supplied by others) that activate to > release water into the dry piping section and to the sprinkler heads. > The water-filled portion of the system control device must be in an > area protected from freezing. It is the installer's responsibility to > be sure the system is installed in accordance with the limitations of > this manual and specifications of a Dry Pipe or Pre-action Fire > Sprinkler System design Engineer for proper control devices, pipe > sizing, and other important design and maintenance criteria applicable > to each project. CPVC dry systems must be designed with the following > maximum water delivery time delay. > > ** > > > > JD Gamble > Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan > > 307-763-3361 > -Original Message- From: Forest Wilson > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:02 AM > To: > sprinklerforum@lists.**firesprinkler.org nkler.org> > Subject: Re: CPVC Applications > > > I think Tyco has a CPVC listed for use in dry systems? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Rod DiBona wrote: > > Brian, >> >> Don't assume that because you have a wood framed building that you >> must sprinkler the attic. Check with the engineer of record to see if >> this system is supposed to be a 13 or 13R. Secondly you can't run >> over an ordinary hazard room in a light hazard occupancy with cpvc >> unless the room is 400 ft or less. And lastly CPVC is not listed for >> a dry system and you can definitely not use it. A read of the >> blazemaster install and specification manual is highly recommended. >> >> Rod at Rapid >> >> -Original Message- >> From: >> sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.**firesprinkler.org[mailto: >> sprinklerforum-**bounces@lists.firesprinkler.**org> n...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] >> On Behalf Of Brian Harris >> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 7:43 AM >> To: >> sprinklerforum@lists.**firesprinkler.org> inkler.org> >> Subject: CPVC Applications >> >> I'm doing a daycare facility and was leaning towards using >> BlazeMaster CPVC but have a quick question. I know that it is listed >> and approved for light hazard areas which is 90% of the project, what >> do you do for the other 10%? Do I need to run steel for the Kitchen, >> Janitor's Closet, and smal
RE: Nitrogen - couple questions
Tom - It was my understanding from one of the manufacturers of N2 generator systems that you need to re-invest another $10,000 every ten years or so to maintain the system. I apologize for lack of details on that, but hope this will spark conversation from those that may know for certain. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:40 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Nitrogen - couple questions You still have an air compressor because the nitrogen generator is a slow pump and you need to make 30 minutes. If you didn't plan on an AMD you need one with nitrogen because it fills a storage tank to anywhere between 60-80 PSI depending on mfgr. and model. The nitrogen kit comes with a purge valve that bleeds constantly at an adjustable very slow rate. Once you reset and fill with air, you close the valve from the compressor and open the valve from the nitrogen tank. The purge valve will bleed off a constant amount of air while the tank makes up. The purge valve is usually at the end or top, like at the EOL and just vents to atmosphere. You also get a purity sensor, either handheld or piped/wired to read concentration (97-99%). The 30x80 I2 group residence I did last summer which had a 2-1/2" low dif valve and main, about 50 heads, took 10 days to go from 79% to 99% from the purge valve. As concentration increases, moisture decreases to zero. My system cost 9K and took a day for the piping for 2 fat guys, I used copper. Oh- There's a shutoff on the purge valve you close before trip testing. NO change due to nitrogen that I know of but a good reason to submit. TD Segway from the other conversation. Is there anything that gets me back to a C-factor of 120 for a dry system if I use nitrogen instead of air? What happens if I don't maintain the nitrogen part of the generator? Does air get pumped in or does it stop pumping altogether and I deal with the low air alarm eventually? Ballpark what is upcharge for nitrogen vs. air? I've heard mid $teens. If so makes me wonder who's really willing to pay. Just a few I suppose. As EOR I don't want to be throwing around $$$ just because it's a good idea. For example, when the generator costs more than the building may want to stick with a regular compressor in an exaggerated case. Chris Cahill, PE* ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Exposed Heads
How about the 'ENT' coated sprinklers Viking is advertising? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Exposed Heads As far as I was aware, any head can be made wax coated. SS plates may rust (depending on grade) but they will last longer than standard. Tyco makes a white coated stainless. Not sure what that is, but may be worth looking into Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Greg McGahan wrote: > There is no perfect solution to this issue for salt air. Even SS > plates will rust and they are so hard, they have a tendency to fall off. > > Greg > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Charles Thurston wrote: > >> Hello Roland, >> >> Well the escutcheons tend to corrode away before then and the ring >> that holds them, Then there is an open hole :( >> >> Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 11:24:03 AM, you wrote: >> >>> Worth noting that NFPA 25, 2014 edition will allow a minor amount of >>> corrosion w/o replacement. Look at the ROP and ROC if really >> interested in what's to come. >> >>> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering >>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >>> Dallas, TX >>> http://www.firesprinkler.org >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Charles Thurston >> wrote: >> >>>> Hello Sprinklerforum, >> >>>> We have a big problem with sprinkler heads outside and corrosion. I >>>> am >> looking for suggestions on head finishes that will last for 10 years >> oceanfront and first row. wax over lead has been suggested as best >> for the area, Only problem is that are standard response, Not too >> good to replace existing quick response heads. Any luck with concealed >> heads? >> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Charles mailto:charl...@mbfsg.com >> >>>> ___ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org >> >>> ___ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Charlesmailto:charl...@mbfsg.com >> >> ___ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org > > > > -- > Greg McGahan > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > 1160 McKenzie Road > Cantonment, FL 32533 > 850-937-1850 > fax 850-937-1852 > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Hazard classification
I've shared this before I think, but it seems apt again: I once pursued an A/E project where I felt the owner was seeking actual engineering from the engineer of record for the fire sprinkler system. I suggested to our team that we propose doing just that and sell ourselves as providing a complete design for the sprinkler contractors to bid apples-to-apples. The mechanical engineer on the team (from a different company) suggested that taking on the design of the sprinkler system might be taking on too much risk/liability (after all, MEs are used to performance specs - usually without the performance part - my words not his). That solidified my understanding of the MEs' approach to fire sprinkler systems. Not sure how they justify receiving payment for what they provide (unless it's a really small sum). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Craig Leadbetter Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hazard classification Dwight, I love the optimism that there is actually a spec to look at that says more than provide a system per code. No mention of commodities types on the plans and if I asked I have sure I would get the deer in the head lights look. This has been great discussion on this topic, it confirms that my area of the country is not the only one that provides more questions than answers. I believe that most systems we see are under analyzed from a fire suppression stand point. Most engineers appear to be so afraid to put anything in writing when it comes to fire protection that we generally get an "X" through the drawings with a note to provide per all codes and insurance requirements, and add any additional heads at no cost to the owner. Craig Leadbetter _ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Hazard classification
My experience is that the MEs are paid 5 to 6% of construction on typical commercial A/E jobs. Not a lot of money on smaller projects where the sprinkler systems goes in for under $100,000. I would argue the $5k fee is too much when they haven't provided water supply information or any specific design information, let alone allocate proper room for the controls. For the guys who have a borderline water supply that they are incapable of analyzing and determining the true need for a booster pump, they just spec the pump - and get paid a percentage of that additional construction cost. Seems to be a big incentive for adding cost. Then there are the new school projects where the total construction costs are quite high. They may only get 4 to 5% of construction, but it's a big fee due to the large scope of sprinkler work. Except they aren't working too hard for that fee; they are increasing the costs of the system; and the owners overpays for both the sprinklers and the 'engineering.' My point is , too many engineers are getting paid too much for too little. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:00 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hazard classification Take it from me - it is a small sum, generally some percentage of the overall construction cost as doled out by the architect. For some reason we can do performance sprinkler design but the plumbers still draw piping diagrams showing the cold on the right and the hot on the left. Why that can't be performance I'm not sure. (It's Friday) Bill Brooks William N. Brooks, P.E. Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. 372 Wilett Drive Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 410-544-3620 410-544-3032 FAX 412-400-6528 Cell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hazard classification I've shared this before I think, but it seems apt again: I once pursued an A/E project where I felt the owner was seeking actual engineering from the engineer of record for the fire sprinkler system. I suggested to our team that we propose doing just that and sell ourselves as providing a complete design for the sprinkler contractors to bid apples-to-apples. The mechanical engineer on the team (from a different company) suggested that taking on the design of the sprinkler system might be taking on too much risk/liability (after all, MEs are used to performance specs - usually without the performance part - my words not his). That solidified my understanding of the MEs' approach to fire sprinkler systems. Not sure how they justify receiving payment for what they provide (unless it's a really small sum). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Craig Leadbetter Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:52 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Hazard classification Dwight, I love the optimism that there is actually a spec to look at that says more than provide a system per code. No mention of commodities types on the plans and if I asked I have sure I would get the deer in the head lights look. This has been great discussion on this topic, it confirms that my area of the country is not the only one that provides more questions than answers. I believe that most systems we see are under analyzed from a fire suppression stand point. Most engineers appear to be so afraid to put anything in writing when it comes to fire protection that we generally get an "X" through the drawings with a note to provide per all codes and insurance requirements, and add any additional heads at no cost to the owner. Craig Leadbetter _ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud servic
RE: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test
Depends on the edition of the standard a local jurisdiction has adopted, as well as any local amendments - but yes, forward flow tests of the backflow assembly are required by NFPA 13 and 25. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of djj8...@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test Is this "forward flow test" now part of the required code? I was just on a job the other day. New Construction. I noticed that all the systems had a setup with (2) 2 1/2" hose valves after the backflow and alarm valve, in addition to the 2" main drain. I take it that these 2 1/2's are for this test? In a message dated 7/29/2013 3:57:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, g...@livingwaterfp.com writes: That isn't what the intent of the code is as stated.just flow at system demand. I can only speak for us, but we do a LOT of risers with only a 250 gpm or so demand...sometimes even less. A 4" drain is well over what we need to open it up enough for system demand. I would bet a 2" drain gets really close. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, David Autry wrote: > Wouldn't it be easier, if you have a 4" backflow preventer you run 4" > out the wall, 3" BFP, 3" out the wall, etc... > That should open her up all the way. > > > David Autry > > Meininger Fire Protection Inc. > 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 > Lincoln, Ne 68522 > Voice (402) 466-2616 > Fax (402) 466-2617 > da...@mfp-inc.com > > -Original Message- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg > McGahan > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:35 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test > > What would be simple and helpful would be a table similar to the one > used for sizing fire pump Suction/Discharge/Relief Valve Piping etc. > > Since you are not measuring pressure, you could say 2" up to X > gallons, 2.5" for Y etc > > A 2-1/2" Main drain is much easier and cheaper than some of the > arrangments left / required on backflow preventers. > > Greg > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Ron Greenman > wrote: > > > Better but it is still interpretable as requiring a measured flow > > be established (if using the main drain location then the BOR > > design data). > > Then you'd need a port that flowed that much, main drain or > > otherwise, and then measure your annual test against anticipated > > flow to make > > sure you are meeting or exceeding the required flow. Or am I > missing > > something? I'm pretty certain that newer fire service rated > > backflows don't fail any more often than normal FS checks, and that > > that type of failure is either catastrophic (doesn't open or barely > > opens) wouldn't a simple main drain test with decent flow > > demonstrate that the valve is working? just a Forum question as > > this is a done deal and I wasn't invited to join the exclusive > > 25 club. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Roland Huggins > > wrote: > > > > > the next edition has been cleaned-up on this issue. > > > > > > ___ > > > 25-271 > > Log > > > #CP15 Final Action: Accept > > > (13.6.2.1, 13.6.2.2 (New)) > > > ___ > > Submitter: > > > Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of > > Water-Based > > > Systems, > > > > > > Recommendation: Revise 13.6.2.1 to read as follows: > > > 13.6.2.1 All backflow preventers installed in fire protection > > > system piping shall be exercised annually by conducting a forward > > > flow test at a minimum flow rate of the system design. > > > Add new 13.6.2.2 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly: > > > 13.6.2.2 Where hydrants or inside hose stations are located > > > downstream of the backflow preventer, the forward flow test shall > > > include hose stream demand. Substantiation: This change was > > > needed to bette
RE: Ductile Iron Pipe
I tried to use it once where we had a dry system go from above-ground to under-ground then above again (Don't ask - long story). But it can be cut-grooved, so it seemed like a logical choice for the below-ground piping. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:36 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Ductile Iron Pipe I've seen it once in a Naval Critical Facility and it was done all wrong for an above grade installation. I'm far too lazy to describe what was wrong but it was REALLY wrong. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: > Right. We were going to make fitter jokes in my office until I > pointed out that the asking of the question meant the fitter in > question was engaged. So that's a start ... > > Okay, okay! Sorry fitters ... > > SML > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > mphe...@aerofire.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:43 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Ductile Iron Pipe > > This explains it! > Mark at Aero > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt > Grise > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 7:48 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Ductile Iron Pipe > > It was an off-hand question from one of our installers. We were > reviewing chapter 10 of NFPA 13. > > Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II > Sales Engineer > Alliance Fire Protection > 130 w 9th Ave. > North Kansas City, MO 64116 > > *Licensed in KS & MO > > 913.888.0647 ph > 913.888.0618 f > 913.927.0222 cell > www. AFPsprink.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Leyton > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:44 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Ductile Iron Pipe > > How about: > > It's heavy; this translates to labor and material costs to install, > support, seismically brace. > It requires special equipment to fabricate and isn't friendly to field > mod's like, at all. > It requires flanged or mechanical joints, which are expensive and > labor intensive. > It's more expensive than steel and our industry will organically > migrate to the cheapest material choices 99.93% of the time. > > I'm sure there are plenty more reasons but it makes very little sense > to me ... who's asking you? > > SL > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt > Grise > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:27 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Ductile Iron Pipe > > I was asked recently why we (sprinkler people) don’t use DI pipe for > above ground systems. My first thought was 1) cost 2) hard to > groove/thread 3)not available in small diameters. > > But I have not really been able to find any info that specifically > states a reason. I thought I would check with the forum before I > repeated anecdotal info. > > Thanks! > > Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II > Sales Engineer > Alliance Fire Protection > 130 w 9th Ave. > North Kansas City, MO 64116 > > *Licensed in KS & MO > > 913.888.0647 ph > 913.888.0618 f > 913.927.0222 cell > www. AFPsprink.com > > > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing
RE: Removal of FDC check valve
Doug, your Item #3 misses the point of the forward flow test. The test is specifically to exercise the backflow preventer, so disassembling it invalidates the test. As to the other means of testing, it seems the standard is telling us that we need to create a means of testing without having to disassemble the check valve or remove it. Their reasoning is that most owners won't take the time (or spend the money) to have someone go to such lengths to test. Given that your client seems willing to do so, I suspect your options #1 and #2 are o.k. I would just suggest they invest in a test bypass loop or test outlet to make future testing easier (and less expensive). Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Hicks Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:03 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Removal of FDC check valve Automatic Sprinkler Handbook, 2013 edition Page 454 tells us we cannot reverse the check valve in the FDC as a means to perform a forward flow, except for those systems that did not have backflow devices at the time of sprinkler installation. Question # 1. Can we replace the check valve with a pipe, and then do the forward flow? Question # 2 Can we tie the clapper in the open position, and then do the forward flow? Question # 3 Can we have a licensed plumber remove the checks in the backflow device, and then do the forward flow? (In Oregon, sprinkler people are not smart enough to work on backflow devices, even if we are licensed to test back-flows) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Calcium Chloride
Is the system wet or dry? Are these leaks due to corrosion from the interior or exterior? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 1:25 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Calcium Chloride Existing system in a building where calcium chloride (salt for spreading on driveways) is packaged that has developed pin hole leaks in the black sch 10 pipe. Would changing over to galvanized pipe give them a longer pipe life than black? Thanks, Dewayne Martinez Fire Protection Design Manager Total Mechanical 262-522-7110 (W) 262-523-2530 (F) 414-406-5208 (C) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
